This is a bunfight with vulnerable posters...

[gooseberryroolz]

...and could really do with being hidden until HQ can deal.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2575619-Anybody-feel-like-a-fight?pg=1&messages=100

[gooseberryroolz]

Maybe 2 to cover 7 days, but yes 1 at a time would do it.

[Owllady]

I was on at 5 am every day this week and don't go to bed until 1 ish and the active convos hardly move. I imagine they'd have to pay one person

[Dontdrinkandfacebook]

Agree TTL

[TheTravellingLemon]

MNHQ are never going to divert a significant ongoing amount of funding for a a support side to the site.

I agree, and nor should they. It's way beyond their remit. That said, I do feel they are playing catchup in terms of their social responsibility. The site is now enormous, with thousands of people contributing 24 hours a day. To expect the staffing to reflect this doesn't seem unreasonable.

[ArkATerre]

MNHQ are never going to divert a significant ongoing amount of funding for a a support side to the site. They don't even see it as financially viable to have adequate paid staffers on round the clock.

[Intheprocess]

MN is not a free service provided gratis for the good of society, it's a free-at-the-point-of-use service that provides an important function but is ultimately run for income and profit. It is not a registered charity. We, the consumer, pay for it by viewing ads and responding to sponsored content.

Considering the nature of the forum, vulnerable people will post here and abusive people will target them from time-to-time. My feeling is that MN has a duty of care for the vulnerable people and that proper moderation should be round the clock with a lower threshold for banning / suspending members in certain threads.

I wonder if MN could be subdivided into two parts - one for loosely moderated fun, discussion, advice about daily life etc and one for closely moderated support of people with significant personal problems. The support side could be charitable, the other side for profit. This support section would be conceptually like a social media Samaritans / Relate / SANE hybrid with the community providing support instead of volunteers and the volunteers providing moderation and maybe even offering PM support for those who are obviously struggling. Members who don't quite get the vulnerability of others could be banned from one part of the forum but allowed to continue in the other.

Of course, this may impact on MN's revenue stream as MN would have to show any revenue from the charity side was spent appropriately. However, donations, tax breaks and volunteers may balance this out by reducing running costs. It would also be an ethical plus for those running the organisation.

[Owllady]

Surely a temporarily deleted thread is better than what happened this morning anyway?

[gooseberryroolz]

It's true. The worry always cited is that threads would be 'wrongly' automatically hidden. But really, so what?

The odd thread hidden that shouldn't have been in the early hours is no tragedy is it? It can be put right at 8am.

[emotionsecho]

Becca the suggestion by Posie has been made a number of times previously, in fact every time something like this happens (which is becoming ever more frequent), yet nothing ever, ever changes.

There are threads galore across the Boards and in Site Stuff making positive suggestions about this subject are you really serious this time in addressing the issue?

[ArkATerre]

Of course, gooseberry. I only mentioned it because so many people were concerned on this thread

[Footle]

A thread on the health board throws some light.

[BeccaMumsnet]

Why thank you Champagne! Thinking BaconMumsnet would be a top username as well

PosieReturningParker - we're going to have a discussion about all the different options, and this is certainly something to consider. Thank you for the suggestion.

[gooseberryroolz]

She is posting.

But let's observe Becca's request not to discuss named posters.

[ArkATerre]

Socks seems to be fine, going off her other thread.

[gooseberryroolz]

OMG I wandered off just before the chocolates!

Any left?

[PosieReturningParker]

Perhaps if a thread is reported a set number of times it automatically gets hidden or greyed until MNHQ have looked st it?

[Champagneformyrealfriends]

Not bacon! becca! Ignore my autocorrect

[Champagneformyrealfriends]

Of course you can have a biscuit bacon!

[londonrach]

Whoops forgot to attach...anyone else want one..

[londonrach]

No problem becca unless you prefer these.... (Ive still got xmas chocolate left)

[BeccaMumsnet]

Oooh yay, got here just in time. Thanks londonrach

[BeccaMumsnet]

Hi all - the thread has now been removed, and we sincerely apologise for the delay. We are going to be looking back into our Night Watch system and what we can do to improve over night.

Please do avoid discussing individual posters and we can keep this one going.

Can I have a chocolate biscuit pretty please?

[londonrach]

Throws chocolates at everyone on this thread!

[Jasonandyawegunorts]

Thank you Champagne

[bikingintherain]

I don't have any champagne. I'll make sure I put some on the shopping list. I do understand your point, but sometimes you have to work with what is available in the moment.