Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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

AmyMumsnet · 05/12/2013 16:47

Hi Hully,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We've just sent you a mail, and we'll be deleting this thread shortly for the same reasons as the previous one - namely being a thread about a thread (about a thread!).

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 19:41

Evening all,

Hully, from what I can see, your initial thread was removed because it turned into a bit of a bunfight and was being reported to us. We took a look, there were several PAs and deletions and so we decided to zap it.

You are, of course, welcome to debate whether or not to tell children about Santa and any other subject for that matter. However, we did feel that you weren't looking for a debate or discussion, you wanted to share your views on the subject - others gave your theirs, everyone disagreed - Cake throwing, reports, deletions and then it was zapped.

We may not have been as thorough as we generally are last night and apologies if we zapped rather than spent a long time trawling through deleting individual posts. We had a rather large back log of reports to plough through as our email systems went down .

That's not to say that it wouldn't have gone anyway, but apologies if we didn't spend as long on it as perhaps we should have.

Your thread earlier was a thread about a thread that was deleted.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 20:00

it's not a blanket rule at all - and I admit to not having seen the second thread in all it's glory but we tend to remove it if it rehashes the same points as the first and turns into another thread just like the first one.

You can of course ask us why etc - that's what we are here for - we don't want to shut down debate at all.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 20:06

@Hullygully

BUT THE SECOND THREAD DIDN'T

IT ASKED A VALID QUESTION AND THEN TURNED INTO POETRY

You admit you hadn't read it.

How bloody infuriating do you think that is??

And please answer:

And could you explain why a thread on SITE STUFF asking why a thread was deleted = "a thread about a thread?"

And EXACTLY HOW ELSE IS ONE SUPPOSED TO ASK THAT QUESTION?

Hully,

I may not have read it but others from MNHQ will have - I am not officially working now am training a newbie

Threads in Site Stuff do get removed as with anywhere on MN if they break guidelines.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 20:12

@Hullygully

if they break guidelines

fine fine

so (for the fourth time):And could you explain why a thread on SITE STUFF asking why a thread was deleted = "a thread about a thread?"

And EXACTLY HOW ELSE IS ONE SUPPOSED TO ASK THAT QUESTION?

Apologies if that was the purpose of the thread then you should have had a response.

We did send you an email, will have a look for your reply now.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 20:21

Well apologies if there was an error on our part.

I do believe that the first thread was removed with good reason. The second also but you should have been responded to faster - for that we can only apologise.

The second thread did appear to follow a similar course to the first and it did break our guidelines by doing that. Apologies if we seem a little heavy handed and you didn't feel that we responded to your questions at the time.

Hopefully we have helped to clarify a little.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 20:25

@Maryz

I've been on two long threads over te past couple of days which have been real bunfights.

There are posters telling out and out lies. Scary lies that could seriously damage vulnerable people. Lies that they have repeated even after it has been proven by links to court judgements that they are lies.

Those threads are still there.

The posters are continuing to lie - and link to blogs that are complete fabrications.

Maybe mnhq should re-prioritise.

This is about Father Christmas ffs, it's hardly a matter of life and death. Let us talk about it if we want to.

Have you reported them Maryz?

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 20:27

@Hullygully

I wasn't responded to at all. I got a standard email that was erroneous and then nothing.

No it doesn't clarify anything, you've said exactly the same thing.

And I still want to know this:

And could you explain why a thread on SITE STUFF asking why a thread was deleted = "a thread about a thread?"

And EXACTLY HOW ELSE IS ONE SUPPOSED TO ASK THAT QUESTION?

Hully, If a thread - even one with a clear question in the title, goes on to talk about the same issues as in the first removed thread - then it is considered a thread about a thread.

Our error was not posting a response to your question on that second thread before it was removed - we should have been more transparent and for that I can only apologise.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 20:40

@Hullygully

Also, is no one ever allowed to talk about the existence of santa or not again?

Because that will be a thread about a thread, won't it?

Sorry, to be more specific. 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.

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

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 20:49

@Hullygully

No there weren't Rebecca. I talked about a group of twits, that was all. The only personal attacks on either thread were directed at me.

And could you explain why a thread on SITE STUFF asking why a thread was deleted = "a thread about a thread?"

And EXACTLY HOW ELSE IS ONE SUPPOSED TO ASK THAT QUESTION

I think you have asked that question now Hully and I have tried my best to answer it on this thread in site stuff. Apologies that we didn't answer on your previous site stuff thread.

And we are always here if you'd like to mail?

