MNHQ: Please take another look at the posters who have been suspended

[BarrackerBarmer]

Hi MNHQ

I'm asking you, please, to take another look at recent bannings and suspensions, in particular those which occurred on a webchat without warning or communication, and especially those which did not breach talk guidelines, and were served on posters without strikes, or not at strike limits.

We have seen the recently added 'rule 3' which pertains specifically to webchats. However I don't think posters are aware that this may result in an immediate and permanent ban, nor does the rule seem to imply that.

I don't know if you have a review process to ensure that all bannings and suspensions are sound, but I'm hoping you do.

I'm respectfully requesting, in the interests of fairness, trust and respect between the moderation team and the posters here, that you take another look and see if there are any decisions which can be reconsidered.

I'm not naming posters specifically, because I think it may be counterproductive.

I hope you'll consider this request to take another look.

Thanks.

I support Barrackers post.

Me too.

I also support this request. Banning or suspending people for “wrong think” is a very worrying path to go down.

Me too

I agree too. Should this be in Site Stuff?

Posted in feminism in the hope that it wouldn't attract 'no smoke without fire' negative comments. And also because it's specifically all GC posters who have been banned I've reported my OP to MNHQ to bring it to their attention.

Adding support to Barracker's request.

Please Mumsnet?

I also agree with the OP and as Fallingirl says:

Banning or suspending people for “wrong think” is a very worrying path to go down.

I'm another in support of this.

Bump. I appreciate that MN is a private company but I don't think it appropriate to sensor posts on what is an ongoing political and humanitarian issue. Dissent is an important part of a rational society.

I hope they will review these decisions, not just the particular posts which were reported but consider the context and wider picture.

It has been clear for some time that some individual women are targetted.

I agree.

"We have seen the recently added 'rule 3' which pertains specifically to webchats"

Umm... I don't think I have? There's a new rule??

Ps, I agree

Adding my voice to this plea. It is feeling like debate is being stifled, now.

Please MN!

You have been brilliant in your willingness to alllow space for the GC, a debate which is now, and rightly gaining momentum. I completely understand your need to tread carefully. There has been a lot of trial and error, but I believe that we are all getting better at understanding where concerns lie, and so less likely to stray into conentious language or assertions.

May we have our pioneers back.

Me too

Me too

Live webchat guidelines

Rule 3. When there are already a number of questions on a single topic, MNHQ will usually ask for people to stop repeating the same question or point. Please follow their instructions to avoid deletion and possible suspension. Rest assured we will ALWAYS let the guest know that it's an area of concern to multiple users and will encourage them to engage with those questions (we learned that lesson with Gordon Brown and his biscuits).

Me too

Me too

And me

I agree.

And another in support and agreement.

I agree