Unofficial Draft Guide to RFF

[MrsStarkey]

Was I the only one that felt a little badly for the MN team member who tried to get our input in order to help build a guide for this forum recently? That didn’t go as planned!

Am in the only one who laughed about Justine’s “The Royal family forum
is deranged” comment and can take it in stride? That thread was definitely an example!

I am proposing we try again and help crowd source a guide. I just ask that we don’t be so RFF, and have a sense of humor while we do so. I’ll paste my draft attempt below. Everyone is welcome to contribute however they like.

A guide for the royal family forum.
Some points posters should know:

1. This is a robust community. If you plan to participate, know that you will be challenged.
2. Spelling and Grammar count.
3. Words mean things. Don’t use words unless you know what they mean. See rule 1.
4. You may start a thread but will not be able to control the content. All attempts will be futile.
5. If people ignore you that’s because they are not interested in what you are saying.
6. No whinging.
7. You probably aren’t the smartest person in the room. Get over it. See rule 1 again.
8. No simpering.
9. Gifs are allowed. Get over it.
10. Read the thread before contributing. If you post something redundant plan to be either corrected or ignored. See rule 1.
11. There is a great deal of wit and humor here. Consider laughing first and curbing the inclination to find offense.

This wasn't the only forum where the sudden demand for input for a guide didn't go down well (though unsurprisingly there were specific issues here).
Another example

I don't see how repeating the same thread will avoid repeating the same problems.

There are Talk guidelines already for the boards.

🤭

I'm not sure saying "get over it" will encourage people to join in with discussions.

Personally the only rules I think anyone needs online are:
Treat people in the way you wish to be treated
Don't feed those who live under bridges
Participation is voluntary no one owes or is owed engagement

Spot on!

Oh, is the point to encourage?

That was a good read! Thank you for posting it.
I think that group comes by their fiery responses honestly, too. Much more so than us!

Absolutely this!

I always believed the point of forums was the encourage discussion and that the rules are there to aid that purpose.

I don't think a guide is needed and was surprised when I saw the thread (even before it apparently went south).

Whatever happened to reading a thread or a forum as a whole and gauging the tone / intention before flapping your gums dipping a toe in in the old skool style?

I don't think it's needed either and there are already rules on mumsnet.

Don’t think we need guidelines either! And I don’t think it’s more spicy than other threads! Look at AMA or AIBU threads for real spiciness !

And as for policing SPAG on threads… that’s a def thumbs down from me!

How about " We all create typos. Get over it".

Oh good spot. I’d wondered if an original copy of that MNHQ post still existed in the wild, after we all got told off on the Dan Wootton thread by HebeMNHQ for pretty much those things that EleanorMNHQ was asking about and would help newcomers fit in.

Tell us how your … community works
Eleanoratmumsnet · 15/07/2026 13:24
What should a new joiner know about this community?

‘Tell us about the tone, how people support one another, and any unwritten rules, customs, traditions or in-jokes that help make this community what it is.
Reply to this thread to share your thoughts.’

👀

I saw that, too. Unwritten rules, customs and in-jokes? The original thread was a real missed opportunity!

I don't agree with no 4 or the guide for that matter, but I'm bored and have finished catching up

You may start a thread but will not be able to control the content. All attempts will be futile.

The reason I like this board is because the content for threads is, in general, controlled.

Mmmmmm. I think your list could benefit from a bit of interpretation for the unenlightened MrsStarkey… .

~For “robust” read “downright rude” “condescending” and “often unnecessarily goading and unpleasant”

~If you are a Republican, be prepared to be challenged by six posters all at once, at least two of whom take particular delight in jeering and derailing

~Republicans, or those who disagree with the majority view, are not allowed to control the content of a thread without several Monarchists communicating off-site and then returning to silence your posting through strategic, coordinated nit-picking and harassment worthy of a particularly antagonistic fifth form girls hockey team

~If you are Republican do not whinge about the above or report any of the posts by the usual offenders

~Be prepared to have eight or so posters tell you condescendingly that they are more intelligent, more witty, more informed, more versed in legal precedent, than you will ever be, several times a day and moreover that they are right 😬

~GIFs will be used frequently to derail or undermine and in-jokes will prevail

~Wit and humour is allowed but only if you are a Monarchist. Try a bit of jesting as a Republican and your posts will be willfully misunderstood and reported.

