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

@ ing people

88 replies

Blackoutblinds · 02/10/2018 07:01

Hi mnhq I wonder if you could tell me what your view is on @‘ing people if you’ve been asked not to?

I have had it happen on a thread and it’s made me feel really quite annoyed. I asked the person to stop and not do it and they responded with a “you can’t tell people what to do”

I can appreciate that POV, but it seems contradictory to me given the rules around being polite and esoecially given the rules in FWR that have recently been implemented.

Could you please confirm what the official MNHQ stance is on this? Ie on continuing to @ someone after they have asked you yo stop?

Thanks

(I have disabled the emails but that doesn’t stop the person continuing to @ me which I really dislike. I can’t explain why I don’t like being @‘ed I just don’t. It feels aggressive and hectoring and bullying. I don’t expect anyone else feels the same but I do. )

OP posts:
Original poster
Blackoutblinds · 02/10/2018 10:53

But is it not rude to continue doing it after you’ve been asked to stop?

OP posts:
BitOutOfPractice · 02/10/2018 10:55

If it’s any consolation OP I know just how you feel about being @-ed.

Jaxtellerswife · 02/10/2018 10:55

Maybe a little rude but they probably find your request a little ridiculous. Which it is. But you're entitled to not like something of course.
I doubt mnhq would be able to do anything based on someone not liking the facility for. I genuine reason.
You can always ignore people

KathDayKnight50 · 02/10/2018 10:55

You may never be able to stop poster @ing you, OP, if mnhq don't agree it's a problem.

So how about changing your response? That puts you back in control over the only person you can have control over - yourself. Life will be easier for you that way.

For instance, think what else you could be doing with your time right now.

PattiStanger · 02/10/2018 11:04

Yes, it's rude but you can't stop rudeness either online or in real life, that's just the way of the world

Yourenotericlove · 02/10/2018 11:08

It's rude to continue doing it but also, the person has the right to not respond to your request.

If I told you this thread was upsetting me and I wanted you to stop posting, would you? Because that's the equivalent of what you're asking and it's unworkable on an anonymous internet forum.

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy This is MNHQ statement on pronouns.

MNHQ
AnyaMumsnet · 02/10/2018 11:21

Hi there BlackoutBlinds,

Thanks for getting in touch.

As other posters have mentioned, we won't be changing the feature anytime soon - it's very popular amongst Mumsnetters and is a useful tool for discussion. We know you've done so already, but there's the option to turn off emails for mentions, which you can find in your talk preferences.

As usual, if you're worried about anything on the site, or see anything which you think is goady or breaks talk guidelines, let us know and MNHQ will be happy to take a look.

Original poster
Blackoutblinds · 02/10/2018 11:26

Anya I know that but my question is how would it be viewed by hq if someone continues to @ you after being asked to stop

OP posts:
Cindersdonegood · 02/10/2018 11:41

It's like using any Internet public forum, you cannot stop someone replying directly to you. Same goes for Facebook and all the rest. Now if the posters are attacking you, contravening mumsnet talk guild lines then they can be reported to be removed or banned but someone speaking to you? No. The only way to prevent that is removing yourself and not reading the replies.

Cindersdonegood · 02/10/2018 11:44

...Although Facebook does have the blocking option. Mumsnet being an anonymous forum does not. Anonymity is why name changes are a large part of forum's features. Blocking would require members to be identifiable meaning no one would want to use it really.

Tahani · 02/10/2018 12:21

If they are being rude then report them

You can't expect mn to change a feature because you are having a issue with Smith member. It's like me saying Sainsbury's must stop selling bread because someone feeds the ducks bread and it's bad for them.

rainingcatsanddog · 02/10/2018 12:23

OP - the difference between your situation and the FWR rules is that it's easier for MN to apply a blanket rule for everyone rather than allow @ for everybody except you. The only way that you can deal with it is to leave the conversation.

TrashPanda · 02/10/2018 12:29

Mumsnet won't change the feature, no. But they should be able to confirm whether this will be treated as a personal attack/goady behaviour.

It's not equivalent to asking Sainsbury's to stop selling bread. I use the title Miss and don't like Ms, if I ask people to call me Miss and they continue to use Ms after I've explained I dislike it, they are being rude and using Ms to annoy/upset/goad me. Guidelines say goady or attacking behaviour isn't allowed.

