TAATs (or not as the case may be)

[paxillin]

I understand MNHQ's stance on TAATs. If a poster wants to discuss a general issue, but someone on the thread (other than OP) is hell bent on making it a TAAT, should the whole thread go?

It seems unfair on the OP and an easy way to shut down any thread one doesn't like by posting things about another thread on it.

(I will come and haunt anyone making this one a TAAT.)

I imagine moderating isn't an exact science. Even if the op hadnt intended a thread to become a TAAT if it does indeed become that then surely mnhq have to zap?

Many things are 'unfair' online. I wouldn't sweat it if I were you

What thread is this about Pax? ;)

Exactly. As Chanel says, moderating isn’t an exact science.

You must know what the Mumsnet response to this will be, and has to be. A thread isn’t really necessary.

A TAAT, whether intended by the OP or not, needs to go. Mumsnet usually attempt deletions, in the first instance, until the point the thread is full of holes, and becomes difficult for others to follow or make sense of.

I appreciate moderation isn't an exact science. But it seems wrong a single determined poster can make a general thread into a TAAT, thus ending a useful discussion.

Deletion is usually the last resort in such cases. Is that fair? Possibly not. Necessary, yes.

Plenty of similar examples of threads derailed, hijacked, then deleted, though not instigated or intended by the OP. I don’t see much more Mumsnet could do in such cases.

Delete the poster who constantly tries to turn someone else's thread into a TAAT? Such an easy way to get rid of any inconvenient thread otherwise, just ask about a random thread a few times.

That does happen already, where a lone poster is obviously attempting to make trouble. It’s often when others join in and/or engage that the thread needs to go.

'Delete the poster who constantly tries to turn someone else's thread into a TAAT? '

They do, as molten says, but then others join in and mnhq must get sick of it so zap it. Its like those really annoying troll hunters who derail a thread by a faux innocent 'well this is unbelievable nice first post op' etc. Others join in so the whole thing goes.

Tis the internet op, can't always fix it.

I would like to hear HQ's response. Since this is Site Stuff, the one place other threads may be mentioned, I will be a bit more specific:

How come a timely discussion about begging threads was deleted because a single poster was like a cat on catnip? Christmas is coming up, scammers are gearing up. It would have been a useful reminder.

Maybe report your post to get their attention if it's only mnhq you want a response from?

Not only MNHQ, @ChanelPlease. Of course they are the ones who know why this seemed the right thing to do. They do respond to site stuff threads without reporting in my experience.

They can't say exactly how they will judge each individual situation .

If those with agendas either taat or troll hunters derail a thread they get zapped. That's kind of it really, not sure what you expect them to say.

I think it’s an interesting point as it happens.

I was unaware of this and would like a wider discussion.

If ‘just report’ was the answer to everything, Ss would be redundant.

I've seen this happen before and it doesn't seem fair on the OP to have the thread deleted if it is derailed by other posters making it a TAAT.

I hadn't read the whole thread, but had seen enough posters claiming never to have seen a scam thread to agree it was a timely warning.

I'd be interested in the explanation too.

With no wish to have paxillin haunt me, can I ask what thread this related to?

I think it’s an interesting question as it happens. There is a distinction between a blatant “oo what happened to the poster who found a secret mobile phone in her husband’s pocket?” and a genuine thread that gets derailed, possibly mischievously.

And as moderation isn’t an exact science, surely that’s even more reason not to have a simple black and white deletion rule.

There was a thread talking about moderation of begging threads by scammers, @continuallychargingmyphone. It was deleted because a poster kept banging on about a specific scammer rather than a general rule for all begging threads.

Hi all,
Yes, it was a useful discussion that was getting increasingly derailed.

We posted a warning on the thread and deleted a few posts that were deliberately pointed towards an individual. Several people kept returning to this theme, so we took the thread down.

Is it possible to lock threads so no-one else can comment but the content can still be read? This plus the deletion of some posts may allow others to benefit from the useful discussion?

I never understood why you can't have a TAAT...? Like why is it an issue..?

Shouldn’t the several people have been told to back off rather than the thread be deleted?