@ ing people

[Blackoutblinds]

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. )

Because if you ask someone to stop @ you it's just because you don't like it.

Persisting to use a non-preferred pronoun in conversation after being asked not to is denying someone their personal sense of identity and saying your personal agenda doesn't respect that. It's personal.

If my name is Amy and you continually call me Alan then that is personal and offensive and incorrect.

I'm not Alan, I'm Amy, this is who I am, is very different to I don't like people using @.

Alright Alan calm down.

Surely it dosn't matter why you don't like it, just that you don't and you've asked the person to stop.

Some people don't like love or darling, others can't stand Mrs or Ms, girl is infantilising to some and others feel him/her deny their feelings of identity.

If you ask someone not to address you in a way you don't like it shouldn't matter why you don't like it.

Personally I have no issue with being @-ed or bolded or called love so I don't have a particular investment in this. But once you say it's wrong to address people in ways they don't like when using pronouns it should apply to other forms of address.

Exactly what TrashPanda said.

I just want to know is it considered delete and ban worthy if you keep @ ing someone who has asked you to stop.

It’s not about @ in general. I get that it’s common on other bits of the internet and I’m not asking MN to remove the feature.

I’m just asking what their stance is on someone who keeps doing it after being asked not to.

I it would be like Amy saying that anyone can call her Alan, as long as they are agreeing with her. But if they disagree with her then they must call her Amy, while others can call her Alan.

Does @ing on other websites trigger an email to the person being @ed?

OP - MNHQ have posted a reply.
Just drop it now. Life really is too short.

If I were you op I would just report anyone who does this after you have asked them not to.
Lots of people on this thread inc' Thingiemumsnet are missing the point rather.

Lots of people have different preferences depending on who is addressing them Dione and that's not unreasonable at all.

Happy to be called darling by your dad but not the man who runs the corner shop or Dione by your friends but Dr Diabolist by your students as random examples.

I agree that you should just report each time as lots of people think the @-ing is your issue not the continuing to address you in a way you've asked to stop.

If my dad, the bloke in the shop and my students were addressing me as MNetters on Mnet, I would expect them to address me as a Mnetter and I would do the same.

Your RL scenarios have no relevance to being to being asked to address a Mnetter differently because you are disagreeing with them.

Yeah, sorry OP, I think if you're using a site with *@mention*s you sort of have to be okay with people using it towards you. Even if you don't like some of them doing it.

It's weird though, every time I've seen someone ask another user not to *@mention them it's always been someone they don't agree with. Often there are other users on the thread also @mention*ing them and they don't complain about that.

I've seen threads in the past where someone "tells" someone not to @mention them it and it reads like they're trying to single out and "control" the behavior of that individual poster; it's felt a little like a power play. I don't like it when I see people ask really, it makes me uncomfortable.

If someone's obviously harassing/bullying another poster by whatever means their posts can be reported. But if a poster decides that some totally valid function of the site is harassment "to them", that's probably not enforceable.

I saw (but didn't participate) in a thread today (now deleted) that had what came across as full on tag team @-ing to posters who were actively participating on the thread so would presumably have noticed the comments if their names had been just bolded rather than tagged.

On that thread a couple of the @ recipients did ask the @-givers to stop @-ing them. On that particular thread it did, to my mind, come across that the @-givers were using it in a oi you there listen to me NOW..... oi, you there I haven't finished talking to you, listen to me AGAIN

But that may have been my reading of the thread not reality...

The introduction of @ is irritating

I reckon it’s the online equivalent of jabbing someone with your finger to get their attention

Just bold the name of you think it’ll be missed