MNHQ need to review policy regarding apologist posts

[Baconyum]

This has happened several times this year that I'm aware of.

MNHQ allowing posts defending rapists and csabusers to stand but deleting posts attacking these posts.

Biased in completely the wrong way. Shocking for a site supposedly supporting parents inc parents of victims and parents who've been victims.

I for one would like to know why MNHQ takes this stance.

One thread in question

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2618250-AIBU-to-not-want-to-socialise-with-someone-convicted-of-sexual-offences-related-to-children?msgid=60578335#60578335

But there are/have been others.

Did you really say Wondering if Olivia will still have a job tomorrow? OP.

That's shocking. How bloody rude. De register if you don't like how the site is run.

I reported several posts on the thread yesterday and received a prompt and courteous response. Olivia was certainly doing her job

I have not said all the posts I disagreed with should be deleted or even if they were disagreed with by a lot of people but some of the posts were very insensitive and offensive and this has been true on other threads too. I have no problem with controversial ideas being debated - with consideration for the feelings of others.

Especially with a thread of this kind there will be users reading and posting who've been victims or their children been victims, or people they love.

Some posters and some posts achieved that so it certainly can be done.

And no definitely not young.

There is a fine line between deleting people for having an opinion that differs from the norm and deleting offensive posts. How is your post about Olivia's job adding to the debate, that's just fucking rude. If a thread is annoying or offending you then leave it. If mumsnet is annoying or offending you then don't look at it.

Several posters have actually called for the entire thread to be deleted so I'm hardly in a minority.

The overwhelming majority of the posts on the thread agreed with the OP.

A minority of posters felt she was (or potentially was) being unreasonable, and the gunfight stemmed from this.

If it was felt in that instance that any posts deviating from the stance the OP had taken then really the thread just shouldn't have been posted - the fact that it was surely indicates that an opposing view could be aired?

Bunfight, sorry - what a horrible autocorrect

As I've said opposing views which while I would find them on this subject very disagreeable are not a problem. But some of the posts giving opposing views were extreme and left to stand far longer than was sensible. I think even MNHQ accept this. I'm wondering if the difficulty is that with a report for personal attack MNHQ only needs to look at that one post but with more debatable (? For want of a better term) reports they need to look at the context? Yes that takes time but perhaps that then comes back again to a staffing issue. Also as most of the more controversial posts were posted after 11pm which going by the pm I got from MNHQ seems to be when staffing stops?

I am not a child.

I am going to read views that I hate, some which I find really offensive.

However, I don't want to be like Netmums where conversation is stifled as soon as someone posts anything controversial. Some of the replies on that thread were horrid but like I said, I'm not a child I can moderate myself.

Why shouldn't they stand? Because it might upset someone? Well, that goes back to moderating yourself and knowing what threads to stay away from because the title made it very clear what the thread was about and everyone knows that even on threads about child sexual abuse there will be goady fuckers who will say something offensive. I don't read a thread that has the potential to make me hurt. I would much rather people's horrible opinions be left to stand, that way there is no backtracking and people can debate those points without name calling.

I don't think MNHQ did anything wrong and I don't know why they apologised really. They got to all the comments in the end that needed deleting, just not in a time frame that was acceptable for you.

MNHQ needs to stop apologising to a group of adults who have a fucking off button on their computer/phone.

I actually hope the thread in question is allowed to stand to give other guests attending this wedding the chance to recognize it and not go.

I believe in free speech so I don't believe apologist posts should be automatically deleted

However, I feel the free speech should go both ways. So for example on that thread, if you post that getting your sexual kicks from the abuse of children ever has any mitigating factors then you should expect to get a verbal kicking

The angry responses should also stay. In the interests of free speech.

Either that....or it all goes

So, a difficult line to tread and requiring more (trained) moderation. Paid moderation.

That's not going to happen though. So we have this situation where goady fuckers stay within talk guidelines and wind people up enough to break them. Win/win for the apologists.

this is not your safe space, OP. were you conscripted to MN? are you compelled to come to a website and read things that offend you?

of course not. do people really get huffy because a completely free chat forum for anonymous posters doesn't moderate according to their personal moral compass?

blimey.

That thread was moderated (I know, I was deleted).

Difficult to see how MNHQ could justify leaving personal attacks up or leaving people to 'get a verbal kicking'. It's a way of allowing mob rule. Leaving that sort of attack up could discourage the 'wrong' sort of views: effectively restrict free speech and limit the debate.

Personal attacks should be moderated quickly, not because people aren't adult enough to take them but because they change the manner of discussion and because they might frighten away other valid viewpoints.

I wasn't being goady. I was expressing an unpopular opinion and then standing up for that opinion. When people are very emotionally invested in a thread that distinction isn't always immediately apparent to them.

Because some people find it difficult to understand my point of view underlines exactly why I should be allowed to make it (politely and with no personal attacks, obviously). My point of view had value, even if just to highlight that not everyone thinks the same way.

Had I actually been an apologist for csa I am sure all those posts would have been deleted as offensive and triggering. As it was, I described csa as disgusting and said I would want to blank the guy but that got a wee bit lost by other posters who literally couldn't take dissent from their pov.

Several posters have actually called for the entire thread to be deleted so I'm hardly in a minority

But did many other people suggest that Olivia should lose her job?

'you said (among other things) that viewing images of child abuse was clearly a lesser offence than actually committing the abuse - you seem to not realise that every image viewed has, at it's source, a child being abused.'

Er, no I didn't! I think you have me mixed up with another poster...

When things are busy MNHQ really needs one person focused on a single thread that could be causing genuine and serious distress to posters. The paedophile as a wedding guest is a case in point.

That thread has to be the most disturbing one ive come across on here (I basically got told that I don't love my child unconditionally because I wouldn't support them if I were to find out they were a peadophile )