What’s the rules around asking questions in site stuff.

[Blackoutblinds]

Could you clarify please.

Thanks.

I would be interested in the answer to this too.

And me.

I don't understand, don't you just... ask? What's the backstory here?

Apparently. Not any more.

Despite site stuff being full of threads questioning decisions.

So if someone could clarify these rules I’d be very grateful.

That is just the issue, @CaligulaBlushed. Once the background is explained, it becomes a TAAT and will be deleted without explanation. Site Stuff is the place to ask about stuff, including about other threads, in a general manner. Or so I thought, but clarification would be useful.

I think a number of people had grave concerns about a recent thread and are not being permitted to air those concerns.

The best thing to do in cases like this is to email MNHQ directly. Then it won’t be deleted.

I don’t think that is the best thing to do. People have reported their concerns and have been given vague responses.

When discussion is shut down on the site all that happens is that it is pushed elsewhere.

I would agree if the thing that caused offence was done by email or pm, @SoupDragon. As it was done in public with hundreds posting and thousands reading, it might be better out in the open.

Is the thread this is about still up?

MNHQ will never allow discussion questioning their decision to allow (or delete) contentious threads. It can be irritating if you feel strongly about an issue or motivations of a poster, but they always try to tidy it all away with no further explanation.

This is not about any particular thread.

It’s about what’s allowed on site stuff.

Hi folks

We don't have a particular set of rules that we apply to moderating threads in site stuff, but our talk guidelines do still apply.

In this case, the thread being discussed had been taken down, so there was no further risk to other users (though just to be clear - we found nothing out of order behind the scenes). It felt as though the deleted SS thread was really there to rake over the deleted thread, and that pushed it into TAAT territory.

Cheers all,
MNHQ

Threads about particular threads aren’t allowed on Site Stuff.

Saucery that’s not true.

There are threads in site stuff about specific threads. Shall I link them?

Thank you Kate but there have been discussions here before in site stuff about deleted threads.

Are we not allowed to do that anymore?

If you like.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3376844-Since-when-do-we-just-delete-threads-where-some-one-needs-help

Here’s one

And another

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3374356-deletion-message

And one more

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3372886-Is-there-a-there-a-period-troll

I could go on, but there’s loads. And always has been.

So, one that didn’t have an accurate deletion message and one that clearly breached guidelines on talking about suicide.
They are different than the recent one. The more ambiguity there is about the veracity of a thread the more likely MNHQ are to dig their heels in and stop TAATs.

And this one

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3356913-MNHQ-We-Have-a-Problem

Sorry on iPad and c&p doesn’t work well.

I emailed MNHQ once when I thought a thread deletion was wrong. They reinstated the thread.

Yes, there are often threads in site stuff discussing moderation issues arising from deleted threads - but we felt that this one was really about raking over the deleted thread itself and rehashing it, ie a TAAT.

though just to be clear - we found nothing out of order behind the scenes

Can you talk at all about what kind of things behind the scenes might be considered evidence that all’s not right? (In general terms, of course, wouldn’t expect you to share details of specifics.)

I ask because sometimes it feels as though people are only deleted for being really really really obvious trolls or being PBP, and that’s it. Which makes you wonder if it’s worth reporting for anything else, like eg “is talking about ongoing IVF on one board while saying she’s 30 weeks pregnant on another”? (One I’ve reported in the past, not a current thread.)