Page 11 | Clarification please

Hullygully · 2013-12-05T16:25:28+00:00

So I come back to find that you have deleted my thread asking why my Santa thread was deleted. Of course it was a thread about a thread, it was asking a question about the thread. Wtf else is one supposed to do? I put it in site stuff. It was also a really nice friendly thread full of poetry and laughs. Why why why why was it deleted? What the hell is going on there? Secondly, if one wants to talk about something, and that something has been deleted purely owing to others mischief, does that mean that one is never to talk about that subject again?? How mad is that?

bruxeur · 05/12/2013 21:07

I think you may be confusing specificity with repetition, MNHQ.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 21:08

@Maryz

Rebecca, you have to appreciate how frustrating this is.

It's like having kindergarten rules in an adult pub.

We totally do - it's a judgement call - there are no hard and fast rules BUT Hully was the OP of both threads. Many people from the first came onto the second. The same subject was being discussed in a similar way. We were getting lots of reports. It was a thread about a thread.

We should have posted to explain earlier before removing the thread, apologies.

usualsuspect · 05/12/2013 21:10

I thought MN was a self moderated board.

It doesn't feel like it anymore.

reelingaroundthechristmastree · 05/12/2013 21:10

But WHY did many people come from the first thread, were they perhaps just looking for a bit of a bunfight?

Doesn't take a lot of reckoning to work out what's going on.

ExitPursuedByAChristmasGrinch · 05/12/2013 21:10

I'd love to know who reports. And why.

BIWI · 05/12/2013 21:11

at RebeccaMumsnet. Not sure you're really thinking this through ..., and suggesting that Hully emails you indicates that you're uncomfortable with talking about this publicly.

It all seems very silly - as well as unfair

usualsuspect · 05/12/2013 21:11

Why would someone report it though?

For what reason?

HoneyDragon · 05/12/2013 21:11

Oh please yes delete all the P&C threads.

I shall DEMAND this henceforth as a result of this thread

HotheadPaisan · 05/12/2013 21:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BIWI · 05/12/2013 21:12

WHO THE ACTUAL FUCK REPORTS STUFF LIKE THAT?!

Sorry for shouting! but - really ...

LifeofPo · 05/12/2013 21:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PeteCampbellsRecedingHairline · 05/12/2013 21:14

I think people reported it because they thought it was a thread about a thread. Among other reasons. (I didn't report it btw)

There's obviously confusion about threads about threads. I thought it was against guidelines but apparently it isn't?

HotheadPaisan · 05/12/2013 21:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

usualsuspect · 05/12/2013 21:15

I was enjoying the posts about presents in shoes.

GodRestTEEMerryGenTEEmen · 05/12/2013 21:15

Agreed, usual.

What I'm smelling is fear. MNHQ fear of the accusations of 'known, regular posters' getting 'special treatment'.

So rather than laughing at the ridiculousness of that premise or saying TSSDNCOP, as they used to, they are seeing reports about certain posters and hitting the big red button.

reelingaroundthechristmastree · 05/12/2013 21:16

Perestroika and Glasnost is wot MN needs.

Mainly Glasnost, openness, if you want to report you have to say you are doing it and why, otherwise no go.

XmasLogAndHollyOn · 05/12/2013 21:16

This is why I hardly come onto MN any more. The site used to be a lot more robust.

I can remember a thread ages ago that wandered from a bunfight to song lyrics to songs and that one got moved to Other Subjects so it didn't get killed by Chat. Now it would get deleted.

It sucks. Seriously.

AnAdventureInCakeAndWine · 05/12/2013 21:16

You've been more specific, but really it's just confusing the issue more.

"If the same posters are talking about a thread that was removed about the exact same issues, very shortly after the initial thread was removed - then yes, it's a thread about a thread."

But according to your own guidelines being a thread about a thread isn't a problem in and of itself; it's repeating and rehashing the deleted stuff that's discouraged (and even then the guidelines imply that it will only actually be deleted if it qualifies for deletion in its own right; repeating and rehashing is just seen as an etiquette issue). It's quite possible for the same posters to talk about the same issue and even to refer to a deleted thread without repeating or rehashing.

Why do your guidelines say one thing and current MNHQ deletion policy/practice say another? There's a very good summary of the original rationale for the "don't rehash deleted threads" thing on the other current thread about threads about threads, and it does seem to have been lost sight of.

"There were also several personal attacks against other posters from the original thread on the second thread."

I thought you hadn't read the second thread? Everyone here who did read it says that there weren't any personal attacks.

GodRestTEEMerryGenTEEmen · 05/12/2013 21:16

I meant I agreed about the boards no longer seeming unmoderated.

AnAdventureInCakeAndWine · 05/12/2013 21:16

You've been more specific, but really it's just confusing the issue more.

"If the same posters are talking about a thread that was removed about the exact same issues, very shortly after the initial thread was removed - then yes, it's a thread about a thread."

But according to your own guidelines being a thread about a thread isn't a problem in and of itself; it's repeating and rehashing the deleted stuff that's discouraged (and even then the guidelines imply that it will only actually be deleted if it qualifies for deletion in its own right; repeating and rehashing is just seen as an etiquette issue). It's quite possible for the same posters to talk about the same issue and even to refer to a deleted thread without repeating or rehashing.

Why do your guidelines say one thing and current MNHQ deletion policy/practice say another? There's a very good summary of the original rationale for the "don't rehash deleted threads" thing on the other current thread about threads about threads, and it does seem to have been lost sight of.

"There were also several personal attacks against other posters from the original thread on the second thread."

I thought you hadn't read the second thread? Everyone here who did read it says that there weren't any personal attacks.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 05/12/2013 21:17

Apologies Plenty, I have been more specific in my following posts.

Yes I read the following posts too, it still makes no sense.

I usually steer well clear of mn politics but I'm starting to wonder if it's something to do with Hully. First she's not allowed to 'banter' and now she's not allowed to debate. Has there been some sort of focus group that has decided Hully's posts put off advertisers or something?

First thread - I didn't see it, I can understand if it was deleted because it turned into a bunfight (not Hully's fault by all accounts)

Second thread - really good discussion, no PA's that I saw, made me think, can't understand why it went at all, unless either TAAT are against the rules with no exceptions, or it's something to do with Hully. IT WAS A GREAT THREAD.

HoleyGhost · 05/12/2013 21:17

Lots of reports can easily be generated by saddos on Facebook groups getting their mates to pile in. When the reports are baseless (like here) surely they should not be acted on?

LifeofPo · 05/12/2013 21:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AnAdventureInCakeAndWine · 05/12/2013 21:18

Um. Clearly I felt extra specially strongly about that...

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 05/12/2013 21:19

there are no hard and fast rules BUT Hully was the OP of both threads.

Ah, very interesting x-post.