Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MN Talk Guidelines need an amendment

17 replies

paxillin · 24/02/2018 14:42

I propose a change. They currently read:

No personal attacks
No posts that break the law
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
No trollhunting
No spamming

The most important one is not in the bullet point list: Do not out other mnetters. This should never happen and is surely the worst case scenario.

OP posts:
Sparklingbrook · 24/02/2018 14:44

I thought that not outing people was a given.

paxillin · 24/02/2018 14:45

Apparently not. Which prompted me to check the guidelines and it isn't there.

OP posts:
Sparklingbrook · 24/02/2018 14:49

Ah ok. I just thought people should know already that's all. I don't think anyone reads the Talk Guidelines.

JenMumsnet · 24/02/2018 15:21

Hi Pax,

You make a good point here, and something we will discuss in the office.

paxillin · 24/02/2018 15:25

Thank you, JenMumsnet. I think people forget MN is a huge and public site sometimes and things cannot be unsaid once people read them.

OP posts:
SmurfOrTerf · 24/02/2018 15:32

I actually feel really bad now for posting on that thread. I hope its been pulled

SmurfOrTerf · 24/02/2018 15:33

Just checked, it has been pulled

WorraLiberty · 24/02/2018 16:55

If misleading behaviour is against guidelines, why are reverse threads allowed?

DawnMumsnet · 26/02/2018 13:05

@WorraLiberty

If misleading behaviour is against guidelines, why are reverse threads allowed?

Good question! We'd say they're not allowed as such - if we're applying Talk Guidelines strictly to the letter, then they're technically breaking the rules because they're misleading. The problem is, by the time we're made aware that a thread is a reverse, they're usually in full swing.

We'd always discourage people from starting a thread from the reverse point of view - they inevitably turn sour when MNers work out what's going on (and nine times out of ten we end up zapping them).

But we'd view each thread on its own merits - if we don't think the OP is being deliberately provocative then we'd be a bit more lenient. What we usually do is encourage them to post again telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

FlibbertyGiblets · 26/02/2018 13:18

Just nipping on to plead for No Textspeak to be added to talk guidelines please. I know acronyms are used, and are useful. Textspeak, not so much. Folk use readers, and we don't know who does.

Cheers m'dears.

SophieLMumsnet · 26/02/2018 13:26

Thanks for the feedback, FlibbertyGiblets - we can't make any promises about that one but we can certainly relay the suggestion!

FlibbertyGiblets · 26/02/2018 13:32

Thumbs up, Sophie.

HardAsSnails · 26/02/2018 13:42

Regarding the no textspeak, @SophieLMumsnet, what's happened to the accessibility policy? It needs updating and should surely be linked on the talk guidelines page? That covers textspeak...

MN Talk Guidelines need an amendment
FlibbertyGiblets · 26/02/2018 13:44

Good spot, Hard. I'd not seen that.

YetAnotherHelenMumsnet · 26/02/2018 15:36

Noted, thanks. We will pass that upwards as well.

HardAsSnails · 26/02/2018 15:48

Thank you.

WorraLiberty · 26/02/2018 19:35

Ahh right. Thanks for the reply, Dawn.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page