Why aren’t “reverse” posters banned?

[harriethoyle]

There’s a long thread on AIBU about a friendship group. Lots of people reported it and MN suspended the thread to investigate but then said all was legit and reopened it.

OP has now said it’s a reverse. About 600 posts in. So actually the thread is total nonsense.

Why aren’t reverse posters banned? Lots of people engaged genuinely with that thread and it now turns out it’s not true despite MNHQ investigations.

Reverses surely aren’t in the spirit of the site. So why aren’t such posters banned?

I agree. I, along with many others, had posts deleted by MN for correctly questioning the truth of the posters claims, followed by threats of suspension by MNHQ. It was quite clear that the OP wasn't being truthful, as confirmed by her claims that the thread was a reverse.

I hate reverses. Find it completely pointless. Just tell the correct version.

Why should they be? You often get very different responses depending on the roles and genders. They are great for highlighting the bias of many on MN.

I tend to assume that reverse posters are manipulative, so I bear that in mind with whatever tale of woe they happen to be telling.

I’ve just gone to catch up on that thread and what strikes me is the level of detail in supposed conversations between “friend in the middle” and Emma, which Anna wouldn’t possibly know if “friend in the middle” was just sending cat videos and avoiding her.
So it can’t really be a reverse where OP is Anna, it’s jumped the shark.

What I find frustrating is, if we’re not allowed to point out an obvious troll (troll hunt) and MN don’t take concerns seriously or give obvious trolls the benefit of the doubt, it makes it pointless to engage with some threads at all.

What thread?

@keepincool I, along with many others, had posts deleted by MN for correctly questioning the truth of the posters claims, followed by threats of suspension by MNHQ

What? A thread was a reverse, you said ‘I think it’s a reverse’, MNHQ said ‘if you say that again we’ll suspend you plus we’ve deleted your posts’ then they said ‘yeah anyway it’s a reverse’?

That’s insane.

@keepincool I, along with many others, had posts deleted by MN for correctly questioning the truth of the posters claims, followed by threats of suspension by MNHQ

What? A thread was a reverse, you said ‘I think it’s a reverse’, MNHQ said ‘if you say that again we’ll suspend you plus we’ve deleted your posts’ then they said ‘yeah anyway it’s a reverse’?

That’s insane.

@keepincool I, along with many others, had posts deleted by MN for correctly questioning the truth of the posters claims, followed by threats of suspension by MNHQ

What? A thread was a reverse, you said ‘I think it’s a reverse’, MNHQ said ‘if you say that again we’ll suspend you plus we’ve deleted your posts’ then they said ‘yeah anyway it’s a reverse’?

That’s insane.

@keepincool I, along with many others, had posts deleted by MN for correctly questioning the truth of the posters claims, followed by threats of suspension by MNHQ

What? A thread was a reverse, you said ‘I think it’s a reverse’, MNHQ said ‘if you say that again we’ll suspend you plus we’ve deleted your posts’ then they said ‘yeah anyway it’s a reverse’?

That’s insane.

@keepincool I, along with many others, had posts deleted by MN for correctly questioning the truth of the posters claims, followed by threats of suspension by MNHQ

What? A thread was a reverse, you said ‘I think it’s a reverse’, MNHQ said ‘if you say that again we’ll suspend you plus we’ve deleted your posts’ then they said ‘yeah anyway it’s a reverse’?

That’s insane.

@keepincool I, along with many others, had posts deleted by MN for correctly questioning the truth of the posters claims, followed by threats of suspension by MNHQ

What? A thread was a reverse, you said ‘I think it’s a reverse’, MNHQ said ‘if you say that again we’ll suspend you plus we’ve deleted your posts’ then they said ‘yeah anyway it’s a reverse’?

That’s insane.

Me too.

I hate reverses too, even more so the obvious ones. I think it should be a ban-able offence.

The fact that she had another odd long-running thread about her ex and a ring, in which she also stated that she wrote articles for the online site Medium raised concern for me as did her drip feeding of posts on the new thread were just so ridiculously goading people into one particular line of response.

How on earth MNHQ emailed people to say that thread and the OP were above board is beyond me.

On a site where troll hunting is verboten it requires the admins to do their job better than they currently are.

They could only "highlight bias" if the same poster, using the same username, had replied to two different threads about similar situations where the only potentially significant variable is gender. I see frequent comments here insisting that a poster would get a very different response depending on their sex and/or the sex of others involved in their situation, but every time someone has been asked to provide and has actually provided an example of this, it's been two very different situations and not even the same poster making the possibly contradictory comments. I just mention this because it gets brought up strangely frequently, and in the rare cases I've seen where there is "evidence", it's always been bogus. Perhaps you have some good examples, though?

I agree.

@mnhq would you be able to explain why reverse posts are ok, please?

I don’t think that tag works, you have to tag individual people eg Becky or Jo. Have a look at a few recent Site Stuff threads, their proper tags should be there somewhere.

Plus, sorry for repeating my post six times, it didnt look like it had posted at all. Then I couldn’t say sorry at the time because it said I’d posted too many times and had to wait for a while 😆🤷‍♀️

This is the thread. The claims the OP was making didn't add up with information she'd shared in previous threads. A few of us pointed out the anomalies and our posts were deleted by MNHQ. As it turns out, our concerns were valid as the poster was being disingenuous (to put it politely)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5554525-am-i-wrong-to-stay-out-of-a-falling-out-between-two-friends

Bloody hell it’s still going…
I think it’s really unfair on good faith posters when MNHQ leave obvious troll posts up because then decent posters get frustrated to see other posters being misled, point out the obvious troll, and if they do it too many times in a undefined period, get banned or suspended themselves. Which obviously discourages honest posters and encourages low level trolls.

I like reverses if done well. A bit of variety is good.

@lilymumsnet seeing you moderated the thread in question perhaps you can explain the rationale?

I agree, they’re should be banned. And while we’re at it, can we ban the utterly unnecessary wank of assigning characters in threads names? It makes me even more cross.

Not even getting why it matters ifbits s reverse or not. And as for banning people- that's just stupid snd unnecessary.