Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

TAATs in this topic?

21 replies

PurpleDaisies · 03/07/2019 22:25

Just seen a thread on site stuff deleted as a TAAT.

Scrolling through the topic, there are lots of threads about threads that have verb allowed to stand.

What’s the policy? Surely it should be consistent...

OP posts:
PurpleDaisies · 03/07/2019 22:26

^been not verb!

OP posts:
truthisarevolutionaryact · 03/07/2019 22:31

Please clarify MNHQ? I also can see numerous threads on Site Stuff allowed to stand?
Is it a subject based decision that allows these threads to stand?
Is it based on who reports threads?

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 03/07/2019 22:36

Jinx PurpleDaisies - great minds think alike

my face looks just like this Confused but less yellow and with some hair

PurpleDaisies · 03/07/2019 22:37

Literally just spotted your thread! Must have been writing them at the same time Smile

OP posts:
BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 03/07/2019 22:42

the site is running diabolically slowly this evening, not surprised we passed each other!

truthisarevolutionaryact · 03/07/2019 22:45

Glad it's not just me with the site running slowly. Hopefully there'll be some clarification tomorrow.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 03/07/2019 22:48

now I've watched the extra time in the netherlands / sweeden match, I'm off to bed

truthisarevolutionaryact · 04/07/2019 08:36

Good morning MNHQ.
It would be good to get these 2 issues clarified:

  1. What is the policy about using Site stuff to ask about thread deletions given that there are numerous threads still standing about thread deletions?
  1. Does it apply to all the boards and topics or are there exceptions?

Not mentioning any specific threads so hopefully this is allowed to stand?

Many thanks.

MichaelMumsnet · 04/07/2019 10:46

We try to be flexible - Site Stuff is often used to ask about policy and guidelines, but when a thread is started to rehash the contents of another thread (usually one that's ended in a bunfight) we tend to take those down as TAATs.

PurpleDaisies · 04/07/2019 10:58

That didn’t happen on the one that went down

OP posts:
BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 04/07/2019 11:03

Hi Michael, thanks for the reply

the first safe schools alliance website thread did not get rowdy afaik

A poster claimed that they had complained about the SSA thread as it was ‘advertising’

A thread was started in site stuff to ask for clarification on why the SSA thread was removed

Then the site stuff thread was removed which left a lot of people pretty Confused I think

It would be good to understand

1)why the original SSA thread was removed
2) why the site stuff thread was removed

Thank you!

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 04/07/2019 11:54

from the post from a user on the duplicate thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3628840-when-is-a-TAAT-in-site-stuff-OK-and-when-isnt-it

it seems that the original thread wasn't deleted because it turned into a bunfight, so now I'm really Confused

LangCleg · 04/07/2019 12:02

Hi Michael

Here is why the original thread got reported:

twitter.com/mimmymum/status/1146403830059417602

twitter.com/LGBTLincs/status/1146427580779773952

twitter.com/PhdYvee/status/1146434226507669506

You have told us recently that very few reports are external and so we don't need to worry about hostile/inimical external monitoring on FWR. But it appears that the report here came from a person who basically maintains an MN account to report stuff that transactivists on Twitter who monitor FWR have decided they dislike.

Is that really "in the spirit" do you think?

truthisarevolutionaryact · 04/07/2019 12:08

Michael
I posted the site stuff thread and I don't believe that I rehashed any of the issues - it was a polite request asking why the original thread had been removed?
Please could you advise how it 'rehashed the issues' as that will help posters (and me) in the future avoid repeating the same error?

Thank you very much.

MichaelMumsnet · 04/07/2019 12:21

Hi again. The first thread was removed because it broke our guidelines on advertising and promotion.

The second thread was a TAAT asking why it had been removed - our standard approach is to leave a deletion message saying something like, 'If you have any questions about deleted threads, please do get in touch with us off the boards and we'll do our best to help'.

LangCleg · 04/07/2019 12:40

Hi again Michael

Can I ask again that you take a look at those tweets? It clearly shows that a prominent transactivist put a call out onto Twitter about a post on FWR that she didn't like. Another transactivist suggested a method of reporting it involving the twisting of the spirit of the rules about commercial promotion. A third transactivist who maintains an MN account but rarely posts, obliged with a report and then posted a screenshot of Anya's reply to the report.

It took me less than two minutes of looking to work out that this is what had happened.

Can you see why this sort of thing makes us believe that you are acting as proxies of coercive controllers? Do you really think this is in the spirit of Mumsnet?

I'm sorry to bang on, but I really hope you guys can see and understand the dynamics at play here.

PurpleDaisies · 04/07/2019 12:47

The second thread was a TAAT asking why it had been removed

As I said before, site stuff is full of those sorts of threads. I don’t understand why not a select few seem to get deleted.

Your policy should be fair and consistent.

OP posts:
Datun · 04/07/2019 13:22

How can something be advertising, if it's not for any kind of commercial gain?

Posters come here all the time who represent groups.

I don't get it.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 04/07/2019 13:28

It feels like an individual made an inconsistent decision here and MNHQ are (quite rightly) not hanging a member of staff out to dry. It's inevitable bearing in mind the number of complex decisions the mods here make everyday that not all of them will be spot on

as someone who has made many a misstep at work of varying degrees and had to deal with the consequences, I speak with feeling and experience!

But you learn from your mistakes, otherwise they're just mistakes.

I feel a bit like I'm looking at one of those magic eye pictures that only some people can see

because it looks to me like people who don't contribute and interact in good faith with the community here are using MNHQ to exercise coercive control over the community, to stop them talking about certain things

Sad
R0wantrees · 04/07/2019 15:08

Posters come here all the time who represent groups.

#ManFriday & the parliamentary petition started by a MN user who was also part of the group played an important role in the Govt having a public consultation on gender self id & more significantly, the Govt announcing that sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act would not be changed.

this is James Kirkup (Spectator journalist) summary of events: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

JoMumsnet · 04/07/2019 17:42

Just to clear up a few of the questions that are being asked here and on the thread in Feminism Chat - Safe Schools Alliance (which we'll be posting on too). As Michael's said above, we removed the original thread because our site rules state we don't allow organisations to post primarily to promote themselves. Here's the full text from our Talk Guidelines -

We have no problem with people posting the odd link to other sites/blogs that other posters might find useful or interesting. But we'll delete anyone's attempts to spam the boards with links, as a way of promoting their own product, services, survey or e-petition, as it annoys our members.

We only allow fundraising for registered charities to be promoted on our Talk boards - and these threads should be posted on the Charities noticeboard. This is in the interest of protecting our users as we aren't able to vouch for or endorse individuals running crowdfunding campaigns or anything along those lines.

This is a blanket rule, regardless of how worthy an organisation or a cause may be.

As you'll see if you click on the link above, the thread about SSAUK is still very much up and running, and we have no problem with people discussing Safe Schools Alliance UK and the work they do, nor with anyone linking to their website. We're not trying to shut down discussion, but we have to apply our guidelines consistently.

We've been in touch with SSAUK behind the scenes to explain our position and are happy to talk further.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread