Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Word of advice to MNHQ

999 replies

Hahahahaha123 · 23/08/2017 17:35

The next time you send an email about a poster to that poster by mistake. Probably best not to refer to your users as 'these people'

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
2017SoFarSoGood · 23/08/2017 20:28

I know as an employer I have to tell people that there is no private if company equipment is used. However, I've read through the privacy policy and terms of use here and I can't see that disclaimer. It must be somewhere though I imagine.

I don't typically think of myself as naive, but must say I thought my private messages here were just that. Not sure how I feel now. Hmm

Gobbolinothewitchscat · 23/08/2017 20:28

Legally, an employer/employee relationship is totally different to the relationship between a website and its users. There is a personal relationship between employers and employees with trust and confidence at the heart of that.

I think MN is generally a fine place to while away a bit of time but no more tha that. I do think it's good that these issues are being ventilated as I think there is a lot of naivety about what MN actually is and there is quite a lot of misunderstanding about what obligations MN have to posters (very little, legally)

Gobbolinothewitchscat · 23/08/2017 20:30

If a private message was totally private, we could all be on here planning the assassination of Donald Trump/jihad and running a drug empire. Come on

TheRealBiscuitAddict · 23/08/2017 20:31

So MN HQ, if you can read people's PM's, why did you not access the ones of the most recent poster who was sending sleezey sexualised PM's to posters while claiming to be losing someone on the main boards and ultimately setting up his fundraising page?

That poster had been reported to you for months and MN remained adamant that he checked out, so posters continued to post on his threads in the knowledge that HQ were certain he was legitimate. And all you needed to do was take posters at their word and have a look and the evidence would have been right there.

Bereaved or not the sexual postings would have been enough to remove his posting abilities surely? And would have saved a lot of posters from a lot of investment

NerrSnerr · 23/08/2017 20:31

I'm now intrigued at what private and personal information people are sharing on MN private messages? If you don't want MNHQ to know then why are people telling others on an anonymous site? unless they know them in real life but then would mumsnet PM's be the preferred method of communication?

Sorry, just musing.

SecretNutellaFix · 23/08/2017 20:32

It's my understanding that when you are suspended/ banned you cannot access the MN homepage?

Therefore, one would need to re-register in order to have access to the contactus email address which is on the site, or not be able to contact HQ to find out what is going on as current policy is to NOT contact posters who are subject to posting suspensions?
Or have I got that wrong?

TheWitchAndTrevor · 23/08/2017 20:32

Storm.in.a.teacup.

GaryNumanIsOlderThanGaryOldman · 23/08/2017 20:33

The newly banned OP says they were not reregistered at the time they got your e-mail Rebecca.
Nor were they a PBP but a suspended poster (presumably there is a difference).
I assume therefore if you are in limbo awaiting your suspension being lifted that reregistering at any time before you make contact leads to an automatic ban even if you don't have that account anymore. Can you confirm? (I am asking that, not them) and that you justify reading personal messages if you have a hunch that someone has a new account they "shouldn't" have?

2017SoFarSoGood · 23/08/2017 20:33

Jifflytuff yes, I believe that was said. I remember that, and thought it made sense at the time. But now, knowing that it is not in fact the case, I am mad. If it could have been done and someone chose against it, shame on that someone.

The rudeness of emailing between each other calling us 'these people' and straight up saying just whatever seems to fit in the moment is not on. It all smacks of a work place that is a free for all. Come on folks, let's act like a business. Perhaps it is time for training at MNHQ?

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 23/08/2017 20:34

Jiggly I definitely remember that too. Was that one just not tingling your spidey senses enough MNHQ?

GahBuggerit · 23/08/2017 20:36

My point re: employers monitoring is that largely they'd have more of a reason to want or need to monitor emails. A site where parents share stories about how many shits their babies have had that day probably not so much. Even in cases where it's a suspected suspended poster (only suspended, do not a massive problem) unless they had been causing real trouble I don't feel that it's justified to read their, and by default other users, private messages.

I'm sure they said recently they don't do this when there actually was a clear justifiable reason to. I may be mistaken but I don't appear to be the only one thinking this.

Bluntness100 · 23/08/2017 20:37

So MN HQ, if you can read people's PM's, why did you not access the ones of the most recent poster who was sending sleezey sexualised PM's to posters while claiming to be losing someone on the main boards and ultimately setting up his fundraising page?

If i remember correctly they did and they posted to say no such messages ever existed on mumsnet and the poster who had said they had wished mot to take it further and de registered. I could be wrong, but I'm sure that's what they posted.

OnionKnight · 23/08/2017 20:37

I think MNHQ are a bit like Donald Trump, they forget what they have said previously and then they say something completely different.

YouAndYourFloofyCatNose · 23/08/2017 20:38

Yes I think the sexual messages were on whatsapp as the poster gave out her own contact details. I don't think they were MN messages. IIRC.

GaryNumanIsOlderThanGaryOldman · 23/08/2017 20:39

In for a penny. Can you also confirm whether vocal critics of the handling of the Mr X situation were banned for that alone? (In fairness, whilst I had comments deleted, I was neither warned nor banned no, not asking for a ban now cheers) Ta Brew

Ceto · 23/08/2017 20:39

Fabulous, shows what a fair few of us have said about their attitude is true.

Have people been objecting to MN being less than keen on PBPs who try to sneak back in under new registrations? Why?

Maryz · 23/08/2017 20:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 23/08/2017 20:41

So MN HQ, if you can read people's PM's, why did you not access the ones of the most recent poster who was sending sleezey sexualised PM's to posters while claiming to be losing someone on the main boards and ultimately setting up his fundraising page?

To be fair, you don't know he was Anyone can say anything on the internet...

Ceto · 23/08/2017 20:41

I must say, I struggle to get indignant about MN using the term "these people" to describe PBPs acting in an apparently underhand manner.

GaryNumanIsOlderThanGaryOldman · 23/08/2017 20:44

^ Me too. Absolutely. But a PBP isn't the same as a suspended one.

Circumlocutor · 23/08/2017 20:44

'It seems that it's ok to be a goadyfucker, it's ok to be a fantasist, it's ok to be an utter cunt (as long as it's on aibu) and it's ok to be a novelist. But reporting; that's troll-hunting and bannable'

That seems to be it in a nutshell. I find it a bit baffling too.

endehors · 23/08/2017 20:44

OP says she's been banned now, yes.

PencilsInSpace · 23/08/2017 20:45

Hahaha dunno what I'm most shocked by - misdirected emails, 'these people' or the abandonment of the TSSDNCOP policy ShockGrin

DSis once accidentally sent me a whole string of very explicit texts meant for her new, creepy-older-man BF. I had to have a bath Envy

Happytobefree17 · 23/08/2017 20:48

But if someone is a trouble maker and yes, troll hunting falls into that catagory, who can blame MNHQ for being pissed off about having to waste time having to deal with multiple reports?

GaryNumanIsOlderThanGaryOldman · 23/08/2017 20:49

^ Oh God, Flashback, I once had a text from a friend asking to feed my foof (not those words exactly but similar) Meant for my other friend. Could never look at either of them again the same way...