I'd like to chat about the convenience of your deletion policy to rewrite history MNHQ

[HoneyDragon]

Convenient deletions so that your own posts go too that's becoming common practise too. After NYE you probably mised not to do that or edit retrospectively as you agreed it was unprofessional.

Yet again we are seeing cases where one member of HQ states something then another comes and contradicts it. Are you not a little embarrassed about how incompetent you look of late?

Hopefully your advertisers aren't looking to hard at the site at present? Or is that why you don't want them to see you struggling?

Even your deletion messages have no resemblance to the context of the thread? I think the majority of incorrect speculation falls at HQs feet on the whole. Rather than site users.

Oh 2017 I'm sorry xx

Not at all doo. The opposite.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3000059-Without-discussing-specifics-can-you-tell-us-what-policies-are-going-to-change?msgid=71002201#71002201

She is definitely banned doowap!
And has shared the pm from mn hq.

doo I replied thinking you meant him

I already contacted JG but the terms and conditions of their crowed funding are such that he did not do anything wrong

Did you transfer it from a bank account or PayPal? You could be able to reclaim the payment.

We believe you is a travesty after this

Strangely that thread wont load...

How has he not be banned?

He's probably not reported someone, it seems that's what get's you banned now.

2017 I'm sorry you lost money because of this x

@SpartacusSaiman

The deletion message in the latest thread was;

"Message from MNHQ: Thanks for the suggestions and thoughts here.

"All we can do is reiterate our earlier points; we really cannot definitively vouch for anyone that posts here and would very much caution against giving out personal information. Not everyone on the internet is who they say they are and there isn't much we're able to do if folks choose to take up private contact away from the site."

Si presumably they're not banning for things that happen offsite.

An adapted version of that^ would make a better standard warning though IMVHO.

Serf. Except that they did definitively vouch.

Oh yeah. We believe you innit.

Yes that too.

Actually SassySusan is an amazing sample of how MNHQ did manage to handle things well in the past.

She was a deeply troubled woman and although her actions were out of order MNHQ openly gave her every chance and openly praised and thanked posters for their interactions on threads to stop escalations.

Back then it was very much MNHQ relying on posters and appreciating a heads up via report or some sensible talk on a thread. Like linking to talk guide lines.

Now MNHQ have a lot of expectations from posters but give nothing back in return. Ultimately they can address all these issues which have been getting progressively worse. Question is, do they want to?

I did mean "him" yes... fucking outrageous!!!

Not being facetious AT ALL. Maybe Web Safety 101 wouldn't go amiss around here. There are some incredibly open hearted and trusting MNers and then there are us, the "cruel", "evil" ", "cavern of witches"

Katherine - I remember SassySusan and her banning.

I can still message him his account is still active

Jesus hq what a clusterfuck

I have reported - figured out how to do it online. Took forever, but I feel better now :)

Not a lot of money in the scheme of things, but I'd much rather have given it to an actual worthy cause.

Thanks for caring!

My ire is not with whether MN were responsible (IMO the aren't) in verifying a person as legit or not, but they shouldn't be deleting all the threads. If someone is using MN to con folk, then we should be allowed to talk openly about it. It would help us all learn how to be safe online.

I don't think it is true, but it is plausible that the folk saying they had dodgy sexual contact with the OP are the ones lying. Who knows hey? but without proper discourse we can't hope to come to an informed opinion.