~Thankfully not all contributors to the RF board are the same and several are unfailingly polite and decent

Thank you <simpers> 😬😆

Where I can agree though is that I also feel badly for Mumsnet Towers.

In the interests of balance, it isn't only Republicans who have been targeted by multiple posters and several different groups appear to coordinate and discuss this forum in other places, it was once mentioned they on Reddit there is discussion of individual posters and threads.

I don't believe anyone, regardless of their beliefs about the monarchy, should be met with rude or condescending behaviour. It is disingenuous to suggest it only happens on one direction on the wheel of viewpoints.

I really wish I'd seen the original thread, must not go on holiday again!

I entirely agree that no one should be met with rude or condescending behaviour, and although it has happened the other way around, it happens much more frequently that the monarchists outweigh republicans and the “hazing” comes much more often from that direction. I think it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. All of the in jokes and gifs and derailing nonsense about cheese and pigeons have all come from monarchists for example,

There has been rudeness in the other direction and it mainly happens when the occasional royal thread is posted outside the RF board and lands in AIBU or chat. But mainly it is from the monarchist side or posters who say they are neutral but use unacceptable tactics to drown out any point that they perceive as anti-royal. I wouldn’t know about Reddit but I am talking about behaviour by a core group of regulars here.

I’m a long-standing Republican, and quite partial to seeing the end of the dreadful hanger-on ‘royal Houses’ of York and Sussex as well as (eventually and with careful consideration) the end to the institution of hereditary power. Can’t stand that ‘Republic’ shower, though.

Everyone’s pretty pleasant to me here, except for a handful of squaddies actually, who I assume like Prince Harry are monarchists. I’ve mentioned ‘pigeons’ a couple of times in response to obvious and tedious attempted derails and accompanying unnecessary snark, as it happens. From now on however I suppose I ought to be reporting directly to MNHQ, reminding them of their own post from EleanorMNHQ wanting the tea on the RF board in-jokes, traditions, evolved humour etc to help others fit in.

We all loathe Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, that’s consistent, I’d say. So there’s that.

Maybe we could see the end of AMW-related whataboutery? Tbh, that’s where I see the most worrying fault line on the RF board: the allegations allowed to stand that if you don’t support the Sussexes, you must support AMW. In fact, the whole ‘If this, then that …’ approach in general needs knocking on the head. Opinions, like arseholes, are varied.

good post.
BUT I don't like all the labels, republican/fan /Monarchist. most posters don't fall in to a neat category, just don't see things black or white.

Yeah, I don’t think the labels aka assumed/assigned stereotypes are helpful.

What even is a monarchist? Is it a holder of the beliefs of the political philosophy of monarchism as the most effective and stable system of government, or someone who likes the royal family?

An Instruction for Newcomers with an Alternative Mindset:

The Situation: If you post with different values, a different mindset, or an alternative opinion, you will at times encounter the phrases "don't feed the pigeons" or "don't feed those under the bridge."

The Response: These initial phrases are typically followed by a succession of similar comments and related GIFs from regular posters.

The Why: This collective repetition is designed to systematically shut down the conversation. By labeling an alternative viewpoint as a bad-faith "troll" or a "nuisance," it bypasses the need to engage with a different outlook.

The Outcome: Newcomers should be aware that this technique is used to maintain a single-perspective consensus. While it effectively closes down what could be an interesting, multi-perspective discussion, knowing the pattern helps you understand that your differing opinion is simply being managed rather than refuted

I agree with your points but change republicans to anyone with a different opinion.