Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

MNHQ have commented on this thread

1 2 ··· 36 37 38 39 40 41

MNHQ have commented on this thread

Site stuff

If you (still) feel the need to discuss Moldies [part 2]

1008 replies

YetMoreTech · 31/12/2008 11:29

This thread is a continuation of this one. That one had become too big for its own boots the system to handle.

OP posts:

Report

onebatmotherofgoditschilly · 03/01/2009 10:12

Welliemum,
"That has its own ethical implications, about freedom of speech and association. Nobody has the right to control how other people communicate off board."

No, you misunderstand me welliemum - I was not suggesting that the only ethical position was for Moldies to have been prevented from setting up/joining the site.

I was exploring whether the truly ethical position would have been for Moldies to have restrained themselves from setting up/joining the site (since the nomination system could only ever be the lesser of two evils)

Do you see the difference?

hunkermunker · 03/01/2009 10:19

"taking the "top 150 most popular" Mumsnetters across to the new board"

MP, where was it said that this was what was happening? Don't put it in quotes, like it was the stated aim of the board fgs when it was not.

And you know what? Justine and Carrie are FINE with Moldies existence and have said so on several occasions. Perhaps we could ask them to post excerpts from emails Justine's sent on here - it might make their position MUCH clearer and stop the "I feel hurt on behalf of MNHQ" stuff that's coming up again and again. I shan't be posting them (obviously) - but I do think it might be nice if Justine or Carrie posted again to clarify their position, along the lines of what's been said to numerous Moldies.

daftpunk · 03/01/2009 10:20

i don't think anymore can be said about this...morningpaper has said it all perfectly.

i can't see how the moldies site will last though? how many people are on it 100? 200 maybe?..in time some of them will leave..who will they be replced by?....all the people they want are already there.....they can't keep hanging around on mn looking out for new people to nab...because now it's all out in the open they could be recruiting spys?

hunkermunker · 03/01/2009 10:24

MP hasn't said it perfectly at all, because she was there for ONE DAY. Would you trust someone to know exactly how a group of more than 100 people thought in a day? Or would you think "She saw a snapshot and placed her own interpretation on it, based upon preformed opinions of the people whose replies she read"? Which is more logical?

onebatmotherofgoditschilly · 03/01/2009 10:25

"
And you know what? Justine and Carrie are FINE with Moldies existence and have said so on several occasions."

We keep hearing this, Hunker - but I think there is a difference between J and C being gracious and being "fine" with it.

The post from Justine on the first of these threads specifically said that she had been very upset, but had come to terms with it.

sinkingfast · 03/01/2009 10:27

Can't be arsed to wade through all these threads again, but why doesn't Moldies open their membership to those with 5+ years posting history on MN, a name and address and a membership fee? That way you exclude random trolls, upset nobody and keep it small.

onebatmotherofgoditschilly · 03/01/2009 10:28

hunker - I think that one can easily come to a conclusion about the ethics of the basic structure of something in one day. Or indeed, in five minutes, as one MN-er did (whom I should check with before outing... )

LoneStranger · 03/01/2009 10:32

I dont disagree with you LM, but for me it is more than that. Not knowing that you are being judged is one thing, but not what the judgement criteria is and that criteria itself is not knowable and itself hinges on a poster being 'known' is off. It implies a hierarchical system that says that if a poster maintains their posting ID then they can be validly judged on the basis of the 'friends' they have made and the 'quality of thier posts'.

As I have said, i do not decide to use MN in that way for my own reasons. Does that put me to the bottom of the 'judgement' heap?

Actually, now i think about it, i suppose many of us feel that we have been MNs for a long time or a short time and it truly felt like Judgement Day came and were not given the opportuntiy to account for ourselves. Espescially those who have had others advocate of their behalf, for the verdict to be and not be told: " No, thou shalt not arise to Mouldies. Thou shalt remain a MN. Thou ist not (yet) worthy". And to push that analogy further, many of those in Mouldies are their by virtue of 'breaking bread' with certain others and not straying too far from the accepted path.

Hey I luuuurve MN and all that, and not giving Mouldies God-like status, but d'you know what i mean?

