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 agree.

Me too. Please look into this, HQ.

I agree with Barracker as well.

Sticking my head out of the Lurking Dimension to add my voice in support. Some excellent and articulate posters have been banned and should be allowed back.

And me too

@GreenGloves

"One of the points we made was that 'intrusive discussion of an individual's genitals is likely to be deleted'. We felt that the title of your thread as well as several of your posts were in breach of these guidelines, which is why we've deleted the thread."

Adding my name to the lineup, thanks MNHQ.

There must be a way through this.

bump and support

Please have another look, MNHQ. It just doesn't feel 'right' for MN to ban good, intelligent, thoughtful women without the best reason in the world.

Thanks doedoe and others.

I would also like to add my support.

When Mumsnet brought the rules in, they were very much a lone island in a sea of anti-woman websites. Now more and more people are realising how anti-woman the TRA voices are, is it not time for Mumsnet to re-think allowing some of the more intelligent posters back on?

Needmoresleep

May we have our pioneers back.

I absolutely agree with this....(although I read it first as may we have our prisoners back)

Or our "take no prisoners" posters?

I had no idea about rule 3, having missed the Web chat but I've been guilty in the past of posting a question on a Web chat that's already been asked because I haven't had time to read the whole thread before the chat has ended.

Yes please MNHW. At risk of sounding like a petulant teenagers it's nto fair to change the rules part way through and start banning people as a result. And it's not fair for some mods to take one approach with posters, and some mods to take another.

Adding my support.

I support Barracker's post.

I'd also like to add that I'm aware of at least one person banned during the Stella Creasey debacle who was not informed of her suspension and has had no reply to her email(s) asking what had happened.

This cannot be right.

I would hate to lose the uniqueness that is MN.

Just to be clear folks - almost all of the suspensions were temporary, so most people will be able to post now. They were given to posters who repeatedly refused to follow a MNHQ request. We don't think that's unreasonable - it's hard to moderate if people really are unwilling to listen, and it's against our TGs.

One poster has chosen to dereg after we got in touch with them, and there were two permanent bans. We don't want to comment on individuals but the decision to remove someone's ability to post is really not taken lightly and is definitely not done on the basis of people's actions on one or two threads.

Our rules around civil debate are there to enable the kind of discussions which many other sites no longer allow. When people repeatedly say that they believe we are acting in bad faith or are being abusive, it's exhausting and pretty toxic for the people who work here. When it happens over and over again, it seems a bit pointless to continue that spiral and we'd rather call it a day.

Sorry - we know this isn't what you want to hear but we hope it explains where we're coming from a bit more clearly.

Thanks,
MNHQ

Well I had no idea about rule 3. If you're adding more you really need to highlight that there have been changes so that we can avoid falling foul. And yes, it is common to post something while you remember before reading an entire thread.

Sorry - we know this isn't what you want to hear but we hope it explains where we're coming from a bit more clearly

I think most people on the thread understand that you have made that decision

Its not like we want to hear 'we are reinstating everyone...yay!'

I would like to hear that on the, im sure rare, occasions when moderation has been over zealous that you are happy to revist and possibly reconsider

Ive had no personal problems with the moderators on here...the one time i was deleted and i thought it was unfair i emailed stating my position (and crying ) and the mod was kind enough to reinstate

But a pattern seems to be that some posters arent being told they are banned or indeed why and that is very unfair im sure you'll agree

People slip through the cracks...but there appears to be a bloody great crack over the FWR board

I agree

and there were two permanent bans. We don't want to comment on individuals but the decision to remove someone's ability to post is really not taken lightly and is definitely not done on the basis of people's actions on one or two threads

But what did they actually do?

I hadn’t seen rule three as well - people often just type a question without reading the full thread - would they be banned? That could be difficult to manage. Would people be given a warning first?

I think most of us, the majority of us, are trying in good faith to stick within the rules .