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.

Squishy

You're just trying to catch MNHQ out - I agree. The phrase 'pearl clutching' springs to mind... 'Inappropriate' to send it to Classics? Seriously?! I know the world's gone mad but I thought at least Mumsnet was a safe place from the insanity this man has inspired in people... You do know it's Donald fucking Trump we're talking about here?! Potentially the most powerful man in the world. Once again, he does NOT need protecting from unkind words on a parenting forum!

I'm not trying to catch MNHQ out - it's their site! I'm telling MNHQ that it seems inconsistent and wrong, imo, to delete PAs about one public figure who has said some unpleasant things and promote to classics a PA about another public figure who has said some unpleasant things.

I've been a member here for 11 years. MNHQ used to be consistent in their actions and while we might not agree always, it always made sense. These days it seems much more arbitrary and I'm not sure why. I think it's ok to say that and I think it's ok to raise that.

The poems a bit shit. Post Penis Beaker the bar is so low who cares?

PA s to me have always been against other members not the sleb types.

If the Slebs have kicked off the moderation suddenly gets a bit heavier on posts about them. It has always been like that.

The rule about misgendering is very clear OP. Most of the deletions on the PL thread were for misgendering. They are so clear that some posters on that thread pointed out the risk of deletion at the time.

Those quotes are fabulous, Errol.

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago made me smile.

I thought they were great quotes too, Errol.

BTW, I wasn't on your thread Squishy, but I think your poem was class.

That poem is brilliant - thank you for bringing it to my attention OP

DT requires no protection from a poem.

I'm telling MNHQ that it seems inconsistent and wrong, imo, to delete PAs about one public figure who has said some unpleasant things and promote to classics a PA about another public figure who has said some unpleasant things.

So it really was about PL all along then?

All this stuff about "not suitable for classics" was just scraping around for another thing to kick MNHQ with.

Let it go OP, let it go.

i was once deleted because i posted that our then PM ......about his child
he didn't

so if a thread slagging off an USA PM is now in classics
yep mn had gone weird

Wait, you did or you didn't post something about his child, Zacky?

no who would?

Oh right, sorry it read like you did.

To be fair to HQ I have seen very few things get deleted regarding David Cameron and there have been a lot of shite flung in his direction.

I doubt a sweary poem such as this one would get zapped.

An Experiment.

David Cameron is a cunt,
Who really messed us up.
He gambled our future for his career.
He lost and has now fucked off.

Not rhymey, scanny or sweary enough to be amusing (but better than I could do) but I'll stand witness to it being relatively innocuous if its deleted. Did you report yourself?

It's never going to make it into Classics, but I'm no Squishy. I'll report it now Errol to see what happens.

Ah, but your purpose was clear Dione.

I'll add one too.

Shiny Dave was indeed a great arsehole
Though he's better than Trump
He's fucked off and left us with Nigel and Co
In this mess while he sits on his rump

The numptycunt couldn't be buggered or fecked
To find his kids when he left his posh pub
His glistening brow was wet and sweat-flecked
When he tried to explain the hub-bub

His fondness for pork almost wrecked and destroyed
His fucked-up political career

That's when Sams brilliant plan was deployed
And she said 'Now Dave, Listen here!'

'You red-faced shit
You king of cunt-men
You greasy haired git
Let's leave number ten!'

So, delighted, elated by the mad Brexit mob
They vanished without even a trace
Samantha now has a terrible job
Of fixing Daves fucked up, red face

No, this is not about Paris Lee. This isn't really even about Donald Trump. Or . This is about parity in the moderation of posts about public figures.

I don't see how you can on one hand delete posts saying 'this public figure says really nasty things about women and is a misogynyst' and not two weeks later promote to classics a poem that says 'YOU public figure say really nasty things about women, you're a nasty misogynyst, you are a curse, short-sighted scrote, blistering canker, self serving shit and lying gobshite'.

It doesn't gel. It isn't consistent. It isn't logical.

I don't care where MNHQ draw the line - it's their site. But that line has to be drawn in such a way that a poster has a good idea before they post whether they are at risk of deletion for it. Then they can decide whether they feel that it's worth taking the risk.

It just isn't fair, IMO, to delete some posters' posts because they contain PAs about public figures and then promote to classics a direct, sustained PA on a public figure because he is widely scorned and it is written with a humorous turn of phrase.

If you want to think this is about Paris Lee, go ahead. Advance search my posting history for my most extensive posts on the subject. You won't find them because I had to google PL to find out who she was.

If you want to think this is about Donald Trump, go ahead. Advance search my posting history for my most extensive posts on the subject. You won't find them because I haven't posted about the election result in any significant way.

This is about MNHQ's moderation, plain and simple.

If this is not about Donald Trump, what is it precisely about this example of moderation that bothers you then? Your problem is purely with the inconsistency? The rules should be flexible and allow for common sense to reign. These are not legally binding rules, MNHQ are not high court judges MN would be a joyless place if every written rule is strictly enforced to point of absurdity.

Mamushka I'm using plain English. What bothers me is that MNHQ have promoted this poem to classics, when it is a direct personal attack on a public figure. I don't think they should be endorsing a direct personal attack on a public figure.

I think that promoting something to classics is giving it a seal of approval in a way that just ignoring its presence (ie. turning a blind eye) doesn't. I wouldn't have had an issue with them just 'not seeing it'. But I think that to actively approve it is wrong.

Mumsnet isn't school.
It isn't your place of work.
It's not government run.
It's not council run.

You don't seem to understand this, but Justine has explained it all at length.
The rules are not black and white.
There will be inconsistencies, BECAUSE they do apply common sense. That's how it works. And it DOES work.

If you don't like it, then you don't have to stay. Different strokes and all that - I personally find the common sense approach refreshing. Do I always agree with MNHQ's decisions? No. But I wouldn't have it any other way because I am a huge believer in common sense, and I hate censorship.

If you want rigid rules, then you'll have to try elsewhere, as they just don't have them here.

And give over with the 'I don't know who PL is' guff. Why would you have written the OP if that were the case?

Okay, well I disagree, Donald Trump is so deplorable that I see no problem with giving it a seal of approval.

Regardless, I actually disagree that putting a thread in Classics is a 'seal of approval' anyway. The penis beaker thread went into Classics didn't it? Do you think that means MNHQ advocate dunking your dick in a cup after shagging? No, it means some people found it funny, some people hated it, and it gets chucked in Classics to look back on and either laugh at or loathe.

If I wrote something about a public figure and it was reported and MNHQ deemed it a Personal Attack then they could delete it. I might have a minute's moan to myself and I'd be a bit peeved if it led to a Ban or suspension
I wouldn't flounce because of it, because the alternative is a site solely talking about prams, recipes and sleep routines