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.

Rule 3 is a new rule that was added (weirdly to n the middle of the other Rules) following the Stella Creasy debacle

so most people will be able to post now

But have you told them this? Because I'm aware of more people than that who believe themselves to have been permanently banned.

In MNs defence the whole GC/self ID thing is truely weird.

Lots of shouty aggressive people quick to complain to MN or their advertisers. It is a debate that really should not be happening in this way. Almost everyone would prefer a process that said, "Lets review issues for TG people and try to resolve them, but in a way that fully protects the most vulnerable women and children, and ensures that necesscary womens' sex protections remain in place. "

Instead we have older women physically attacked, women's groups "no platformed" in Universities, Linda Bellos (ffs - the grand old dame of minority politics) facing private prosecution, apparently half the Cabinet and most of the opposition and media afraid to say anything, with bizarre twitter and other attacks on people who dare speak out.

Thank you MN. You are, and your mods, are really appreciated. I am sure you have had it from both "sides", and I suspect it has been pretty awful. .

I believe that with the help of some key media people, common sense is starting to gain a bit of traction. Something to be welcomed by women, parents of girls and those concerned about the vulnerable.

I think the Birds Eye response is best. Potato's to all. Can we have a new emoji.

Which webchat was this? What have I missed? How long was I down the gym this afternoon?

Its worth remembering that most of us on here don't know the full story. The mods may be behaving like tyrannical dictators but there might be more going on behind he scenes.

I used to mod (professionally, ie paid job) for a forum and we had a poster nice as pie on the forums, everyone thought they were a lovely soul that was supportive to everyone but this same poster used to send the most vile abuse to moderators when they had to step in due to dangerous content in her posts. She always spun it as a being a victim of vile moderation on the boards but we always tried so hard to support her and be polite and got nothing but abuse in return and eventually she was banned to MUCH anger on the forum.

Anyway, point is, there might be more going on behind the scenes that posters aren't telling us (of course there also might not) but we want never know he full story.

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

We think we've been in touch with everyone - if not, that's an error, and we're very sorry. If we've accidentally not mailed you please get in touch via [email protected] and we'll take a look.

But have you told them this? Because I'm aware of more people than that who believe themselves to have been permanently banned.

Yes, the mails we sent were clear that the suspensions were temporary - but we asked people to get back in touch with us first to confirm they were happy to stick withing TGs.

But Kate - you guys have issued suspensions on the basis of a fast-moving thread where nobody could keep up with what was happening, not communicated with the women suspended, and then added a post hoc rule to justify it.

I think perhaps those women might not want to send a supplicating email to you to work out whether or not you're going to reinstate posting privileges. I don't think I would be up for that, honestly.

It's not that they are sitting in a corner weeping because they've been banned. It's that we are missing them and want them to come back. Can't you just be proactive and invite them back? It's not that big a slice of humble pie to eat, is it?

I say this as a person who is doing her absolute best to abide by the rules and spend as little time as possible moaning about them on here because I understand that must be dispiriting for the mod team.

Yes, the mails we sent were clear that the suspensions were temporary - but we asked people to get back in touch with us first to confirm they were happy to stick withing TGs.

Fair enough. But I honestly think - as above - you must have accidentally missed some people out.

I didn't know what was going on at first, just that I couldn't log in & Forgotten Password wasn't working. I sent a couple of messages & HQ replied to my second one, maybe three days in?

At that point they asked me to agree to stick with Talk Guidelines and the suspension then lasted for a week after I responded. I don't know whether it would have taken longer for HQ to tell me what was happening if I hadn't asked.

@KateMumsnet

This is probably a stupid question, but if a banning or suspension decision is to be reviewed, is the review carried out by a different moderator, to ensure a fair review? Or does the original mod act without oversight?
Are there any checks and balances to keep consistency of moderation by mods taking a second opinion on each others' decisions?

Empress

Same here

Same here. No contact from MNHQ until I prodded them a day later

I was just logged out with nothing to indicate why

Are there any checks and balances to keep consistency of moderation by mods taking a second opinion on each others' decisions?

The mod team have systems for sense-checking one another on anything that isn't completely straightforward, yes, and it would be clear if anyone was out of step. Policy issues and more tricky threads are usually run past or moderated by senior team members.

I missed the whole Stella Creasey business and had never heard of Rule 3 before this thread. I could easily have got banned for something I didn't even know was prohibited.

Please MNHQ, if you're going to add to or alter the sticky at the top of FWR, alert us to any changes in the rules.

You say 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).

But it's impossible for MNHQ to say how many posters feel that concern unless they've been allowed to say so.

I can see MNHQ can get annoyed if, during a webchat, an individual makes numerous posts all demanding answers to the same question. But I can't see how someone asking a single question once can be treated as though they're behaving badly.

The last point I would make is that any embarrassment for either Mumsnet or the NSPCC following their PANTS event rests squarely on the shoulders of the NSPCC.

They should have been able to answer questions about safeguarding effortlessly. It should be core to their policy and values.

But they couldn't answer the question and I for one will never forget that. It was a big public admission of failure.

@BernardBlacksWineIcelolly

Same here. No contact from MNHQ until I prodded them a day later

I was just logged out with nothing to indicate why

It does sometimes take us a day or two to get in touch - usually because the thread in question will have pulled us away from other work which then becomes more pressing. And it would be a bit contrarian to prioritise users who've broken the rules...

Another voice in support.

Thanks @KateMumsnet for answering the second part.

And reviewing/reconsidering a suspension or ban?

Review done by the original moderator of the decision, or a different mod to get a second opinion?

I missed the whole Stella Creasey business and had never heard of Rule 3 before this thread. I could easily have got banned for something I didn't even know was prohibited.

It wouldn't have been easy to be suspended, prawn - you would have had to ignore lots of MNHQ posts saying 'please don't post any more comments on this issue'.

And reviewing/reconsidering a suspension or ban? Review done by the original moderator of the decision, or a different mod to get a second opinion?

There will usually have been more than one person feeding into the decision to suspend in the first place, so we wouldn't automatically review these decisions. Generally, too, we acknowledge that mods decisions will vary a bit - it's not realistic to expect them not to on a topic like this which is very complex. We ask mods to look at things through the lens of 'civil debate', and clearly that's not something that's fixed and rigid.

It'll get referred up for a final decision if there's a lot of discussion about whether it was the right decision. If it's on a broader issue - ie not just an individual suspension - we discuss it amongst the team and we're happy to row back if we feel we've gone in the wrong direction. But as we've said previously, we've given our policies overall an enormous amount of thought now, and we've come up with a set of principles that we think will allow us to continue hosting the discussion, and which we're going to be sticking to for the foreseeable future.

Will rule 3 (first time I've seen it "as a proper rule" too, though I did see it stated separately in the SC thread) also apply to other webchats/guest posts? Say people asking someone's favourite biscuit when 72 people have already asked the same thing?

But Kate, you'd only be ignoring if you were reading the thread. How often does someone pop up with a YABU 500 posts into a thread, when the OP acknowledged they were being a dick three days ago?

@BeyondAnOmnishambles

But Kate, you'd only be ignoring if you were reading the thread. How often does someone pop up with a YABU 500 posts into a thread, when the OP acknowledged they were being a dick three days ago?

Ah, this is very true Beyond - but in this case, that's not what was going on, honest. There were very few suspensions, and only for people who had clearly seen the requests but didn't want to do what was being asked.

I support Barracker. Women need to be able to speak frankly on issues which affect our rights.