Some users seemingly having "protected" status

[MatildaIThink]

Hey @MNHQ

Why do some users seemingly have "protected" status on here?

There are some who regularly troll, post comments which are deliberately unhelpful at best, often rude, sarcastic etc. yet their posts almost never get moderated. However when anyone replies to them in a similar tone, or disagreeing with them, those replies get "moderated" almost instantly, with replies moderated out of existence merely by the nature of disagreeing with them?

Why are certain posters allowed to get away with almost anything, what is the reason that they gain this special status?

Thanks

@HelplesslyHoping

MN has an entire section of the site dedicated to protected transphobes, if they don't care about deleting them then they won't care about people being sarcastic.

Do you mean "transphobes" in the sense that they want to see transsexuals abused or beaten up? Or do you mean "transphobes" in that they don't agree that a biologically male human can become a biologically female human?

@HelplesslyHoping

MN has an entire section of the site dedicated to protected transphobes, if they don't care about deleting them then they won't care about people being sarcastic.

Ah, the new alternative spelling of 'women concerned about woman's rights'.

They had little cheerleaders who came to attack anyone who dared take them to task

Yep the fawning used to make me feel queasy.
They had group chats away from MN where they would alert each other to threads they didn't agree with to encourage a pile on.
I used to stop posting or avoid threads where the in crowed were present. I couldn't be arsed with the condoned straight talking bullying.

I was called a pretentious judgemental head girl the other day, I was SO proud, even made a salad cat meme in honour. Hee hee hee.

HelplesslyHoping

I suppose it all depends on the collective definition.
In your view what is and isn't transphobic?

"Women & girls deserve single sex provisions"
"Humans cannot change sex"
"I hate transpeople and believe they should not have right"
Now I can guarantee that 1 if those statements is transphobic and would be deleted in an instant.

Which would you say is a transphobic statement Help?

MNHQ please be assured I am not transphobic but am using the statements above to highlight transphobia or statements of fact.

I'm fairly convinced that there is a poster who is either the celeb being talked about or one of their PR staff.

It does make me wonder if they've identified themselves and threatened litigation at some point as on the last thread, posts were disappearing quicker than Shergar at one point. Either that or someone messed up the mod rota and they had a full house on duty

@RubyTuesday70

I'm fairly convinced that there is a poster who is either the celeb being talked about or one of their PR staff.

It does make me wonder if they've identified themselves and threatened litigation at some point as on the last thread, posts were disappearing quicker than Shergar at one point. Either that or someone messed up the mod rota and they had a full house on duty

But which thread? [weeps]

If the guidelines were updated to prohibit posts which were not just direct attacks or contained inappropriate terminology but also were sarcastic, insensitive, obnoxiously rude, smug, self righteous or passive aggressive, the boards would be half empty.

There are many ways to be supportive yet plain-speaking without being an unpleasant twat about it and without swinging into "u OK hun" territory. But the modern way on the internet is to exercise as much competitive arseholery as possible. I know which names I look out for, and nobody ever bothers to call them out on their snidey swipes at other posters.

Hi all, there are some posts on this thread that speculate about named users - that's not really in the spirit of the site so we've removed them.

OP, we're not aware of anyone having 'protected status' - if you think the guidelines have been broken then please report and we'll take a look. As always, if you have any concern about a post or poster (or moderation decision) then please report and we'll get back to you as soon as pos.

@RubyTuesday70

I'm fairly convinced that there is a poster who is either the celeb being talked about or one of their PR staff.

It does make me wonder if they've identified themselves and threatened litigation at some point as on the last thread, posts were disappearing quicker than Shergar at one point. Either that or someone messed up the mod rota and they had a full house on duty

Can you blame them when they read rubbish about themselves?

It's an observable thing, but hq would never admit it. Its all part of the charm of MN though, innit
Don't let it get you down OP!

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

Hm... I'd have thought if someone is cited as an example (as it turns out, not actually a negative one), it would be much better to @ them properly than 'talk about them behind their back'.

Really? As in “I think you’re a bit of a twat, what do you think about that then?”

Sounds goady.

Well I think you just told me something here Mary :)

@MichaelMumsnet getting really trigger happy with the big red button today

Well, I've just witnessed@ErrolTheDragon being unkind on another thread!

But she did realise she'd mistyped and apologise immediately

Well I think you just told me something here Mary

Sorry?

I've wondered this too. It seems that if MNHQ don't agree with your opinion (even if it isn't offensive) then it gets deleted and you get the 'having a word' email.

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

Well I think you just told me something here Mary

Sorry?

Hmm, is there some secret code in what you wrote, perhaps?

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

Well I think you just told me something here Mary

Sorry?

No don't apologise. It's all good

I don’t know.

@Anordinarymum what did you mean?