Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

Should MN consider a more robust approach to multiple deletions on a thread by the same poster?

7 replies

PassMeThePepperPlease · Today 10:03

I know this has been discussed before but I want to bring it up again as I think it is a problem which is seriously limiting the quality of discussion on some topics.

I’m not talking about the odd deletion here and there. I’ve had posts deleted, sometimes deservedly, sometimes not imo, but fair enough, but here and there, not 10 plus on the same thread.

I’m talking about posters who post multiple deletion worthy posts on the same thread and continue doing so after multiple deletions.

We don’t get notified of a deletion, and sometimes they happen after quite a time lag so the poster may have no idea which posts are being deleted and that they are being repeatedly deleted. They may not care. Why would they if there is no sanction and they are maybe not bothered about upsetting people? Most posters probably see a deletion as a warning to moderate their posts, but some clearly don’t.

If a poster is having 10 or 15 or more deletions on a thread, it is difficult to see that they are discussing the thread topic within the guidelines. If some of these are personal attacks, they are probably driving other people off the thread.

Wouldn’t it be sensible to

a) send a poster an automatic notification when they get a post deleted

and

b) have a rule that there is a limit to how many deletions a poster can receive on one particular thread before they can no longer post on that thread? Say 10, 15?

A warning notification could be sent after say 10 (or whatever) deletions that further deletions will remove the poster from the thread.

I know MN like to consider every case on it’s merits rather than have set rules which are automatically followed without looking at the specifics and I respect that, but I think a more robust response needs to be considered in these situations where posters are repeatedly breaking guidelines, often including personal attacks, with no sanction.

In my view this would not be stifling debate, as often these types of posters are actually preventing others from posting. It would give posters a chance to moderate their tone or comments so as to post within guidelines once they saw they had been deleted numerous times, and if they failed to do so they would not be able to continue that particular discussion.

At the moment as long as posters keep just to this side of getting their account banned, there seems to be no penalty for continually breaking the guidelines on a thread for those who aren’t bothered about being deleted.

I would be interested to hear other people’s thoughts and Mumsnet’s response to this suggestion.

OP posts:
PoisedUser · Today 12:11

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

PassMeThePepperPlease · Today 14:12

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Sometimes that may be the case, but I have seen threads which were active and fast moving tail off because one particular poster attacks anyone who disagrees with them so that most people give up, whereas if this was not allowed, the thread might continue to be a busy conversation with multiple posters.

Also on important topics (politics, human rights etc) I do think MN has some sort of moral responsibility to enable open and thoughtful discussion and I don’t believe MN always prioritises £££ over this.

OP posts:
Limeandfigs · Today 14:43

I'm sure it used to be a "three-strikes and you're on the naughty step" approach, even if you weren't outright banned you'd be temporarily suspended and given a warning.

It's not that hard to not get deleted. I do think there's lots of newer posters who don't familiarise themselves with the TGs though.

I think I'd prefer the three-strikes approach tbh.

JaneJeffer · Today 18:59

It’s interesting that the first reply was deleted but MN haven’t responded to the OP yet.

PassMeThePepperPlease · Today 20:05

JaneJeffer · Today 18:59

It’s interesting that the first reply was deleted but MN haven’t responded to the OP yet.

That post was very unnecessarily rude about MN. I don’t know why people use MN if they have such a low opinion of it.

Maybe they are waiting for more posts before they bother replying.

I’m surprised there have been so few replies. I expected more people to be interested in this problem.

OP posts:
PassMeThePepperPlease · Today 20:07

Limeandfigs · Today 14:43

I'm sure it used to be a "three-strikes and you're on the naughty step" approach, even if you weren't outright banned you'd be temporarily suspended and given a warning.

It's not that hard to not get deleted. I do think there's lots of newer posters who don't familiarise themselves with the TGs though.

I think I'd prefer the three-strikes approach tbh.

I’d forgotten about the temporary suspension option. That sounds a very good idea to me. A genuine sanction that might deter people from repeating their deletion-worthy posting style.

OP posts:
JaneJeffer · Today 20:21

Or how about a free for all instead of the random we’ll delete this today but the same thing will be fine to post tomorrow?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page