The departure of dittany

[Pan]

I only know that she has left, and in her post she didn't say much as to why, though some people can speculate and imagine why.

Quite a few days ago (last weekend I think) there were threads that pinpointed the lack of consideration that MNHQ has toward the sort of trolls that infest the FS section from time to time - different in nature and purpose to your average troll that infects MN from time to time.

It may well be that d. is in contact with regular posters whom she trusts. I don't know.

What I do know is that d. was a fabulous source of invigoration and illumination to a lot of posters, myself included, though we didn't always agree with her.

I would like a review from MNHQ of their current "talk guidlines" policy, in order that the FS is provided with a consideration that recognises the particular vulnerability that it experiences.

D. left for her own reasons - but this presents itself as a sort of 'test case' for MN to respond sensitively.

Would anyone agree and post here in support of this?

I thought Justine was implacably opposed?

I might try to bribe her with cake. For a month's trial, even just in thus section. Just a teeny tiny trial. If it doesn't help, we can go back.

Trialling the hide poster option on here would be a great option.

someone indicated that JR had indicated this on another thread, but life is waay to short to go scrolling back up.

Pan no offence but your post above shouts male entitlement to me. OK, I agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with each individual poster hiding the threads of other posters. Fair enough.
But it is up to mn to decide who the trolls here, not you or me; sorry, but your posts really do remind me of a benign, well-meaning male telling the little ladies at mn what to do.
'Squirt them into oblivion' that sounds so aggressive.

Justine's last word on the subject :

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 12-Sep-11 13:41:06
Hi Lenin,
The problem with hide poster is that we just think it will cause terrible confusion. Folks reading threads won't necessarily be reading the same thread as some posts might be hidden and it could lead to all sorts of problems from a moderation pov imho [acronym overload]. I know reporting and ignoring isn't a perfect solution and it can be frustrating at times but we really think it's the best solution.
Thanks for the input as ever.

I think you are mistaken in that impression, Wamster. But it's an interesting opinion, considering your support for other male posters who many feel do use that tone.

LeB - okay, that clears that up! Sorry for the confusion.

Wam - not seeing where the male entitlement bit comes in. Simply trying to interpret HQ's approach.
And yes, the 'squirty' bit was supposed to be levitous and a leetle bit aggressive, yes it was.

Well the person behind this site has more or less said (IMO) that the hide poster option is a no-go. Fair enough, I hadn't seen it that way about it being confusing-she is right.
But even if she is not, I'd still say fair enough- her site, her rules, she calls the shots.

If MNHQ are reading - can we have an irony emoticon too?

indeed Wam - we agree on that. no 'entitlement' needed to do that. I had misread the post somewhere else obv.

I do see what Justine is saying, TBH.

I wish moderators would just comment on threads more. Getting an email saying they agree the comments aren't nice but won't delete because of talk guidelines, or that they're watching a poster very closely, or that they've warned this poster about language, is pretty common IME. But obviously, nothing happens on the thread, the reported post still stands, and most people will just assume it went unreported or was considered absolutely fine by HQ.

I'm no techie, but would it really take much longer than emailing back for them to go on the thread and issue a warning there?

go on then SAF - what's your conclusion to the silence? I did interpret it as 'seeing no need to change', or 'give them enough rope' sort of thing.

I think it's a shame that people looking back on threads will miss out on your wisdom, tbh, SAF. You write some incredibly insightful stuff. Or can be a bit of a windbag. But mostly the former

oh I seeeee! Yes it was a jump-to-conclusion, based on what I thought was being opted in the hide poster thing, but LeB straihgtened that one out.

Intervention sometimes would be nice LRD. It has to work both ways though. If someone isn't trolling but is accused of trolling then it would be nice if a mod could set it straight

saf, I am not mistaking you for another poster

wamster, why are you trying to pick every hole you can in pan's motives for posting this thread, bearing in mind your outrage on behalf of other male posters who accuse the Nasty Feminists doing it to them ?

I am genuinely confused, anybody might think you had a problem with male posters suggesting reasonable changes to a Parenting Site

of doing it to them

Obviously, mods can't prove someone isn't trolling. Only that they are (and they can't always prove that).

Well the 'active ingredient' of the OP isn't active anymore is it? It was worthwhile posting it, even if it tactically came to nought. But still d. will be a big loss, and people are still posting on her flounce thread to register that.