MN Talk Guidelines need an amendment

[paxillin]

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.

I thought that not outing people was a given.

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

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

Hi Pax,

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

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

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

Just checked, it has been pulled

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

@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...

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.

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

Thumbs up, Sophie.

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...

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

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

Thank you.

Ahh right. Thanks for the reply, Dawn.