Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Clarification please

766 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?

OP posts:
BOF · 05/12/2013 23:58

Rowan, you should delete yourself really for repeating a personal attack Wink

I've missed all this (thankfully), but can't we have a bit of a thaw? You know, spirit of Christmas, and dare I say it, truth and reconciliation?

Fairenuff · 05/12/2013 23:58

Had you not started this thread questioning so publicly the judgement of mods or their handling of a thread then the other member may not have felt the need to join in and stick the boot in

Blimey Hully I didn't realise you were able to control what another poster writes just by starting your own thread Shock

What powers - I am in awe.

Theworldisbiggerthanyou · 05/12/2013 23:59

would not "have" not "of"

Hully please don't lower yourself to pulling my posts apart on a small grammatical error.
You are better than that as I have seen in many of your previous posts. You generally have more to say than that.

HoneyDragon · 05/12/2013 23:59

Not by you Rowan, btw.

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!

ButThereAgain · 05/12/2013 23:59

Thats unfair, theworld. Its quite common to start threads like the one hully did, and having been on it from near the start it does seem clearly a mistake to call it deliberately inflammatory (though I can see how the mistake would be an easy one to make uner pressute). Id be really hurt if this happened to me.

BOF · 06/12/2013 00:00

Wait, bruxeur IS A MAN? How did I not know that? Shock

HoneyDragon · 06/12/2013 00:00

Grin rather excellent xposting there

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.

Original poster
Hullygully · 06/12/2013 00:02

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.

OP posts:
Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 00:04

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'.

Theworldisbiggerthanyou · 06/12/2013 00:04

Blimey Hully I didn't realise you were able to control what another poster writes just by starting your own thread shock

I never said she could control other posters.
I said if Hully had followed the "if your not happy with our decision then e-mail us" that the mods generally, put rather than publicly demand an answer and then question the mods decision then the member who posted about Amy would not have had the opportunity to slate her.

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.

Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 00:05

I know what you said. I quoted you. Hully is no more responsible for what another poster writes than you are. HTH.

DeepThought · 06/12/2013 00:06

bruxeur is a MAN? A MAN???

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.

BOF · 06/12/2013 00:06

They don't like deleting threads critical of MNHQ unless they really have to, Fairenuff, because we'd start a gazillion conspiracy threads and there'd be Godwin's law and all sorts, I think.

BOF · 06/12/2013 00:07

X-posts with Rowan, sorry.

Original poster
Hullygully · 06/12/2013 00:08

fine

equivocate

I hope that makes the hive mind of "we" happy

OP posts:
Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 00:08

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.

So was the last one. That was why it was in site stuff.

reelingaroundthechristmastree · 06/12/2013 00:09

MN royalty comments are the new Godwin's law.
(On here anyway)

One mention and you've lost the debate.

Original poster
Hullygully · 06/12/2013 00:09

absolutely fairenuff

OP posts:
Theworldisbiggerthanyou · 06/12/2013 00:10

Why not Fair?
She gave the poster the opportunity to slate the mod by openly questioning them and disagreeing with the mods replies.
I am possibly responsible for lots of posts by others (given that they will be as a direct result of my post) but I am sure that I have never given one the chance or platform to think its ok to slate a mod.

BOF · 06/12/2013 00:10

I think I'd better bugger off this thread- I'm late to this thread and I feel like I'm rubbernecking.

Please don't go, Hully.

Original poster
Hullygully · 06/12/2013 00:12

You know what, boffy?

I am loads of things. But I am not dishonest.

OP posts: