Clarification please

[Hullygully]

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?

[youretoastmildred]

for clarity, I am not saying we should not have moderation. And then, it is implicit in the notion of moderation that moderators are going to make judgements on what is ok and what is not. That is fine. I am not suggesting that some simplisitic notion of "free speech, man" is the issue here. I just think that the apparent direction of the moderation is a bit wrong. the moderators protect our free speech by clearing us a space in which to have it, I am grateful for that, we have a garden to play in because it is being tended by diligent people who are actively taking out nettles and briars. but it is hard work I sense a tendency to deal with complicaed patches of interesting wild flowers and delicate unusual plants by covering it all over with can't-fail-busy-lizzies. Ultimately we should be conscious that what we are asking is that the gardeners do more work, and do it better.

[happytalk13]

Tantrums - part of the problem is

a) Different people can experience the same thread differently (eg, you say you find threads about school punishments goady, why I don't know, I certainly don't...neither parking really.
b) As with any forum, MN isn't somewhere where one joins and instantly knows all the posting history of the forum, or doesn't frequent a certain forum so doesn't instantly know the history of that particular forum board. I can remember posting something once for opinions and at least a half dozen people immediately jumped on me and accused me of being a goady troll.

So, what can seem tedious or goady to a long standing member, may not be to a new member or what may seem goady to you may not to the next person. The topic alone doesn't indicate the posters underlying motives, the delivery might give readers a clue as to the posters motives but even then if on first glance it appears to be goady, shouldn't someone be given the benefit of the doubt at least for a few minutes rather than people appearing with pitchforks?

[ChippingInLovesChristmasLights]

[definitely need coffee now]

During The Big Debate MNHQ said they would lock more threads - if they were too busy to deal with these threads properly they should have been locked until they had time to do so and I do agree that Hully being the OP would have had a bearing on how quickly they were deleted - unfortunately.

I didn't see the end of Thread 1 - so maybe it turned into a bun fight and just maybe deleting it was simpler than it ending up like swiss cheese - but is 'simple' what we are aiming for?

Thread 2 - a thread in site stuff asking why a thread was deleted. I disagree (as do many others!) that it was 'deliberately inflammatory' and Hully is right, lots of people wanted the answer to the question, so posting in site stuff was the obvious and reasonable thing to do. This is a website - we should be able to communicate with MNHQ on this site and not by email if we wish.

This is not the MN I joined a million years ago. It has changed and certainly not for the better. Of course, that's what happens when a site gets so big, so quickly - but saying 'it is the same' is like maintaining the earth is flat - the evidence that it isn't so is right in front of you if you bother to look at it and you don't have to let it run away with itself.

[ExcuseTypos]

From MNHQ "As far as the first thread goes, we understand that the deletion may have seemed hasty, and we'll hold our hands up"

I really don't understand how you can 'hold your hands up' to making a mistake with deleting the first thread but STILL insist that Hully shouldn't have asked why you had deleted her thread.

It doesn't make any sense!

If you are admitting been too hasty in deleting a thread, you must be able to understand why the OP of that thread, would question why it had gone.

[YoniMatopoeia]

I Missed both previous threads.I do think that going back and changing the deletion message is, Erm, interesting.

In the interests of transparency, it would be interesting if the deleted "inflamatory" thread could be undeleted and locked.

[Fairenuff]

"As far as the first thread goes, we understand that the deletion may have seemed hasty, and we'll hold our hands up"

So, the second thread should not have been deleted either then Amy?

[youretoastmildred]

On the issue of whether MN has changed, it's hard to tell but I really want to put to rest once and for all that pointing to there being fewer deletions, now as opposed to the past, means that it is (if anything) more tolerant of robust debate.

Suppose you look at the statistics for confiscated guns in 2012. Suppose there were many more confiscated in Manchester than in Bath. Would you say "oh well it is obvious that Bath is a much more gun-happy town than Manchester. They all get confiscated in Manchester! In Bath they only confiscated a few, so they are presumably all open-minded gun-tolerant coppers there".

No you would never say that in a million years.
That is the argument being used about deletions. By MNHQ. Every time this comes up.

Please stop doing it. Are you trying to manipulate us by using this argument, or are you so silly as to believe it?

[RowanMumsnet]

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.)

[RowanMumsnet]

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.

