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.

WellErrr I first heard of PL when I read the moderation thread. I had to look her up on the MN blogfest page then google her - I'd never heard of her. I didn't mean that I had to google her after starting this thread - that would clearly be stupid!

And don't tell me to find somewhere else if I don't like it. After 11 years here I think I have as much right as anyone else to say if I think something isn't right. I'm not asking for rigid black and white rules. Just some consistency.

OP, MNHQ have always made up the moderation policy as they go along. Most likely they will always make up the moderation policy as they go along. If you're someone who likes clarity and consistency in the rules you will find this annoying, but the reality is that no amount of complaining has ever made them change the way they do things, and I'm sure no amount of complaining ever will.

I don't know, NDT...it seems more random of late. Sure, in the past you might not like their rules, but you could see their rules and you'd know damned well what would get a deletion and what wouldn't. Hence people typing things in certain formats to avoid deletions. Now it seems to be 'we'll delete stuff that we think will make us unpopular or give us hassle and keep anything that might get us clicks or feature in the Daily Mail'

don't tell me to find somewhere else if I don't like it. After 11 years here I think I have as much right as anyone else to say if I think something isn't right. I'm not asking for rigid black and white rules. Just some consistency.

I'm not telling you to do anything.
But they don't have rigid, black and white moderation rules here, and they never have; therefore, if that's what you're looking for, you won't find it here. And there ARE other forums which do have that rigid consistency.

Clearly, MN caters to the left. Try writing a similar poem about Paris Lees and see what happens...

After 11 years here I think I have as much right as anyone else to say if I think something isn't right.

But that's not what your thread is doing is it. It's telling MNHQ that you want/expect them to explain themselves and you don't have the right to do that.

Justine had made it VERY clear how they moderate/don't moderate this site.

It's time to stop all these threads now. If you think MNHQ are wrong, contact them directly like a grown up. Enough of the foot-stamping "Miss! Miss! It's not faaaaaaiiiiiir! Johnny got to do his thing!"

Milk I disagree. I started a thread in Site Stuff, not AIBU. This is about Site Stuff. In their moderation thread, MNHQ said 'The last thing we're saying is that we don't want feedback'. I also reported my thread, saying that I'd appreciate MNHQ comment.

I think that's an appropriate way to deal with this.

A thread in Site Stuff is perfectly appropriate to discuss this, I agree with you there.

Silver - I'm not sure PL would be a fair comparison. Does anyone want to have a shot at a similar poem about a high profile left-wing politician- jeremy corbyn or putin maybe?

Re-read your thread title lougle. It's not an innocent question at all, it's not feedback. It's asking them to explain themselves. Why do you think you have the right to do that? Especially after Justine's "this is how we do it like it or lump it" thread.

Upthread I said that more consistency would be good. However, after the evolution of this thread I completely change my mind. MNHQ you are doing a difficult job and consistency would ruin the spirit of the site. Life just isn't black and white.

"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead."

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.

Consistency is a virtue for trains:

I don't even really know what "being consistent" would mean. There has to be the use of discretion.

I also think that generally people only want consistency if it is consistently in their favour!

Haha, yes, milk its true.

Justine's thread wasn't 'like it or lump it'. It was 'if it makes you that angry that you feel the need to call us cunts and abuse us, this probably isn't the site for you'. As I haven't felt the need to call MNHQ anything, am not angry and have simply asked a question, I don't feel that applies to me.

If MNHQ don't want to explain, that's their prerogative. If they don't want to discuss, fair enough. If they think they're totally in the right for putting that poem in classics....well it's their site.

In fact, if they want to delete this thread as being a thread about (two) threads, I'll accept that as site rules. I'm not fussed. But I stand by my point that you shouldn't selectively apply rules.

And Milk, I like consistency, full stop.

I dunno there's a whole internet out there if you don't like this bit. nobody is conscripted to mumsnet as far as I know.

and this entire thread reads like a not-so-thinly veiled lead-in to the endless circle-jerk around trans issues. stop it. and if it isn't? it comes off as weird and obsessive. let it go...

Lougle - but they have explained, you just didn't accept the explanation. The 'rules' aren't rigid, they may be applied differently in the cases where 'someone puts themselves out there in the media'. MNHQ's inconsistencies generally give more protection to the weaker and more vulnerable, less to the strong. IMO that's preferable to a more rigid approach, and seems like the majority on this thread agree.

They said they'd have another look at the 'poem thread' if there were more complaints, as far as I can see the main effect of this thread is people who hadn't seen it taking a look and liking it.

I've looked at the poem as a result of this thread and think the first three verses are awful. I'm in the "don't lower yourself to his gutter level" camp. While I wouldn't have reported it for deletion as I do agree that it really won't harm him, I don't think it belongs in Classics.

lougle - MNHQ are consistent in the "we look at reports and if we think it needs to go it goes, if we think it's fine to stay it stays, and if you think we've made a mistake we'll look in to it and apologise if we have" sense. I think that is actually pretty consistent, but some people clearly want it more rigid than that.

MNHQ have made it quite clear that they have no intention of making it more rigid but still people start "Look how clever I am pointing out MNHQ are inconsistent hypocrites" and "Look at me 'calling MNHQ out on things I disagree with'" threads.

Why? Why not just close the thread you have a problem with?

Dione and Mistress: They're good!
Here's another:

"Man of the people" Nigel Farage
had money and flash cars in his garage.
He said "isn't it funny?
I want power, not money!"
His ambition and ego were large.

"This public figure says really nasty things about women and is a misogynist"

I have never seen such a post deleted. When did that happen lougle?

Nigel's mate, Arron banks,
had some views which were really quite rank.
He paid for some Memes,
which were truly obscene.
And Nigel Farage he said "thanks!"

Dione - there were posts deleted on the PL thread of that nature. But being a guest, PL was being afforded a higher level of courtesy than might otherwise have applied. This was debated, but when alls said and done, their house, their rules.

I'm not saying 'look at me' or 'look how clever I am' - where have I said that?

You can't avoid being the focus when you start a thread. It's just the way it is. Which is why I don't actually start many threads. But I felt strongly about this one.

Loving the poems on here.

What's the PL thread?

Errol, I read the thread as it happened, it was clear that there were going to be a lot of deletions at the time that it was being written. And while MN may have become a bit trigger happy with the deletions, most of the posts deleted were not what lougle has put up. But then lougle wouldn't know that as she didn't see the deleted posts.

Coincidentally, I was on the PL thread for "Found Poem" purposes.