Word of advice to MNHQ

[Hahahahaha123]

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'

Hilarious that Ido.

Would it be possible to prevent threads where suspicions have been raised being highlighted like this

I like that idea. Where MNHQ aren't sure enough it is a troll to remove the thread, they could still make sure it does not appear in trending etc and is not listed by them on social media. They could even remove it from active.

surely her thread should have been reinstated.

But poster has asked to be deregged. No point in reactivating a thread that existed to support one particular (deregged) poster.

The thread could have been reinstated. The poster started another thread after the original was zapped explaining everything.

Don't mind me

SandyMN, that explanation for Sciatica's thread doesn't really work. You reinstated her, she started a new thread which you apparently had no problem about leaving up, and she posted on at least a couple of threads. All the while you were still telling people you were looking into it, and indeed you were saying that only yesterday. And, as people pointed out, many if not most of us make sure we put a few inconsistent facts into our posts to avoid identification. If you thought she was a troll, you wouldn't have reinstated her; and if you thought she wasn't, surely her thread should have been reinstated

Yes, all that needed to happen surely was someone to say " Sorry about that" and reinstate the thread. Instead the whole thing went on so long the OP got pissed off and de regged. As far as I'm aware a few posters emailed HQ to ask if the thread could be reinstated and it was 'still being looked into'.

I believe we're talking about a pbp (although i know that's disputed on reddit).

Justine, you have said a couple of times that you "believe" the person who received the email in error was a PBP. It isn't really a question of belief, is it? Either she was banned or she wasn't. Surely the only ones with that information, aside from the poster in question, would be MNHQ. Can you clarify exactly what happened, a permanent ban or a temporary suspension?

I love how we are all told agin and again to protect our identities (so to change details as we post.... alongside NC etc).
But it's OK for MN to dereg someone for I onsistencies and wo telling them first or checking with them....

Then there was the hacking which certainly made me change the email address I use with MN. That also means it's one I more or less never use because it's the one I use for any site that I know will send me hundreds of 'unwanted' emails.
But if I want to use this site, then I have to be able to be contactable or rather be ready to contact MNHQ if they take a decision willy nilly and then prove that I am genuine and a nice person. Rather than the other way around.
Interesting concept I have to say....

@Ceto

SandyMN, that explanation for Sciatica's thread doesn't really work. You reinstated her, she started a new thread which you apparently had no problem about leaving up, and she posted on at least a couple of threads. All the while you were still telling people you were looking into it, and indeed you were saying that only yesterday. And, as people pointed out, many if not most of us make sure we put a few inconsistent facts into our posts to avoid identification. If you thought she was a troll, you wouldn't have reinstated her; and if you thought she wasn't, surely her thread should have been reinstated.

Hi there Ceto When you reported to us yesterday and we replied to you saying we were still dealing, we really were. We felt it appropriate to allow Sciatica some time to undergo her back operation before we approached her. We did mail her as we've perviously explained (to clear up the inconsistencies that we felt crossed the line of anonymity) and it was later in the afternoon that sciatica asked to deregister.

"Hi there ItsAllGoingToBeFine As far as we are aware, every report receives an automatic response from us. This news is disconcerting and we will look into it from our end. Thanks for the heads up"

I think the poster was referring to the follow up email that used to follow each report.

Not the 'thanks for reporting' acknowledgement page - the sort that used to be generated for all reports, and was all you ever got for reporting spam. Now it's all you get for everything. It was a change that users felt could be problematic at the time.

I've just tried to find the thread which announced the change, but Advanced Search doesn't seem to be working.

lrb I fully agree with you.
The tone of posters in the last 2 years has changed a hell of LOT.
I Serioulsy think that a lot of those posts would not have stand when I joined 14 years ago. Because they are just vile to the OP who is 1- more vulnerable (that's why they are posting in the first place!) and 2- looking for some help and support, not to be put down.

Sandy so in effect you've pissed off a poster in genuine need of help so much that they preferred to leave.
Is that 'by parents for parents'???

'The tone of posters in the last 2 years has changed a hell of LOT.'

People are snarlier and the threads are a bit more mundane. The humour seems to have dissipated.

I get ignored when I report

Even after the policy change I'd usually get a message from HQ asking why or just a quick thanks

I've been here 10 years and feel meh about it now. I miss my old mates and think the place is worse off without them.

There was a separate thread earlier this month about the change of policy to no longer respond to reports, and whether that has proved to be a mistake.

It's just been bumped, as the promised MNHQ response has yet to be posted.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2999041-Abandoning-the-policy-of-responding-to-all-reports-was-a-mistake-I-think

Staff - long term/regular posters. Customers - occasional posters/lurkers
what are you talking about, people who post on here are not 'customers', we are the product, we dont pay because we are being sold

interesting Reddit thread looking in more detail about how mumsnet has changed over time, the structure of the company etc etc
www.reddit.com/r/MNTrolls/comments/6vpn3y/a_look_at_mns_finances_and_management/

Agree, but to fit the analogy I was using I had to allocate the terms used in the analogy. Equally I could have used an analogy of a small community school that merged with another local (maybe failing) school, that then became part of an academy chain. In that case, Justine would have been the headteacher, MNHQ the staff and the posters would have been the students. In some ways, it would have been a much more appropriate analogy.

What I was saying is that as an entity (firm/school/webforum) gets bigger, those in charge (HR/staff/MNHQ) become more distanced from the users (staff & customers/students/posters) and the users -
especially those who have used said entity for some time - tend to get more and more pissed off with the loss of what the entity represented when it was smaller. And there generally is little that can be done to reverse the trend.

My last post was in reply to @ibbleobbleblackbubble

ok lrb I'm with you, I think one problem is that internet platforms are a new technology which doesnt map well onto previous technologies/ways of doing things, so there are no good analogies and we resort to old ones which obfuscate the real nature of the beast

people are grateful for this great free thing and tend to overlook the fact that they are being milked by the platform

also as with facebook these things are designed to be addictive, to steal your time, make you compulsively keep checking again and again