Mods discussing moderation with previously banned poster about getting current posters banned

[dolorsit]

@mumsnethq

I understand policy is not to discuss the banning of individual posters.

However a PBP is claiming they have been in discussion with two mods for two weeks which has led to the banning of a longstanding poster.

mobile.twitter.com/joss_prior/status/1219748635530944518

Can you confirm if it is policy to enter into discussion with banned posters about the moderation of other people's posts?

Also are Mumsnet aware that the issue of 'gaming' the FWR rules by networked external 'moderators' was raised by LangCleg last year in a discussion thread with @JustineMumsnet

Justine wrote "We don’t actually get a significant amount of reports from offsite (under 0.1% over the last 3 months) and the huge majority of concerns are directly reported posts from Mumsnet members"

LangCleg asked, But how many reports do you get from members who post rarely?

But how many reports do you get from members who aren't actively contributing to threads (ie are monitoring them)?

Do you have accounts that have been created mostly for reporting purposes?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/a3615349-Update-on-our-moderation-of-trans-rights-issues#87903106

Two members of the self-described FWR 'networked moderating group' were interviewed in Eve Livingston's December 2018 Vice article, 'How an Online Forum for Moms Became a Toxic Hotbed of Transphobia'

www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/a3mn9k/mumsnet-uk-mom-forum-terf-transphobia-feminism

What I'd like to know is whether there was any messaging about LangCleg between @HebeMumsnet and someone @MNHQ now realises is Joss Pryor. For example before the decision was made to ban LangCleg. To be honest I don't find the post by @MichaelMumsnet sufficiently clear.

Considering information re Lang's banning was discovered by MNetters on FWR through seeing those tweets it's very obvious that someone had access to information regarding HQ's decision, and someone knew Lang had been banned, and was in touch with or working with someone who started the celebrations at having 'taken her down'.

To be honest I don't find the post by @MichaelMumsnet sufficiently clear.

The one area in which MNHQ manages a level of consistency.

I would like a clear answer as to why Langley was banned and whether the external TRA moderating network was involved.
I am trying to be polite here but I am actually incandescent with rage at this ban.

I usually lurk on fwr threads but I am placemarking to see how Mumsnet responds.

Interesting

I don't believe it did happen

I think it's unlikely, given one of the mods named.
But I trust this site to keep my anonymity, because I share sensitive info about ROGD (for the purposes of helping other parents dealing with the same) and 'not believing' isn't good enough in terms of being reassured that our info is secure.

I would like it clearly stated by Mumsnet that in this case, no mods (including the named mods) either during work hours or in a private capacity, were 'in negotiations' about 'toxic names' on FWR.

It's not a lot to ask.

Suggesting ways in which mods could improve appears to be a violation of FWR special rule#5. We won’t allow aggressive or rude behaviour towards our moderation team.

Yesterday when I reported a personal attack I found out that the mod who responded did not recognize an ad hominum attack when reading it.
Since then I have been thinking about the number of ways in which mods have misread or misquoted content providers to justify giving them a strike or deleting a comment without notification or reasons given.

I have at times been asked by mods what exactly I thought constituted a violation in a reported post. And yet this banning of Lang is an example of asking over and over what the mods viewed as a generalization in violation of guidelines, only to be banned under special rule 5 and her question never answered.

The pattern of behavior displayed by MNHQ can no longer be dismissed as a misunderstanding.