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?

Funny, does the Island smell now? When we had a huge fire close to us when we lived in Cyprus and the place was rancid for weeks. Glad you are OK though.

I would adore a hide a poster button. And MNHQ's reasons for not having one are very very silly and untrue.

Soz it was a bit waffly. In a nutshell:

• I NCd to post an AIBU
• I got a load of shite from regs, and even more shite when I didnt bother responding to them
• I posted on one other thread and got a couple of posts deleted
• I then got an email from MNHQ to say they deleted a couple of posts and have also had a large number of complaints about my other posts on that NC.
• None of my other posts contained anything controversial except the fact that I wasnt allowing any of the numpties to rile me
• I asked MNHQ to confirm which other posts they had complaints about, considering none of them were deleted
• I got no reply

I am very glad that tufty is back with all the mind altering substances again.

Re psych, I think they should get that bloke who manned the phonelines on Going Live when New Kids On The Block split up and girls were in a state. What's his name. Phillip summat.

I am very glad that tufty is back with all the mind altering substances again.

Re psych, I think they should get that bloke who manned the phonelines on Going Live when New Kids On The Block split up and girls were in a state. What's his name. Phillip summat.

I don't think anyone said that Getof. They are saying if the posts had been made by men about wonen the thread would not have been seen as "light hearted".

I would like to draw all of your attention to this

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 04-Jul-12 20:35:21
Ok, 'fraid I have to do and sort some domestos.

Hath: v happy to continue this on mail, if you'd find it less bruising. I'm not sure if I'll be at MNHQ tomorrow but, if I'm not, I'll make sure everyone knows your mails need a prompt response.

Can you see what is wrong with this?

Why should my mails get a prompter response than anyone else's? Why should there be "special" posters whose mails are flagged up in HQ as needing responded to quicker than anyone elses?

That post has made my point for me.

Who is Gladys?

Quicklook - amberleaf said that 'some peopple mnhq included think dv against men is lighthearted' paraphrased as can't c and p.

Hath I don't think that is special treatment per se, just helen being human, recognising that you are upset, and wanting someone to deal with it pdq.

Quicklook - amberleaf said that 'some peopple mnhq included think dv against men is lighthearted' paraphrased as can't c and p.

Hath I don't think that is special treatment per se, just helen being human, recognising that you are upset, and wanting someone to deal with it pdq.

But everyone should be treated the same.

That's my point.

No I'm not moaning.

I'm just saying that if there is a list at HQ of "posters who have to be responded to quickly" then it would explain why some posts stand for longer and other posts are deleted more quickly.

@LemarchandsBox

MNHQ are damned if they do, damned if they don't then, aren't they?

Feels like it from this end today LemarchandsBox.
I am not even working today but checking in to try and help out.

Any suggestions as to how else we can help/do better gratefully received (plays about tomatoes notwithstanding)
Thanks

Olivia - I am really sorry if I'm upsetting HQ. That's not the intention - honestly.

I do think Tee's idea of moderator-types who can post that a thread is being looked at or stick it in a quarantine until you guys can look at it is a very good one.

And the idea of defining bullying behaviour.

Dear god hath, are you really seeing offence in that? Of course some situations need responding too more quickly.

So MNHQ can't win, Hath. Helen was telling you that she was aware of your particular situation and that MNHQ would be at pains to deal with it. Presumably they gave it some kind of priority because of the seriousness of your complaint?

I can't see what is wrong with that - it's like going to triage when you go to A&E - assessment of the most serious cases for treatment

No not offence.

Sigh.

I'm not explaining very well.

I'm not taking offence at it - I'm pointing out that if there ARE posters who HQ know need a quicker response to that would explain WHY some posts go pfft quicker than others.

And it's something I didn't know before, I assumed that all reports were dealt with on an "as they came in" basis.

And I don't want to be treated any differently to any one else.

Get more staff,consistent moderating,treat all posters equally,and respond times equal.
And actually do it.

I doubt there is a list of posterw who get preferential treatment. Mnhq isn't the Ivy.

I would say that a thread like this would result in an email being sent saying 'pls look into this'

I don't think that is special treatment just a natural response to someone who is distressed. It is better than helen saying 'well complain, but you will have to get in the queue like eveyon else and you might not get an answer til Tuesday'