Tighter moderation - 2 suggestions

[Brefugee]

It appears that MN wants to tighten moderation here.

I have 3 suggestions that might help:

1. unhide the report button - if it is obvious a post can be reported it is more likely to actually be reported
2. a deletion message and reason to be sent to the user's account when a deletion has been made. Mostly people don't even realise they've had a post deleted (I found out by accident the other day, asked the reason and the answer was "oh, yes, we looked again and it was deleted in error we thought it said something it didn't" - i found that quite staggering tbh)
3. related to point 2 - the chance, for less egregious rule breaking (or "not in the spirit" deletions) to amend the post easily

One thing that puts me off reporting is I heard that reporting too much can result in a ban? I mean logic says no that’s not possible but..

It doesn't. I remember one of the mods saying that wouldn't happen.

Ok that’s good to know. I can’t recall why that came up now.

I'd like some acknowledgment that we're adults.

We can discuss sex.

And body parts.

I cannot believe some of the comments that have been deleted from myself and other users.

The comments were absolutely fine, but some MNers are such prudes they have to report posts about tummies and erections and sex lives.

MNHQ energies going into the wrong area imo.

Are the night mods allowed to delete posts or do they stack up for the day crew to deal with?

@justasking111 The Nightwatch can hide posts and threads where needed but generally a moderator will then review those in the morning and delete or reinstate as necessary.

Thank you to everyone else who has contributed suggestions on this thread so far - it's a subject that is very much on our radar at the moment so we will keep reading here (so please do continue to share your thoughts) and will discuss the ideas at MNHQ.

Agree that there will be equal misuse of the report button because of the Bean Soup effect. Named after an incident where a blogger posted a recipe for bean soup and got a massive backlash of comments saying "what if I don't like beans?"

There are so many threads that attract people who are offended by the topic under discussion. Instead of contributing meaningfully to the conversation, they simply report all comments that personally trigger them. Obvious ones being sexual topics, body image topics, SEN discussions, Harry & Meghan etc.

Another very unfair rule is in regards to troll-hunting. There was a thread a while back about a mother who was upset about being left out of trick or treating. She kept talking about a 5 year old daughter who clearly doesn't exist. A few posters found her previous comments where she only mentioned having 2 sons much younger in age. However all comments alerting readers that the OP was entirely fabricating the story were deleted, and the thread with well-meant replies to a fake story left to stand.

Deleting or banning accounts that correctly point out fake news is basically censorship. The trolls get far more protection than real users.

But where do you draw the line? i sometimes NC and alter details slightly when i want to ask a question simply because - well everything is for ever on the internet.

So even if it is an AI post or a "troll" or a bad-faith poster, if the question is the type of thing that people would generally want to know or talk about, and good advice is given, it should stand.

I know MN don't like to delete too many replies on a thread because of the Swiss Cheese effect, i don't know if they have a critical mass that needs to be reach before the entire thread is zapped.

I'm often on very early in the (UK) morning, and I frequently see "we're looking into it" - usually pretty quickly followed by the thread being restored or deleted. Not sure if the "night shift" can display the "looking into it" message when hiding the thread due to reports, or if the regular mods may be setting it on threads hidden overnight once they start work, but either way it seems to function effectively as a legitimate place holder in these situations. I find it less confusing than the thread just disappearing - and then maybe reappearing. If there are cases where "looking into it" remains out there longer-term, perhaps there could be a way for mods to do a periodic electronic "sweep" to make sure nothing has been left hidden/taken down temporarily for review for more than x hours?

That's a 'we have hidden this thread while we're looking into it' message which isn't the same as the brush-off 'we are looking into it' email you get when you report a post that they don't intend to do anything about.

If they email the offender every time they delete a message then it would massively increase the workload for HQ. Everyone would email back and challenge the deletions to defend themselves. I don't disagree with the idea but it would mean hiring more mods.

I also strongly suggest they bulk up the night team. Too much slips through the net in the twilight hours because they're down to a skeleton volunteer crew. Its shocking to me that a site as big as Mumsnet doesn't have consistent coverage at all hours. This is how those awful images were posted and remained up for so long.

No. The messaging can be completely automated. I am going to assume that MN mods have to leave a "paper trail" in case any deletions are challenged (as i did recently).

The report button has a selection of options, all the mod has to do is click "delete because yes, the report is correct" and the post is zapped and the poster gets a message. No additional work for the mods at all am assuming the devs at MN are capaple of that.

Consistent, proper rules. None of this "not in the spirit" bollocks. The spirit of mumsnet of late is completely different from the spirit of mumsnet 10 years ago, no matter how much that would be denied.

Automated email : Your comment [content] has been deleted because it breaks rule [no. and summary of rule]
Simple tick box for a moderator to fill when deleting a post.

I would also like to see moderators sign off on emails using their name (or pseudonym as may be used on MN). I think theres often an issue of certain moderators bringing personal thoughts into moderating, and they should be accountable. Many emails are signed off, but some aren't and on occasion where i have asked who I'm speaking to, it's refused or ignored.

Pay your nighttime staff.
Seriously, I don't know how clear that needs to be said. Using free labour as a multi million pound business not only contributes to inconsistent moderation, but it's fucking disgusting morally. Greedy and unethical.