OP is asking if it will be treated as goady behaviour that can be reported, not asking Mumsnet to remove the feature.

Original poster
Blackoutblinds · 02/10/2018 12:29

I have reported it and the comment was deleted.

I’m asking about the general rule of @ing someone when you have been asked not to. And specially when that @ing is being used to bully and have a go at another poster.

But I suppose all I can do is report when it seems out of order. And if I’m @ed again in a nasty way, ask the poster to stop.

OP posts:
Original poster
Blackoutblinds · 02/10/2018 12:30

What TrashPanda said.

OP posts:
Yourenotericlove · 02/10/2018 12:51

The poster wasn't bullying you. They made an offhand comment which you really took to heart and got upset and a bit arsey about and they didn't respond to your request not to @ you. Probably because other people were @ you and you didn't complain about them so it seemed you were just being picky with them because they pissed you off.

Try not to spend any more time on it honestly, it's only MN.

Gersemi · 02/10/2018 14:43

my question is how would it be viewed by hq if someone continues to @ you after being asked to stop

But you know how it would be viewed by HQ, don't you? Their views on poster behaviour are set out very clearly in the site rules; the fact that there is nothing in there about continuing to use words/modes of address after others have asked you not to rather suggests that MN don't feel it's their business. After all, people are constantly saying they don't want to be addressed as "hun" or to read posts full of "could ofs" and the like; MN don't wade in and tell others off for hurting the complainers' delicate feelings.

There are lots of things that happen on MN that bother/annoy a lot of people (I personally think people who write "could of" should be banned for life Grin} but the response to that surely can only be - go somewhere else if you don't like it.

Lougle · 02/10/2018 14:57

@username is just directing a comment specifically towards a poster, for their attention. It is conversing, replying, having dialogue. The tone of that dialogue may be abrupt, angry, hostile, polite, friendly, cheerful, etc., but the @username handle doesn't in itself convey anything except that you are directing the post towards a specific poster.

Using an incorrect or non-preferred pronoun is in itself upsetting for the poster concerned, because they will feel that it is inherently 'misgendering' them. That is why MNHQ will delete this.

VioletCharlotte · 02/10/2018 15:27

It may help to try and think of it like a face to face conversation in real life. If you're talking in a group and are directing a comment to one person, you'd say their name wouldn't you? It's the same with @

EmpressAdultHumanFemale · 02/10/2018 15:36

It may help to try and think of it like a face to face conversation in real life. If you're talking in a group and are directing a comment to one person, you'd say their name wouldn't you? It's the same with @

I think the difference here is that MNers have been addressing each other by name forever, but in the past it's always just been done by bolding & often involved a shortform or nickname version - like Empress - & hasn't triggered any emails. Using the @ with a full name - @EmpressAdultHumanFemale - is a different thing.

PattiStanger · 02/10/2018 16:28

@ing is all over the internet, you can't expect people not to do it on here

ErrolTheDragon · 02/10/2018 17:03

I think the @ is useful if you're posting on a few threads on different boards so wouldn't want to totally disable it.

But there's no earthly reason do use it for posters who are actively participating on a thread.

I reckon if you ask someone to desist and they carry on, then they're being goady and fall foul of the general talk guidelines so you should report them.

Might be good if MN could implement poster-specific blocking - I think this exists for PMs doesn't it?

EmpressAdultHumanFemale · 02/10/2018 17:36

@ing is all over the internet, you can't expect people not to do it on here

I know, which is why I disabled mine. What I'm saying is that as Errol says above, people who haven't been around that long may not realise the difference in MN between bolding & the fairly new @ing.

ShowOfHands · 02/10/2018 17:44

I think you just have to ignore it. I like the function and don't read it as aggressive.

I don't like people using the word "so" to start a sentence or the word "pop" ( just pop some jeans on, pop to the shops etc) or the phrase "picky bits" but I don't expect MNHQ to have a stance on any of these things.

TrashPanda · 02/10/2018 19:28

Gersemi The thing is Mumsnet does now have a view on modes of address with pronouns. Repeatedly addressing someone with a pronoun they don't use when they have asked you to stop is a delete and ban worthy offence.

Does this apply to addressing someone with the @ after being asked not to? How is it different?

Swipe left for the next trending thread