Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

Clarification please

47 replies

Hullygully · 05/12/2013 16:25

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?

Go to post
MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:07

@Maryz

I think the personal comments about mnhq are unfair, but they are brought about through frustration.

The last time we had a discussion like this, loads of us were saying it was different in the old days, blah, blah. And then Justine came on and clarified a few things, and some of us felt that we were right, and the delete button is being overused.

At the moment it feels as though report = delete, and also that those of us who don't name change are being reported a lot. It makes me, anyway, feel very defensive.

I think a lot of threads that would have ended up ok are being deleted at the first sign of an argument, which is going to make the site very bland. And I think that people reporting everything is overloading the report system - so mnhq are getting zillions of "she is being meeeaaannn" reports and are thus unable to sort out the real horrors and deal with them.

Actually, when we analysed the stats we found that the deleted post:post ratio had gone down over the last few years.

It's not - and never has been - a case of 'it's been reported so delete it'.

We're also not at all inclined to delete threads at the first sign of an argument - sorry but I just don't recognise that at all.

And it doesn't matter how many times Poster X is reported - if we think Poster X's post was absolutely fine, we'll let it stand.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:09

@SconeForAStroll

I would have thought a stern ahem would have bought enough time for the more urgent items to have been dealt with.

In no way individually criticising a member if hq, but threads do meander given time.

p.s. Tech needs a new hammer for Christmas I think. It possibly a sonic screwdriver.

We did post an ahem (on the first thread) - it did nowt. (Although you're right, this is often the first thing we do and is often effective.)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:13

@Hullygully

But those of us who have been here YEARS aren't mad, we know a change when we experience it.

But lots of us at MNHQ have been here years too - and we don't recognise the picture some of you are painting.

That's not to say individual decisions aren't wrong sometimes.

But the idea that some call has gone out at our end to delete things on sight is just not correct.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:15

@Hullygully

I do think by the way, that it's a bit odd to pretend that different mods don't operate in different ways, some more trigger happy than others. You're not clones. Justine acknowldeged as much on the recent discussion thread.

No, of course we're not clones and of course we all have slightly different thresholds. And none of us is perfect.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:17

@youretoastmildred

"Actually, when we analysed the stats we found that the deleted post:post ratio had gone down over the last few years."

this doesn't tell you anything though.

In fact what some people are saying is "people used to be wild! It was wild west!" - so in fact you are agreeing by saying that more posts were deleted. There was a different atmosphere and people were saying more deletable things. And those that didn't get deleted were arguably of a stronger tone than things that stand out now in a more anodyune environment. And even the things that got deleted were there for x time, seen, till they were deleted.

I don't know if this is how it was, or not. I am just pointing out that the statistical argument is meaningless because it doesn't guarantee a consistent standard.

I do think it is HILARIOUS that a thread got deleted for suggesting that FC isn't real. Some of my friends are like, "seriously? MN?" and I'm like "oh no, it's not what you think" but now I won't be able to say that because it is the site that deleted a thread that suggested FC isn't real

Yes stats can be used to argue most things. Just saying that we've no evidence, either in the stats, in our internal conversations or in the way we apply the rules as a team, to support the feeling that things are deleted more easily.

No thread was ever deleted for saying Father Christmas isn't real.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:18

@DeckTheHallsWithBoughsOfHorry

Presumably some threads get deleted because of where they're inevitably headed, rather than where they are right in that instant. As I said before, I wasn't remotely surprised by the first deletion - I can see that someone reading half a dozen reports from the same thread would look at it, see how fast it was moving, wince over the few really unnecessary comments/posts and think "fuck it, this isn't going to end well and we don't have the resources to say ahem every other post".

It's horrible for an OP who starts a thread in good faith that turns into something else and gets deleted, because she attracts some of the blame for the bunfight regardless of her real intentions.

Just to be clear, if we delete a thread for being a bunfight we're not at all saying that we necessarily think the OP intended it to be a bunfight. Often the OP is long gone by the time the cakes are being thrown.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:23

We'd really appreciate it if we could move the conversation away from AmyMN specifically. She is indeed young and gorgeous Envy. She's also highly clever and extremely competent. But nonetheless it would be a bit odd for this thread to be specifically about her.

As you've probably noticed, on threads like this there's an imbalance of arms - in that MNers can pretty much say what they like about MNHQers, but we have to respond in a professional way. (Occasional moment of hot-headedness aside Blush)

As such it would be ENORMOUSLY appreciated if the convo could be de-personalised when it comes to MNHQers

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:36

@thecatfromjapan

RowanMumsnet: "As you've probably noticed, on threads like this there's an imbalance of arms - in that MNers can pretty much say what they like about MNHQers, but we have to respond in a professional way."

And there we have a quote that summons a picture-and-a-half. I imagine Rowan typing away furiously, and then regretfully, professionally, hitting the delete and typing something completely different - far more slowly, and with a hint of sadness.

Obviously not on this thread. But I bet you do it sometimes.

I know I do.

In Shakespeare, there might be a comic nose-pulling episode, what do you think? Someone says something a little close to the edge of appropriate, and a character loses their decorum and resorts to nose-pulling. That would be surprising. Especially on the internet. Actually, that would be more like a comic version of "The Ring", or something ...

hahahahahahaha

I'm shocked - shocked! - that you would think we would ever do such a thing

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:41

@Hullygully

Rowan, seriously, you know how upset you are by the aspersions cast on your colleague?