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 05/12/2013 21:04

@PlentyOfPubeGardens

Hully, If a thread - even one with a clear question in the title, goes on to talk about the same issues as in the first removed thread - then it is considered a thread about a thread.

This is just completely stupid! The 'issues' were father christmas and how or whether and why we lie to children about it, and the repercussions of that. I didn't see the first thread but the second 'why' thread was great. There were lots of really intelligent posts that people had obviously put a lot of thought into. I saw no bunfightery and I'm quite pissed off that it's gone.

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

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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:37

Hello

Just to clarify: the second thread was mostly deleted because we thought it was deliberately inflammatory - in the the sense that if you can clearly see (as the deletion message showed) that a thread was deleted for descending into a bunfight, it seems to us deliberately inflammatory to start a new thread asking why it was deleted Confused

Sorry for not making this clear earlier. RebeccaMumsnet wasn't on duty today - and indeed isn't on duty tonight either.

For what it's worth, however cross you are with our decisions, we think it's utterly out of order to cast pretty nasty aspersions on the professional competence of named members of MNHQ who gave up their Friday evening to attend a Mumsnet meet-up. We don't generally delete attacks on members of MNHQs, but some of the stuff that's been said here is incredibly unpleasant.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:43

@youretoastmildred

"who gave up their Friday evening to attend a Mumsnet meet-up"
  • in order to patronise mn-ers by attending an event that they took no pleasure in for its own sake, finding the clientele utterly beneath them, in fact pitying them for regarding the event as leisure

Absolutely no idea where you're getting that from. As I understand it, a good (and extremely raucous) time was had by all.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:44

@Hullygully

Really Rowan?

Really?

Yes really - all of it

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:46

@Mintyy

Again, Rowan, why not delete the one dodgy post? The whole thread does not need to go. Only one person out of however many on this thread said anything even slightly derogatory about a named person from hq.

Because the dodgy post was the OP, mintyy

And no - at least two posts made nasty remarks about a clearly identifiable MNHQer

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:47

@Hullygully

Rowan, as I have explained to nauseating ad infinite

I missed the end of the thread. It wasn't bunfighty when I left. Everyone on it has said it wasn't bunfighty.

Hence my question in site stuff.

If I wanted to be "deliberately inflammatory" (FFS) I'd have done it in AIBU

You are being very rude and unfair.

I can only repeat that we think it's deliberately inflammatory to ask why a thread was deleted when the deletion message very clearly states that it was deleted for being a bunfight.

Apologies if I seem rude - I'm seeing extremely hard-working and talented members of our team being slagged off.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:48

@SconeForAStroll

Rowan, if the bunfighting aspects were personal attacks on hully, and she was happy to ignore them, why did the thread get deleted?

Because we don't apply the rules according to posters' personal preferences. It would be madness.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:50

@BIWI

What is wrong with banter?

Nothing - and nothing's been deleted for being banter

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:51

@Hullygully

BUT IT WASN'T A SODDING BUNFIGHT!!!

And I for one have not been rude about anyone.

Well we'll take another look - but in the first analysis it looks as though we disagree with you

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:51

@ExitPursuedByAChristmasGrinch

So we should be grateful that MNHQ turned up to the meet up?

I couldn't go

Of course not!

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:52

@Hullygully

Rowan, that means I can never start threads, you see that, don't you?

No, we don't see that at all

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:55

@Hullygully

"gave up their Friday evening"

was very unfortunate wording

but unlike that accorded to me, I will give you the benefit of the doubt

Fair point

The invitation was kindly and generously extended to MNHQers and several of us very happily attended

What I'm objecting to is that in doing so they unwittingly laid themselves open to having aspersions cast on their professional ability

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 22:58

@SconeForAStroll

How bad could it possibly have got?

Was there Aheming and Peace and Love bombing tried or was it straight to the bug red button?

It just seems another situation where locking the thread would have prevented all this angst.

Yes, it may well be that locking it would have been better and we will try to do that more often.

As RebeccaMN said earlier, we had a software failure yesterday that meant that we couldn't deal with incoming reports in our normal way for about 10 working hours.

When our system recovered at around 5pm, we had an enormous backlog to deal with.

In this context, the MNHQer dealing with this one - who had a mountain of possibly more urgent and/or sensitive stuff to deal with - decided that deleting was the better part of valour. As it had, in our opinion, become a bunfight.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 05/12/2013 23:04

@curlew

What's so wrong with a bunfight? 1000 posts and it's over.

Because the aim of MN is for people to share advice, support, debate and laughs. We think bunfights are a bit unedifying. It's part of our general philosophy - always has been. Robust debate - brilliant. Posters repeatedly attacking other posters - not so great.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates