Can we please have a ruling on how unsupportive of other parents it is permissible to be

[twittymummyofnone]

within site rules, particularly, but not only, in reference to this thread;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2094153-To-think-that-a-lot-of-the-time-having-someone-in-the-family-with-a-disability-does-mean-being-long-term-poor

Have NCed obviously, but MNHQ can obviously see who I am and maybe we can get this cleared up one way or the other.

Beyond I would say regardless of whether she has had a secret official warning from MNHQ or just seen as all go raaah, either way she must know people are somewhat narked. So that's fair warning to think before she posts. Where's the trap?

So let's try to stop being norty, shut up and do as we've been told

@ potato

amymumsnet - the particular poster hasn't posted since the 31st hence no further issues.

So is mumsnet saying that she hasnt been goading for 4 years?

And how hard are mumsnet themselves going to search back?

Remember, we love reports - the more the merrier!

That is not what AmyMumsnet said last night on this thread!

Mumsnet cares more about its "freedom of speech" policy than it does about the posters on here who have children with special needs

Never written an face before, but mumsnet deserves it.

fwiw, I dont have a child with special needs, and am well aware that I will get banned.

Small price to pay.

I hope most posters have seen this thread.

and the media

tbh, I think that posters who want to post about special needs should use chat? Or a different board?

And leave the special needs board empty as a silent protest.

Some of us have been reporting this poster for four years. Over and over.
Every post reported was found to be within guidelines.

So this poster persistently causes upset that doesn't get deleted.

Why can't MNHQ see this is a massive longstanding issue?

Why have I been threatened with a ban for responding to four years of bile from this individual and she gets away scott free time after time after time?

Oh and the ban threat was for 'tone'.

Her 'tone' has been far more objectionable for YEARS.

Time for special needs posters to go to the media about the treatment they get from mumsnet.
If they have the energy

I'd better not say any more!

parenting abilities

.?? So would that include comparing any resident parent who supports their child using any state income to a none resident parent who does not support their child at all using money from any source?

Mumsnet have a 4 year PICTURE and many reports apparently.

And it still it isnt enough for them.

So nothing is.

The End.

I can see MNHQ point of view as well as ours. Maybe clarification is what's needed here. If people feel HMOO should be banned, warned, allowed to continue, whatever - then say that and why. But I can also see that a running thread about a poster who is not defending themselves (or can't?) could be bad form.

Not saying I'm firmly in either camp, just musing really.

Hello

Just wanted to clarify a couple of things here.

First off: we've had a look and before this weekend's happenings, we had had - in total - between five and ten reports about HMOO's posts over her entire four years on MN. That's really not a lot given how long she's been posting and how much she has posted, so we really weren't aware that there was an issue here. Of course, now we are aware we are going to have a concerted look, but there's a lot of digging to do, and to be fair to everyone involved we want to do it thoroughly.

That's why we'd appreciate it if you could hold off on discussing individual posters for now.

Second, we've been visited on here by a particularly persistent troll whose sole aim in life is to stir up sentiment against MNHQ . (Someone who does not have any ongoing posting history on MNSN, under any of her many many personas.) We've banned her (again) now.

For everyone else we really would be grateful if you could rein in the personal stuff and we will promise to have a close look at what's going on.

Thank you Rowan. Sounds reasonable to me.
I do suspect that people don't bother to report some posts, often assuming that it's already been done, and I suspect, sometimes being so 'gobsmacked' that they assume hq have seen it. I don't know, just a thought. Anyway, thank you to hq for the continuous reporting back. In defence of everybody here, I do think we have what could be considered to be reasonable cause.
Anyway, thank you.
Now, pass that gin bottle!

@dawndonnaagain

Thank you Rowan. Sounds reasonable to me. I do suspect that people don't bother to report some posts, often assuming that it's already been done, and I suspect, sometimes being so 'gobsmacked' that they assume hq have seen it. I don't know, just a thought. Anyway, thank you to hq for the continuous reporting back. In defence of everybody here, I do think we have what could be considered to be reasonable cause. Anyway, thank you. Now, pass that gin bottle!

Yes, it's probably true that people don't report and we do understand why.

Just wanted to correct the impression that we had been dealing with an avalanche of reports about this poster over a number of years - we really haven't.

Anyway, thanks for your forbearance and we will try to do the necessary digging as quickly as possible.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me as well.

Thanks for taking the time it's appreciated

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that only MNSN posters had a valid viewpoint here - just that one of the people on here making digs about MNHQ's ongoing attitude to that particular group of posters was really only here to cause trouble.

Other people have expressed similar viewpoints here and are totally on the level and not-trolls. And as ever when this comes up, we're truly sorry if we've fallen down on the job - but in this case, the general lack of reports did mean that we honestly didn't recognise this as a recurring problem.

Yep sounds reasonable to me.

Bit worried that about the implications of the non-report groupthink and that it might be more likely to occur, the worse the posting is. And worried about the implications for patterns of dodgy posting.....

I have no idea if I just made sense

But I completely accept HQ are on the case

Yes it made sense

Posters are v welcome to report any post (whether they think it directly breaks Guidelines or not) and say 'please look at this poster overall - I know this particular post may not seem that bad, but you'll see she does xxxx and yyyyy all the time and it's starting to drive people nuts'

Even if we don't take decisive action straight away, a report like this will lead to a certain marking of cards - and several reports like that will definitely make us sit up.

All that said, sometimes we do take a look and genuinely think that someone is just consistently posting unpopular opinions. So long as we don't think they're being deliberately inflammatory, and so long as they're engaging and being reasonably constructive in the main, we tend to leave those ones be.

Can't say fairer than that.