Does MNHQ Check Our Inboxes?

[Chillyourbeans]

Just wondering. I received a private message and sent 2 replies and now the recipient has received a message from MNHQ saying the replies were removed at my request. Except that's not true, I made no such request.

*a subject within a forum title

And Castiel brings the drama!
You're husband would be disappointed.

I aim to please 😘

And an edit function could have fixed that 'you're'

All the members over there were asked to spam here to recruit members via PM

Really?

I'm a member of both sites - don't see a problem with that - but I haven't been asked by anyone to do anything.

If you mean one post by one poster, then that's one poster's view and it can be noted or ignored by others like any other individual poster's view.

If that's what you mean, then please take the time to clarify that because your comment makes it sound as though the Admin team over there have sent out a request to all users and that would be both untrue and misleading.

Oh OK, they're openly admitting to spamming the site then.

If that was in response to me? Then yes, they are. It’s right there on the thread.

I can’t see where they’ve denied it though?

I freely admit I provided a link MNHQ would probably have preferred me not to. What I want to know is how did MNHQ know about this exchange of messages? I couldn't actually give a flying fuck that they were deleted but I do want to know if MNHQ is routinely accessing my private messages or if this is a one off. I think that's a perfectly reasonable question.

The whole story is already here on the thread.

People were PMing the link about. Some MNers reported the messages as spam. MN ran a search to find the relevant messages. Then they deleted them. With a pro forma deletion message that didn’t quite fit the circs.

What’s the big deal? It’s exactly what you’d expect considering the message content.

This is all very clear now. Mystery solved.

Bemusing that some of you think Mumsnet is so high and mighty that it would own the phrase

No, not really. I was wondering about the legalities of making a copy of a well known brand.

Purely musing - MN did seem to be known for the Vipers Nest that was/is AIBU. I wondered if they had trademarked it. I know other sites have used it.

Like I also said, in the rest of that comment, I doubt MNHQ are worrying about this at all as they've bigger fish to fry and this will all blow over.

I'm leaving this thread, it's in poor taste. Mumsnet has 100 employees all of whom have their jobs up in the air through no fault of their own thanks to a world pandemic and vultures are trying to feast of the caucus. It's not very nice at all to kick mumsnet when they are down and opening admitting how much they struggle.

edit: carcass

Oh FGS 😂

Ah sorry. No. The Admin on the other site have absolutely no interest in spamming Mumsnet to get new membership.

It hasn't happened. I'm sure. Well as sure as I can be about random, faceless usernames on the Internet.

Members have been advising other members, openly, on how to spam - as per my screenshots.

I am sure the Admin and the members in question are entirely seperate.

I rescind my earlier comment m'lud.

People were PMing the link about.

Actually, some people might have been PMing the link about. That's their responsibility.

I haven't. I don't intend to. There's no more of a hive mind over there than there is on here.

It is not an MN rule that a member can belong to other social media sites.

I belong to both and intend to carry on doing so, observing the rules of both. What exactly is problematic about that?

The 'big deal' is I would like to know if they access messages as a matter of routine or whether it's a one off. I'm assuming it's a one off but clarification would be nice.

Mind you assuming there is an AIBU on the other site along with the similar look, It does beg the question of why they want to be same as MN in so many respects.

Does anyone know if I can use lamb stock as a base for pepper and chilli soup?

I have bags & bags of frozen lamb stock and a pile of peppers and they need to be married together somehow.

Send your bags to me I'm out of stock cubes and can't get any locally! I should think it will add a nice savoury edge to the soup. I'd use it!

Sorry, "not an MN rule that a member cannot belong to other social media sites".

Don't wish to misinform.

Bold fail

Right. I've now wasted over an hour on the Internet this morning. As enjoyable as it has been, I have made all the points I wish to make. A recap:

*the other site are spamming this site, it's annoying.
*Justine, although badly handled, has been open about their need for money.
*new forums pop up all the time, use them or don't, use both or don't
*casual reader beware - some of the more vocal pompom-wavers for the other site may not be above board.

Have a lovely Wednesday everyone.

That’s why I’m feeling quite so supportive of @MNHQ , @ulliva

The whole country is locked down and fed up. I think most MN staff are probably WFH and or juggling small people. Justine says the business is in financial difficulty. They don’t need an epic whinge about something personally reasonable they did in response to spamming.

for HQ

Incredible amount of hatred for Mumsnet on that new site!

I can understand not wanting to pay £5.00 a month, and I won't be, but why do people hope Mumsnet dies and think Justine should fuck off? Seems disproportionately extreme.

Perfectly reasonable, I mean. Not personally.

It does beg the question of why they want to be same as MN in so many respects.

Because the users and content of MN is very good. The conversation, the support, the engagement, the humour etc. It’s brilliant. That’s what they want to still have without the moderating situation that comes along with it at MN.

Send your bags to me I'm out of stock cubes and can't get any locally! I should think it will add a nice savoury edge to the soup. I'd use it!

I’m not sure your postman would thank me.

Okay. I don’t like the renegade clashing feeling of mixing flavours but I will try it. Thanks.

Of course there will be a financial angle to another site. As long as it doesn’t take the form of flashing adverts that take up half the page, slow the site down so much it’s unreadable and propose a two-tier system according to whether you can afford to subscribe or not, I’m fine with that.

That’s what they want to still have without the moderating situation that comes along with it at MN.

MN is incredibly popular. I do think the moderation is heavy handed but there is no way on earth you will evolve as a site without bringing in stringent moderation. You may get away with it while it remains relatively small but you won't if it becomes popular. You will either end up having to be being soft and cushy sweet like NM, or you'll put off moderate users.

And you forget the legal side of things.

Tattle is full of flashing gambling Ads etc. I'm not sure why people think the new site will be any different.