Oh and i forgot to say earlier that i actually used to enjoy threads that said: "Has anyone seen Blah Blah poster?" And then the thread would ascend into an update about what the person was doing and get all nostaligic in parts. I never (obviously) had such a thread about myself, but i found it really warming to know that MNs cared about each other in that way. Dont think such threads will be taken in the way that they were at the moment. It almost feels like people have a kind of fear about asking for other people, in case they are on the 'other site'. Shame.

daftpunk · 03/01/2009 10:33

i can tell it's wrong....and i haven't been there for one second!

i might be alot of things...unwordly/childlike (ummm..i wonder who called me that?)...but i would never have joined a site where some of my mates would be judged and told to get lost...all behind their backs...

Flightattendant7 · 03/01/2009 10:35

Hunker I don't think you can fairly say they are 'fine' with it on the basis of a few posts Justine made here initially - she said she cried herself to sleep!!

How on earth do you jump from that to 'fine'?

I'm sorry but when I first joined MN I was full of respect for some people, and the way they are talking now just makes me realise how wrong I was to hold them in such a loght. There is a lot of anger coming across that I don't feel is particularly defensible.

sinkingfast · 03/01/2009 10:36

I thought it was quite a good idea

Flightattendant7 · 03/01/2009 10:36

Lulu, you're right, it is probably the nastiest aspect of the whole thing. But I didn't know you were a member?

I hope you're not leaving MN, I'd miss you.

Dragonbrandybutter · 03/01/2009 10:37

don't worry sinkingfast.
everything i post on here is ignored as well.
best leave them to it.

sinkingfast · 03/01/2009 10:39

onebatmotherofgoditschilly · 03/01/2009 10:42

have we heard about huns and royalty yet? If this is to be the last of the threads we may as well get every ghastly detail out there in the public domain...

Each poster had a counter below their avatar. If other posters liked the quality of the post, they could add one 'royalty' point anonymously. If they didn't like it, they could add a 'hun' point anonymously.

No-one seemed to have a problem with it but me and most said they thought it was just a bit of fun, but I thought it added to the general feeling of judgeyness..

Or has this already been menitoned?

SueW · 03/01/2009 10:44

Lulumama people who were vetoed don't know!! They (we, i?) don't know whether their/our/my names ever came up so none the wiser.

So move on. Why torture oneself about whether anyone even considered thinking about inviting you to the party?!

Flightattendant7 · 03/01/2009 10:46

By Lulumamaloveslatkes on Sun 21-Dec-08 12:28:46
rev,i didn; tknow it existed until yesterdays thread

Lulu - set me straight! Are you a moldie, woman, or not??!

Flightattendant7 · 03/01/2009 10:51

OBM - that's pretty vile. Yeurgh.

Miyazaki · 03/01/2009 10:52

ergh onebat that is so bleurgh. I'm sure the intention was mitford in joke, but it's just tacky.

Tiggiwinkle · 03/01/2009 10:52

OBM-it is sounding worse and worse....

LoneStranger · 03/01/2009 10:54

OBM, please tell me you are joking. I am sitting here in disbelief. Never had any interest in what actaully happened there, as for me that was not the point. Now, thinking back to my last post, i find this all so disgusting.

BTW, cant see this thread ending when it hits 1000?

GeraldineMumsnet · 03/01/2009 10:55

Just to reiterate, as requested, that we understand if people felt hurt, because close bonds are formed on MN, but we have no problem with folks leaving/ establishing new groups. We're also praying hoping this particular discussion has pretty much run its course . And happy new year, by the way, as my first post this year!

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Flightattendant7 · 03/01/2009 10:58

Hi Geraldine

HNY to you as well!

Onebat, now just listen. If you had posted that 2 weeks ago we might have avoided at least 5,000 of the subsequent posts because people would have gone erm

no thankyou, we don't really want an invite.

Dragonbrandybutter · 03/01/2009 10:59

does it have tickers too?
arf.

Tiggiwinkle · 03/01/2009 11:00

Lonestranger-just to say I agree with the sentiments you expressed in your earlier post (the one you made in the early hours of this morning!).

Flip

1 2 ··· 36 37 38 39 40 41

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.