How does this gel with your thread on your moderation policy MNHQ??

[lougle]

Apologies in advance for a thread about two threads - I don't want to derail either thread but I'm genuinely curious as to how you've reconciled your stance on moderation with your response to squishysquirmy's poem about Donald Trump?

On your Moderation policy thread Justine says:

"This doesn't mean that it's a complete free for all. Of course we do and will continue to remove posts that break our rules – for instance personal attacks and those that break the law or promote hate."

Then on Squishysquirmy's Help-What-rhymes-with-cuntweasel? thread you've promoted the thread to classics because it contains a 77 line, very clever, very amusing, poem about Donald Trump, which is

-clearly a personal attack
-encouraging others to ridicule him

I'm absolutely no fan, I have to say, but what was the thinking here?? How does this get promoted to classics when other less offensive posts have been deleted recently?

I do think there needs to be some level of consistency if you want people to accept that you are making rational decisions about what you delete.

(As others have said it's a bit of satire*

It is not satire. It is blunt invective

It wasn't a debate OP, it was a poem.

CaesiumTime I'm getting the impression that 'absurd proposition' = 'doesn't agree with CaesiumTime'

I've told you my proposition. MNHQ shouldn't be promoting a thread to classics that personally attacks a public figure whilst at the same time deleting posters who personally attack public figures.

Thats it! Only that. I would have posted the same had it been about any other public figure. My issue is not with the who, but the what.

Saying it's satire is not really helping tbh. I'm a massive fan of satirical comedy and could watch Mock the Week, etc., back to back for hours at a time. This isn't satire. This is just (very clever) ranting.

MistressMerryWeather

"Or more seriously where most of the threads Regarding Ched Evans would have to be deleted because people were (quite rightly) far from kind about him and he's a public figure?"

Did those posts contain descriptions of his flaccid cock, text specifically talking to him accusing him of things? Thought not.

Listen, I'm all up for 100 threads where people expose the misogyny of DT. I'm all up for 100 threads where they talk about his harmful ideolgies and how to resist them. Robust argument in all directions. Totally.

I'm just saying that I don't think MNHQ should be making a direct personal attack a classic.

FFS OP.

You sound seriously sour about this. You're like a petulant child stamping their foot.

There's nothing wrong with the poem. We all know that. You're just trying to catch MNHQ out and it's pathetic.

It's not a direct personal attack.

It's a funny sweary poem.

It doesn't name names, and it's not talking about anyone who will ever have any chance of reading it.

Grow up.

The poem called DT a flaccid fat cock, it didn't refer to his actual penis.

Was Ched Evans called a cock? Probably at some point.

It means that I can separate my dislike of his behaviour from my decisions around my own behaviour and my views of what correct behaviour is.

. Use words that are meaningful and contribute to a sensible debate. Don't just fling insults at him left right and centre (or anyone - I'm not 'for' DT at all).

The above are entirely different arguments from "MNHQ shouldn't be promoting a thread to classics that personally attacks a public figure whilst at the same time deleting posters who personally attack public figures."

It all comes back to wanting to catch MNHQ out on being hypocritical. As was said upthread. You want a black and white rule. Fair enough. No need to defend Trump as someone who "deserves" reasoned debate.

Listen, I'm all up for 100 threads where people expose the misogyny of DT. I'm all up for 100 threads where they talk about his harmful ideolgies and how to resist them. Robust argument in all directions. Totally

But that's the unique thing about Mumsnet.

You DO get robust argument.
You also get funny sweary poems.

This has really bothered me as I fucking hate 'how wooooode!' censorship

But Goddamn you to Hell, you fat flacid cock.

That's not describing his "flaccid cock" though, it's describing him as a flaccid cock. I think that's quite a difference tbh.

It is a tricky one and we do not have a deadset policy, we judge by the reaction that we get in reports..... We try to be as fair as possible when it comes to slebs and we can see that we aren't always consistent but it really depends on what pings into our inbox and if there is a general consensus.

Disappointing to see it confirmed that mob rule carries the day, but sadly it does explain the recent lapse of professionalism. MN already has a bit of a reputation as the nasty site by many, I suspect your current course will simply confirm that title. It's a shame, as it could offer so much, but it's just no longer a fun place to be.

It's a shame, as it could offer so much, but it's just no longer a fun place to be.

Speak for yourself - I still love it! I use it wisely though and click off threads that neither interest me or wind me up.

I did speak for myself. I never said I was speaking for anyone else. 😐

I'd disagree that it's recent and even a lack of professionalism. I've been here about 9 years and there have always been discrepancies. Not so much with PAs against other posters but those aimed at public figures.

It's not 'mob rule,' it's taking the lead from the opinions of their members.

Totally different.

I'm in 2 minds as to whether it should go but I think it's completely inappropriate to make it a 'Classic'

One very important clarification - I didn't mean he has a fat flaccid cock. I have no idea and would rather stick pencils in my eyes than find out. I meant that there is something about the shininess and shape of his face that looks a tiny bit like one. And it rhymes with shock.

Below is a politer version which I really hope will not offend anyone:

I do not wish to offend you, sir, but I must respectfully admit that I do not much care for the cut of your jib.

Furthermore, I have reason to feel some misgivings about the veracity of several of your past statements.

I am also concerned that you have not always conducted yourself in a gentlemanly manner and at times your comments on minorities in particular could be construed as a tad unsporting.

Most importantly, I am compelled to confess that I have observed certain parallells between your rhetoric and rise to power (in particular the threats to lock up political opponents; scapegoating of unpopular minorities; exploitation of security fears as an excuse to clamp down on civil freedoms; nostalgic nationalism; promises to increase military power; inciting violence against protestors at rallies; strong reaction to media criticism; demonisation of those who disagree with you; and links to white supremacists) and a political ideology of the 20th Century.

Yy saucery - it's always been very flexible moderation, but the wave of posters demanding uber correctness and absolute infallibility from HQ is quite new....

Sorry, it dosen't rhyme.

I'm getting the impression that 'absurd proposition' = 'doesn't agree with CaesiumTime'

I'm not relenting in my position that doesn't mean that I am demanding agreement FFS

Remember, we do not pre-moderate posts. We rely on our members to let us know about any posts that break our Guidelines.
^^from the talk guidelines.

That is the way this site has been run for many years Ginger. Interpret it as "mob rule" if you like. I personally feel that the site would not be as much fun if poems about world leaders were deleted.

Squishy.

...it's always been very flexible moderation, but the wave of posters demanding uber correctness and absolute infallibility from HQ is quite new....

Absolutely this.

I had no idea that Donald Trump was transgender

Those who are demanding 'consistency' might do well to reflect on some of these quotes, especially the Emerson.

MNHQs more flexible approach makes their lives harder but I think many of us are grateful for it. They don't get absolutely every call absolutely right, but by and large their moderate moderation hits a good balance.