Permanent posting bans

[NoSquirrels]

Presume a TAAT is OK in Site Stuff?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3801630-LangCleg

What are the criteria you use when permanently banning posters?

Thank you in advance. I am really shocked by this particular poster being banned.

Yes, let’s all hear the answer to this, please.

I'm shocked and disgusted

If we all report this thread to hopefully get some attention for it otherwise they won’t see it.

Hi all,

Thanks for raising this.

We never issue a permanent ban without reason. We try very hard to remind users of the talk guidelines and when these are broken regularly or disregarded on the boards, we have no choice but to consider banning. We only do this when we have to, and it's never an easy choice.

We're not able to discuss individual bans but please be assured we don't make these decisions lightly, and we discuss them at length before taking any action.

Appalling decision to ban one of the most reasonable posters on here.

Very poor form.

We're not able to discuss individual bans

Well, I guess I understand that on one level, but on another I must admit I think that's a massive cop-out.

I haven't ever seen LangCleg be anything other than reasoned in posts.

A permanent ban indicates either continued and persistent transgression of the rules over a period of time, surely?

We try very hard to remind users of the talk guidelines and when these are broken regularly or disregarded on the boards, we have no choice but to consider banning.

When they are broken regularly or disregarded, wouldn't it be suspension first?

I have no idea about the poster in question or the chat they were in, and make no comment of judgment on that.

A reminder: Mumsnet is its own entity and can do whatever the fuck it likes in its own forums, within the constricts of its EULA and privacy agreement with you.

Membership and posting is not a right. Unmoderated environments are almost invariably toxic hellholes. Mumsnet is a commercial entity that looks out first and foremost to its own bottom line.

Posters - all of us - are merely content generators to get eyeballs onto the site for advertising revenue. Anything else that happens as a side effect (and there's lots of positive stuff) is just that - a side effect.

Now carry on.

LilyMumsnet
People are targeting posters on fwr.
Please look at these screen shots from twitter.

A reminder: Mumsnet is its own entity and can do whatever the fuck it likes in its own forums, within the constricts of its EULA and privacy agreement with you.

Yes, of course. But if I want to be part of this community, lending my eyeballs and fingers to the content generation, I'd like to know what rules I'm expected to operate under, and if - even if I phrase things reasonably and politely - I am likely to get banned for having an opinion that MNHQ disagrees with.

I have no idea about the poster in question or the chat they were in, and make no comment of judgment on that.

A reminder: Mumsnet is its own entity and can do whatever the fuck it likes in its own forums, within the constricts of its EULA and privacy agreement with you.

Membership and posting is not a right. Unmoderated environments are almost invariably toxic hellholes. Mumsnet is a commercial entity that looks out first and foremost to its own bottom line.

Posters - all of us - are merely content generators to get eyeballs onto the site for advertising revenue. Anything else that happens as a side effect (and there's lots of positive stuff) is just that - a side effect.

Now carry on.

Not sure how any of that is relevant to a poster asking for clarification on MNHQs banning policy but at least you got it off your chest.

@NoSquirrels

A reminder: Mumsnet is its own entity and can do whatever the fuck it likes in its own forums, within the constricts of its EULA and privacy agreement with you.

Yes, of course. But if I want to be part of this community, lending my eyeballs and fingers to the content generation, I'd like to know what rules I'm expected to operate under, and if - even if I phrase things reasonably and politely - I am likely to get banned for having an opinion that MNHQ disagrees with.

Hi OP

We try and be as fair and as even-handed as we possibly can, and we would have had lots of chats with you prior to issuing to a permanent ban, we can assure you.

We mail with regards to deletions and within these mails, we do say that continuing to break talk guidelines may lead to suspension/banning, so we'd hope that it would never come to that stage (in that we've given plenty of warning).

But what is the thinking behind going straight to banning?

Was this poster suspended repeatedly? I cannot recall an instance of that.

Straight to ban is what is worrying, frankly.

I know you owe us nothing at all.
I know this "debate" is problematic for the site.

But this does not feel like a fair decision.

I have largely never commented on moderation, except in support of MNHQ.

I am rethinking based on a ban of this particular poster.

and we would have had lots of chats with you prior to issuing to a permanent ban, we can assure you.

Is this new policy going forward? It hasn’t been to date. Or at least certainly hasn’t always been applied. There are cases where posters have been banned without any warning. Or is the above alluding to what happened with Langcleg? You had lots of chats with her?

Is it still the case you have to have been here a while before you can post a thread in Sex? I think we need something like that where you can't just turn up and start posting or reporting on the feminism boards without some kind of history. It's just so open to abuse. That would be bad for people new to MN topic but they could still lurk.

We mail with regards to deletions and within these mails, we do say that continuing to break talk guidelines may lead to suspension/banning, so we'd hope that it would never come to that stage (in that we've given plenty of warning).

I had a post deleted on the webchat. The post disappeared quite quickly, but I didn't receive the message from mumsnet warning about suspension until nearly 3 hours later. If I had made more posts which broke talk guidelines during that time, would I have been suspended, even though they were made before I received the warning email?

@LilyMumsnet @MNHQ @MichaelMumsnet

Please look at WHO has been reporting LangCleg. I suspect a pattern will emerge.

Absolutely despicable MNHQ

You know specific posters are being targeted MNHQ^, this was such a disappointing decision.

That gloating tweet FFS

Who is running this show?

@LilyMumsnet "we would have had lots of chats with you prior to issuing to a permanent ban, we can assure you." you might want to double check that as it is not always the case. Sometimes it's one click

In this case we have people boasting how easy it is to get you to ban someone from their list. That can't be a desirable outcome surely.

It looks like MN is in a controlling relationship.

I've been suspended before and had to ask for a reason which was given 2 days later.

Really disappointed @MNHQ - Langcleg is a loss to FWR.

Well done, MN

Speak for yourself Joss. The only person I can see well placed as part of a wall is you.