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

[Champagneformyrealfriends]

Not bacon! becca! Ignore my autocorrect

[PosieReturningParker]

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

[gooseberryroolz]

OMG I wandered off just before the chocolates!

Any left?

[ArkATerre]

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

[gooseberryroolz]

She is posting.

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

[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.

[Footle]

A thread on the health board throws some light.

[ArkATerre]

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

[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?

[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.

[Owllady]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Dontdrinkandfacebook]

Agree TTL

[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

[gooseberryroolz]

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