2 threads taken down on the basis or 'promoting a website'

[TheShadowyFeminist]

@MNHQ please provide the parameters of how women can discuss the issues raised in the website that you feel is being promoted. Happy to not promote it, but I want to be able to discuss the issues.

Can you therefore clarify how we can do that within the rules?

Thank you

It wasn't promoting anything, it was information sharing.

So you can say "I've been using TeaTreeFace as a resource for ages now. Does anyone else like it?" (that being a very random website title).

But you can't say "Hey everyone, go over here to [TeaTreeFace.com]".

As that comes across as spammy. At least I think that's what the Talk Guidelines suggest.

We do allow users to mention other sites by way of a recommendation or if useful for a particular discussion - but we generally will remove posts or threads if it looks to us like attempt to promote something, which in this case it was. The thread was started by a new user, with the purpose to drive traffic to the site - so we removed it.

But @MNHQ the site is a relevant resource for FWR posters and useful for multiple existing and future discussions, and currently it appears that posters can't link to it at all whether they deliberately came to promote it or not. Could you please clarify, and explain?

Tumbleweed is not a good response to users asking how to post and remain within the guidelines @MNHQ

MN has been pivotal in leading campaigns promoting and protecting the rights of women and children. It prides itself on them.

Why is this one so different?

@MichaelMumsnet

We do allow users to mention other sites by way of a recommendation or if useful for a particular discussion - but we generally will remove posts or threads if it looks to us like attempt to promote something, which in this case it was. The thread was started by a new user, with the purpose to drive traffic to the site - so we removed it.

Sorry folks, not much more to add. It's best not to join in order to promote a site.

so the question remains that if I as an existing long term member posted a link to the site to inform other women of its existence would it be removed as promotion or would it remain as part of a discussion of an issue that is of great importance to women

The flippant tone of your response, Michael, certainly isn't 'in the spirit' given MN 'lapses' on security & data.

It's worth pointing out that given Mumsnet data breaches and unresolved data holding issues, a current member would have been foolish to have changed their user name to share information about a site which would be so likely to to be targetted by TRAs. As #RepealTheGRA is focussed on Safeguarding, clearly those involved are mindful this.

Given I'm not involved in the site but was interested in the content, which will no doubt prompt wider discussions, my take from this thread is that I'll not be deleted or banned for discussion in context with links if they illustrate or widen my point.

A straight answer would be far more helpful to all, so as to not have to comb through MNHQ posts to try and piece together what interpretation of the rules are, so members are clear on where rule breaches occur. I'm genuinely dismayed that MNHQ are disinterested in being either helpful or clear for the sake of wider members.

I find it incredulous that I can 'promote' a Boden skirt, link to it, drive traffic toward the site and it remains, but cant actually signpost anything useful?
Or are you afraid of losing posters from this forum to another? Because that is how it reads to me 🙄