I have rejoined just to ask this question.

[hathorisaskingaquestion]

Why are some members of this site allowed to get away with persistently being vile, pushing an agenda, defending the indefensible, upsetting other members, twisting versions of events and generally being nasty, and they do not get banned?

Not about any one particular poster, but I have noticed that some stronger "personalities" on here seem to be Teflon coated.

Why is this?

Why do the owners of this site want that kind of vile poster and do not seem to care about the number of truly decent kind posters who are being upset and driven off the site?

Usuals football/window story was V funny.

She is what she is and she is a part of MN. People know what she's like by now so why on earth pile in on her?

I must say prior to that thread I didn't 'know' of her that much, I knew the name and a few bits I'd read but didn't have a problem with her in the slightest. Was only based on what was on that thread.

I understand completely why people piled in on LeQ on her thread.

Lots of people wrote about things they'd done in temper.
Some came on to say many of these examples were abusive. Not just lequeens examples
A few argued it was light hearted
LeQ came back, pages later and had a very very long rant against those who dared be so po faced as to point out some of this behaviour was abusive.

People piled in on her. I agree at the end it did get a bit personal but she can be so ridiculously patronising, she riles people. It's that goading??

And I should add, I find a lot of her posts very funny.

But I don't like the goading.

I missed that whole thread. I miss all the threads.

I wonder why that is?

^Feel free to apologise for calling me a liar LtEve.

I'm meant it when I said I'm pretty sure it was you that mentioned 'friend' the sorry was just to cover myself^

See, what is the point of apologising if you didn't mean it. I really thought you did, and now I'm disapointed again ...

I could be pedantic and say that the defination of something that is not true is a lie, therefore....

But I'm not a bitch, so I wont. I apologise for calling you a liar, it is easy to misremember something, which is why I keep a copy, so I don't fall into that trap. My apology is given, and meant.

"She is what she is and she is a part of MN. People know what she's like by now so why on earth pile in on her?"

^^^^ that up there. That is the nub of what I've been trying to say.

Across the boards, in various areas, there are posters whom people just say "that's what she's like she's a part of MN"

But that attitude allows the bitching, nasty, horrible attitude to continue.

S'cause we're morons Tee

No.

I'm saying the attitude of "they're who they are there's no point in challenging them" is the problem.

Hmmm,

(Oh in the interests of not sockpuppeting, I am URL)

well, I saw that thread and I've got to be honest I thought it was pretty ick. The problem is that if you've made a bit of a name for yourself as something and then you posts threads which reveal something completely different then people will comment.

Take me for example - I bang on endlessly about child maintenance and the need for non payers to be strung up punished and FORCED to pay. I can get very strident about it and I'm sure I've fucked people off. If I started a thread saying that I'd just started dating a bloke who didn't pay any child maintenance but it's ok because he's actually a really lovely bloke then I'm sure that I would get the roasting of my life from those people who had previously seen my threads about non payers AND from those in the MN community who just think that not paying child maintenance is a pile of wank.

DYKWIM?

I know I am, Pinot, I didn't know you are. Do we need a quiche?

Hath, yup. And when someone says on a MIL thread 'and the family says that's just her' everyone would tell them it was unacceptable, if the 'just her' is mean/cruel/rude/what have you.

And that HQ don't be quick enough to delete at times. Or reply to reports or emails.

And yes I get that there's limited staff but there is, in my opinion, a genuine issue that "controversial" started at the weekend/at night when HQ is more lightly staffed seem to take much longer to deal with.

Exactly Hathers!

Why should anyone put up with it, just because she is well known for that behaviour?

THe thing is hath that there aren't enough staff to deal with everything within the timeframe YOU want.

What is it you would like to happen? More moderation? I think most of MN would disagree with that.

And I would heartily expect to be roasted alive if I ever decide to marry a liberal democrat.

And I would heartily expect to be roasted alive if I ever decide to marry a liberal democrat.

Good point Hathor

You're so right, like because we know what a poster is like they can't be challenged?

That sums it up for me. That is what's meant when people say MN royalty.

hath - but she's not horrid.

(disclaimer - didnt see thread in question)

I don't mean any particular poster - I didn't see that thread so I can't comment.

I mean the attitude of "well that's what they're like".

And if you report nothing gets done. Or at least, that is what it seems like.

?

Wow!

I think I was otherwise engaged

Not more moderation. More moderators.

The site is so big that someone on duty 24/7/365 is not uncalled for. It's very called for.

And it might mean posters as moderators, not with the ability to delete, but with the ability to say 'we're working on it' on thread as it happens.

Because that's the problem, really. Not that TSSDNCOP but that The Secret Service doesn't even mention they are aware. Which is fine for the actual Secret Service, but is over the top for a website like MN.

Im wondering if MN want to be known as "bitchy mumsnet"

No Shirley but this ridiculous half way house that we have at the moment where Teflon coated posters can spout shite and have it stand for ages and someone like me, who isn't Teflon coated, would have it deleted in 2 seconds flat, has to change.

IMHO