[ShreddedHoops]

Using that analogy:

More guns confiscated in Manchester - this means either that there are more guns and the same proportion are confiscated, or that there are the same number of guns but a higher proportion are confiscated. Or a third, unlikely reason - there are less guns in Manchester but a very high proportion are confiscated.

You point out that HQ say there are fewer deletions now - I thought they had actually analysed it and that there were proportionally less deletions per number of posts? So there are more posts on MN, but a lower percentage of them are deleted. So either MN have kept the same policy and fewer posts have broken rules, they have relaxed their policy, or people report less often and therefore rule breaking posts remain undeleted? What's the problem?

I for one just don't believe that MNHQ have changed their policy. It may be that those posters who didn't use to have posts deleted now do, because the higher number of posters mean it's more likely that a rule breaking post would be reported and deleted. This always comes up on moderation discussions on here - being deleted shows you've broken site rules - whether you've been reported or not is a moot point. And it's really crap to blame and badmouth people who do report rule breaking posts. If you don't want your posts to be deleted - don't break rules. And if a thread you were on / started is subsequently deleted as there were so many rule breaking posts? Well that's just tough luck, and not a reason to go crying repeatedly to HQ about how things have changed/people who report are grassing snitches/it's not like the good old days etc etc ad infinitum.

[ExcuseTypos]

Rowan can you please respond to the point that if you agree in hindsight you were hasty in deleting thread one, then why was it inflammatory for the OP of said thread, to ask MNHQ why it was deleted.

[ExcuseTypos]

X posted.

So the reason for the second deletion wasn't because Hully was being 'deliberately inflammatory' by starting it?

If that's so, then why change the deletion message to that?

[ShreddedHoops]

I think at this point HQ you should commission a big hearts and flowers style apology picture from TalcandTurnips and all sign it and address it to Hully and all her sycophants supporters on this issue. Because if you don't, you run a very real risk of losing the Heart of The Site. Short of that large and graphic apology, possibly including a big 'we were wrong and you was right' banner, I think you can't win.

[Fairenuff]

Rowan you have just confirmed that the second thread was not 'deliberately inflammatory' haven't you?

[ExcuseTypos]

I think that's an excellent idea Maryz.

[DazzleII]

"This always comes up on moderation discussions on here - being deleted shows you've broken site rules - whether you've been reported or not is a moot point. And it's really crap to blame and badmouth people who do report rule breaking posts. If you don't want your posts to be deleted - don't break rules. And if a thread you were on / started is subsequently deleted as there were so many rule breaking posts? Well that's just tough luck, and not a reason to go crying repeatedly to HQ about how things have changed/people who report are grassing snitches/it's not like the good old days etc etc ad infinitum."

Good post, ShreddedHoops. I agree with all that.

[DazzleII]

Starting a thread for inflammatory reasons is trolling. So the debate is: why was the thread started?

[DazzleII]

And were people who reported the thread completely unreasonable in feeling/believing that the thread was started in order to be inflammatory? I have no axe to grind here, I wasn't one who reported, but I do think we should all have a right to report posts and threads which break Talk Guidelines. And not be slagged off for doing so.

[Fairenuff]

Kinda missing the point there Dazzle

Why was the thread started? Yes, that is what we are talking about. It was started to ask why the first thread was deleted.

HQ have stated above that it wasn't deliberately inflammatory, although they changed the deletion message to say that it was. So, clear as mud.

I think it might be a good idea for mnhq to state whether or not they believe Hully is lying when she says she didn't mean to be goady, and that they accept that maybe the second thread was just asking a question and wasn't in fact deliberately inflammatory (it being in Site Stuff and all).

That would be eminently sensible and honest, Maryz and put an end to all the confusion.

[BIWI]

No. Being deleted shows that a) someone has reported you because they don't like what you have posted and b) MNHQ think that your post breaks the rules.

But has been admitted by MNHQ they don't always get it right.

It isn't as black and white as you would like to make out it is, Shredded. Which is why there is such a debate about it on this thread.

And if you're the person who has been deleted, and you feel that the decision was wrong, it can be very hurtful. Do you not see that?

I think that MNHQ have a thankless task here, to be honest, and I would say that 9 times out of 10 they get it right. And they're always happy to admit if they got it wrong.

Posters are what makes MN, and if posters are annoyed/upset/aerated about something, MNHQ do listen to what they are saying - that's what makes it the site it is, and why so many of us have a very large and soft spot in our hearts and lives for it. But that's also why so much emotion is exercised and being expressed here.