Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

Mumsnet Grass Account

15 replies

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 06/05/2018 11:08

Have just grassed you up for banning them @MNHQ

They said "Mumsnet you left us no choice"

I think you are supposed to hang your heads in shame Grin

Mumsnet Grass Account
Go to post
MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:13

HI there

Our view here is that, while we cannot control the decisions of others to intrusively discuss individual children's genitals off board, we can and must control it on Mumsnet.

When discussing this issue, please find ways to do so which do not refer to individual children at all.

Some posts on these threads have also appeared, in making their point, to revel in detailing the procedures undergone. We won't allow this about individual children or as a generalisation - there is absolutely no need, and no room for manoeuvre or discussion on this, I'm afraid.

We'll remove posts which do so and we'll take a really dim view if people attempt to test the edges of our tolerance. We know you are motivated by a desire to protect children, but the impact on them is the same no matter who is intrusively speculating about these things.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:34

No @langcleg - we've deleted a post above which discussed the details of how genital surgery is performed on children in much more detail than was necessary, and we want everyone to understand where we're at with this. I've linked from another thread to here too, although as I said, this is not a woolly line where there is room to manoeuvre depending on context.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:36

@theuterati - we profoundly disagree. The rights of children to privacy trumps everything, however frustrating that might be. What others do is beyond our control.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:47

[quote TheUterati]@KateMNHQ So an account of what is involved in FGM would be equally unacceptable?
How does this violate the right to privacy of a child?[/quote]

A salacious account which focused on the sensational details wouldn't be okay.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 16:55

As I said above, @TheUterati, we cannot control what other adults allow children to do or say in public or on social media and we don't consider 'the public domain' to be our guide on this. We are doing what we think is the right thing to do. I did also ask people not to test the edges of our tolerance of this - we don't want to remove the ability to post on Mumsnet but we'll have to if individuals can't stay within the line on this.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 17:01

[quote LangCleg]@KateMumsnet - can I clarify?

Discussing individual minors who have had trans surgical intervention? NO.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in an objective, factual way? YES.

Discussing surgical intervention in trans minors generally in a way that could be seen as salacious? NO.

Have I got that right?

(I'm unlikely to discuss individual children myself but I see why other posters think it's important so want to get it straight on their behalf.)[/quote]

That's right @LangCleg. I'd add 'in a way that could be seen as salacious or sensationalist.'

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 17:24

I'm sorry you feel like that @TheUterati.

I think we've said a few times that we're thinking hard here about clarifying how the talk guidelines apply in practice on this general topic, and we're going to come back soon with more detail. We want to get it right, so we're keen not to rush it.

However, I think we've been very clear about what can't allow in relation to the discussion of children's genitals - only you can decide whether you can cope with these rules, but in all honestly if you can't take our deletions seriously then MN is not the place for you.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 17:45

@theuterati, there is nothing in that post which breaks TGs so of course we would allow it to stand.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 20:06

@OrchidInTheSun

You know *@katemumsnet* one thing that is very unclear is what the guidelines actually are. And how the mods apply them. There has been some massively inconsistent modding over the course of the last few days. On Friday, there were loads of deletions. Yesterday, loads of stuff that would have been deleted on Friday was allowed to stand. Today, the decision seems to have been reversed.

Can you tell us - and your fellow mods - what the rules actually are?

Listen, could everyone remember that it's pretty depressing to be sneered at/shouted at on a regular basis, and try to just lay off the goadyness towards the mod team? They do a phenomenal job in circumstances which are exceptionally challenging and complex, where they have to take minutely graded decisions which balance competing responsibilities on a minute by minute basis - thinking not only of our on guidelines but the context in which things are said. Honestly, the digs really do make us all feel rotten, and this board is really the only place where that happens quite relentlessly.

@Orchidinthesun, we've actually mentioned the fact that we are working on more concrete guidelines several times very recently, and in fact about 20 posts up I did so again:
"I think we've said a few times that we're thinking hard here about clarifying how the talk guidelines apply in practice on this general topic, and we're going to come back soon with more detail. We want to get it right, so we're keen not to rush it. "

I really don't agree that the moderation is all over the shop - decisions which appear to diverge almost always do so because the contexts are quite different, or because some particular phrase which is okay in certain circs has been weaponised and or used to goad, sensationalise, or deliberately inflame in another.

Reluctantly, though, we're realising that moderating flexibly for context and nuance is neither popular - as seen in the post I've quoted above - nor effective, in that people haven't really self-moderated in the way that we'd hoped. So as I said, we're thinking very carefully about how we can make more generic guidelines that will probably be less flexible and more black and white, but hopefully will be clearer and make the moderation of this board less challenging.

I'm ducking out now, thanks all.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 20:26

@SonicVersusGynaephobia

* And the reason you get it worst on this board is because this is the ONLY board that you are taking a ridiculous line on. Which is why people are so upset and annoyed by HQ's position here.

Well, it's been pretty relentless for about three years, Sonic. It could be that we've been making one crap decision after another for that length of time, yes . Or that we've been trying really really hard to find a middle ground where we can continue to allow people to express their views (one of the few places to try to do so) on a controversial and incredibly difficult topic, where one person's fact is another's hate speech.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 20:37

The thing is, Orchid - it's actually not the vexatious reports that are making life difficult - there are not that many of those and it's very clear when it happens. What makes things tough is the relentless pushing of the line by posters to see where the edges are.

And inevitably, a proportion of those posts end up on Twitter, making us look pretty awful to lots of reasonable people (ie certainly not just TRAs).

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 20:42

@Fairenuff

You need to be more professional. Get your house in order. Decide on your guidelines, be clear and enforce them. .

Gosh, I've said three times on this thread alone - we are currently considering what more concrete guidelines will look like.

Calling us unprofessional really is a dig that cannot but be taken personally by individual mods, so it would be great if we could avoid that if possible from now on.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 20:48

@Fairenuff

They are deleting posters for saying 'bless'.

How is that 'doing their best'?

We did row back on that and acknowledge that we'd been overzealous. But it's not reasonable, I don't think, to refust to acknowledge that those kinds of asides and digs can often be the difference between a simple statement of bio fact, say, and a post that is inflammatory and goady.

Actually, your tone there to me sounds pretty abrasive , Fairenuff. That's the kind of thing I'm saying is utterly disheartening for the mod team when it's as relentless as it is on here. I don't think it's necessary at all.

MNHQ

KateMumsnet · 06/05/2018 20:50

And now I'm going to go and have some dinner on my Sunday off. Not said to be passive aggressive, but genuinely to give you some insight into the amount of time and energy by individuals that goes into keeping this discussion possible.

Night all.

MNHQ

HebeMumsnet · 06/05/2018 23:16

Evening, everyone.

Thank you for continuing to keep this thread on the right side of Talk Guidelines. Just a reminder that we will have to delete posts that breach them, so we do appreciate your cooperation in posting in a pleasant and civil way that is conducive to fair discussion and free debate.

We've deleted a few posts by a previously banned poster here. Please do report any further issues. Thank you.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread