Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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

is Iamwhateveryousayiam back yet?

68 replies

YouAreMyRain · 03/03/2016 11:28

Hi MNHQ,
Just wondering if the OP of this thread

Did you know that men are being given women's awards and leadership positions??
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2581275-Did-you-know-that-men-are-being-given-womens-awards-and-leadership-positions

Is still banned, when their posts haven't been removed and no one can see any reason to ban them?

It would be awful if women's voices were being censored and silenced on the Trans debate, which is happening everywhere else, wouldn't it?

OP posts:
GooseberryRoolz · 03/03/2016 15:04

It's not clear to me.

MNHQ
BeccaMumsnet · 03/03/2016 16:05

Hi all, we really are very sorry that this has taken so long to resolve. As we said to iam in our email yesterday evening, we were actually horribly short staffed yesterday.

Because the details the poster supplied us with demonstrate that she is a previously banned poster with repeated behaviour warnings across a number of subject areas, we will unfortunately not be able to let her back on the site.

We really do hope this clarifies everything, but please do ask any further questions you may have.

Thanks all.

WaitrosePigeon · 03/03/2016 16:11

It's clear to me, a PBP, like Becca has confirmed. What a shame.

VikingVolva · 03/03/2016 16:24

"I feel very grateful Mumsnet is such a safe space"

MN is not a safe space. It is an open internet site.

Osmiornica · 03/03/2016 16:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Shutthatdoor · 03/03/2016 16:35

So does that mean the post is fine then?

No it means they are a PBP and won't be allowed back.

GooseberryRoolz · 03/03/2016 16:36

But the posts are still up, so HQ deem the posts okay (?)

BeyondTellsEveryoneRealFacts · 03/03/2016 16:39

I read it as there isnt a specific problem with what they posted, just that they are a PBP and as such arent allowed here.

Do PBP have to do something 'wrong' to be re-banned? I ask not just because of this but cause netmums did it to me - re-banned me for being a PBP without me doing anything ban-worthy

Shutthatdoor · 03/03/2016 16:41

Do PBP have to do something 'wrong' to be re-banned? I ask not just because of this but cause netmums did it to me - re-banned me for being a PBP without me doing anything ban-worthy

Becca has said they had a lot of behaviour warnings accross different topics.

HumphreyCobblers · 03/03/2016 17:22

I feel very grateful Mumsnet is such a safe space"

MN is not a safe space. It is an open internet site.

Of course you are right. I should have been more specific, I am grateful we can discuss this issue here without fear of accusation or threat. Well mostly, anyway.

VikingVolva · 03/03/2016 17:34

"without fear of accusation or threat. Well mostly, anyway"

Precisely.

Talk guidelines lead to posts beyond the pale being deleted, and can lead to a ban.

Finding yourself regularly on threads you are in harmony with is however fluke or selection bias.

WilLiAmHerschel · 03/03/2016 18:07

Is the thread mentioned in the OP the reason the OP was banned and looked into this time? And if so, why was the thread and all posts allowed to stand but not the op? I understand she has been banned previously but if that thread is what lead to her recent suspension/ban doesn't that mean it breaks the guidelines in some way?

BeyondTellsEveryoneRealFacts · 03/03/2016 18:13

^ that is basically my question, but much easier to read!

ScoutsMam · 03/03/2016 18:16

And if so, why was the thread and all posts allowed to stand but not the op?

She was banned for being a new poster in contentious topics.
So they asked for details of previous log ins.
She gave them.
They were then checked.

I understand she has been banned previously but if that thread is what lead to her recent suspension/ban doesn't that mean it breaks the guidelines in some way?

Nope, ban first, then find the reason.

FWIW previous warnings were for things like 'reverse-racism' and a previous post on a trans thread. Not being a troll.

ScoutsMam · 03/03/2016 18:17

This thread however, stands.
MRA's R US

Original poster
YouAreMyRain · 03/03/2016 18:24

So MNHQs policy on the OPs of contentious threads is "Ban first, find a reason later"

So much for freedom of speech.

Be afraid people, be very afraid.

OP posts:
IPityThePontipines · 03/03/2016 18:38

MNHQ can't win. They are told they don't firm enough action against trolls, then when they stop PBP, people start complaining about that too.

You don't have "Freedom of speech" on Mumsnet, it's a privately owned forum with a long list of rules, you don't obey those rules, they stop you posting. That's it. Not sure what people need to be "afraid" of.

Shutthatdoor · 03/03/2016 18:39

FWIW previous warnings were for things like 'reverse-racism' and a previous post on a trans thread. Not being a troll.

How do you actually know that is all it was..

Nottodaythankyouorever · 03/03/2016 18:39

I agree IPity

Original poster
YouAreMyRain · 03/03/2016 18:42

I'm not saying that MNHQ didn't have grounds to ban. But they banned her before she provided them with that information.

OP posts:
WilLiAmHerschel · 03/03/2016 18:46

You don't have "Freedom of speech" on Mumsnet, it's a privately owned forum with a long list of rules, you don't obey those rules, they stop you posting.

I agree but am just curious which rules op has broken this time that lead to her initial ban. It happened before it was known that she had been banned previously and, as far as I know, none of her recent posts have been deleted - implying she did not break any guidelines.

DontCareHowIWantItNow · 03/03/2016 18:49

I agree but am just curious which rules op has broken this time that lead to her initial ban.

It could be that people have reported saying that tgey didn't believe the OP was who they said they are.

exLtEveDallas · 03/03/2016 18:52

It is very easy for MN to check posting history against ISP addresses. I would expect that someone reported her, which led MNHQ to check ISP, which led to discovery of previous ban, which led to this ban.

If you are banned, you are banned. If you come back and they discover you have been previously banned under a different name/ISP they will ban you again.

Don't be a wanker, don't get banned. Simple really.

ScoutsMam · 03/03/2016 18:53

It could be that people have reported saying that tgey didn't believe the OP was who they said they are.

I like that idea.

"MNHQ?"
"Yes."
"We have a woman here, posting about how concerned she is about women's rights. Bit far fetched don't you think!"
"We're on it!"

is Iamwhateveryousayiam back yet?
lougle · 03/03/2016 20:14

You have to work write hard to get banned though, to be fair. I've had a few posts deleted over the years and not so much as a warning email. To actually be warned across a number of topics and then banned indicates a general posting behaviour that nobody needs.

It doesn't matter how reasonable the OP is on the thread in question, if you've been banned you need to ask for the ban to be lifted. You don't just make a new username and stick your fingers up to the ban.