Can you see why I am so upset about those cast on me?

We're genuinely sorry you're upset Hully, and that we've been the cause of it.

But (sorry but yes, there is a but) we were applying our Guidelines - and that's our job.

In deleting a thread for being deliberately inflammatory, we don't intend for the poster to take it as a personal affront.

In all honesty we think it's a bit different (us applying our Guidelines as consistently and as fairly as we can) from a couple of people openly casting aspersions on the way people perform their job (and - in one case - being a great deal nastier than that)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:44

Yes Bruxeur, you were banned for saying an MNHQer was a faeces-flinging monkey. We don't think anyone on our team should have to put up with that.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:46

@Hullygully

Asking in SITE STUFF why my thread was deleted = deliberately inflammatory?

We thought it was deliberately inflammatory to start a thread saying 'why was my thread deleted' when there was a deletion message saying very clearly that it was deleted for being a bunfight. Yes.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:51

@HoneyDragon

This is getting more confusing.

Am I going to be banned too?

Eh? Why would you be banned?

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:52

@usualsuspect

So,any thread that's a bit fighty will be deleted?

Is that what MN is now.

No

We actually try very hard not to delete threads for this reason, but sometimes, in some circs, it's necessary

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:56

@HoneyDragon

Well I didn't insult Amy, but did comment on the tone of a couple of her posts, in much the same way I would've anyone else, who thought could've done something with a little more though.

I'm getting thoroughly bewildered, a bit cross and a lot miserable.

bruxeur was banned for a stunningly unpleasant attack. He'd had several mails from us warning him about the tone of his posts before.

Really don't think anything you've posted is in the same category, HoneyDragon

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:59

@HoneyDragon

Ok, just checking though as am getting the feeling I'm getting lumped in now.

Well, not by MNHQ you're not!

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 06/12/2013 00:01

@Hullygully

I see you are choosing not to answer me Rowan, so you are standing by me being deliberately inflammatory.

Thanks.

Bye all.

Well - it's truly difficult to see how we can apply our Guidelines on deliberately inflammatory posts without some posters interpreting it as a personal attack on themselves.

Obviously that's not how we intend it. They're our rules. We have to apply them.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 06/12/2013 00:05

@Hullygully

deliberation = intention

You are saying I did it on purpose.

I've adi repeatedly, as have others, that I didn't

How can I not "take it personally?"

You are calling me a liar.

'Deliberately inflammatory' is the rule (ie it's not a phrase we've minted specifically to insult anyone)

Every day we get posters saying that our interpretation of their actions is incorrect. We have absolutely no way of knowing what people's internal motivations are. All we can do is call it (ie 'deliberately inflammatory') as we see it.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 06/12/2013 00:06

@Fairenuff

Rowan

Well - it's truly difficult to see how we can apply our Guidelines on deliberately inflammatory posts without some posters interpreting it as a personal attack on themselves.

Obviously that's not how we intend it. They're our rules. We have to apply them

So why are you letting this thread stand then? It's exactly the same as the one you deleted for 'being inflammatory'.

Because it had become a discussion about MNHQ policies and decisions, and it's pretty much always our policy to let those threads stand and allow things to be thrashed out in public.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 06/12/2013 00:16

Right - going to lock this one now, we'll re-open it tomorrow morning

Night all

MNHQ

AmyMumsnet · 06/12/2013 17:29

Hi everyone,

Crikey, this was a bit of a shock to come in to this morning.

Firstly, we would just like to clarify that we tend to use the royal 'we' here at MNHQ because most of our decisions are made as a team - particularly ones about thread deletion. We had read through both threads and several of us agreed that the second thread appeared to be deliberately inflammatory. As far as the first thread goes, we understand that the deletion may have seemed hasty, and we'll hold our hands up to that one; but the situation we were in with the reports backlog meant that we were acting under some pressure.

We're sorry that our email to you, Hully, was a bit delayed in it's arrival, so it seemed that we'd deleted the second without any explanation. We hope you know that if you had emailed us to ask what had gone on we would have replied to you as soon as we could have. I'd also like to apologise for my deletion message on this thread, as it was not specific enough, and I'll bear that in mind in future.

To those suggesting that my age might affect my ability to do my job - while it's possible that I am indeed young enough to be some posters' daughter, I'm sure you'd hope that they wouldn't face any questions about their ability to carry out their work based on their age alone.

It was absolutely lovely to meet so many of you at the meet up and I'm grateful for the kind things you have said about me on this board - I'll do my best to live up to them going forward.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 07/12/2013 12:17

Ack - you're absolutely right that we changed the deletion message on the second thread retrospectively. And we absolutely SHOULD have posted on this thread at the time to say so. That was a complete balls-up on our part - many apologies.

It was done because the original deletion message was a mistake in itself. One which we've now compounded in an extremely regrettable way.

(We have edited deletion messages before - this is by no means the first time. But we do see that doing so in this context without making it very clear that we had was a bad error.)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 07/12/2013 12:21

In terms of second thread/third thread

The second thread was asking 'why was my thread deleted?'. The question was answered several times within the first ten posts or so - by posters saying that the deletion message had said 'bunfight'.

There were then quite a few posts talking in derogatory terms about the people who had reported the first thread, or had disagreed with its premise.

It was this that made us think that the the second thread seemed very likely to resuscitate the recently-deceased bunfight.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread