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.

Has the John McDonnell webchat tomorrow been pulled? Can't find it in Active any more. Presumably the "new Rule 3" will be mentioned at some point on there to warn pp about it?

Olenna - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/3367889-Webchat-with-John-McDonnell-MP-Shadow-Chancellor-Tuesday-18-September-at-11am :)

It wasn't what happened on the SC thread Kate, no - I just mean it may be an issue going forward if it's a strict rule

Thanks for explaining that, KateMumsnet. Having not been on the thread I wasn't aware. So in future if mods think there have been more than enough questions on a single topic we'll get a warning. That works for me. I usually read threads before I post anyway.

Glad to hear most people will be reinstated. There appears to be a concerted attempt to get rid of some of our most articulate regulars.

I appreciate Mumsnet hosting these debates. I feel you will do well by it in future as it seems likely that the extremes of transactivism have a limited shelf life.

We're heavily involved in FWR but I think if you ask the average bod if men who identify as women should be showering with little girls you'll get a very blunt "No way". It's just that most people aren't even aware the debate is happening.

Mumsnet as the place of reason is a good look, particularly when it comes to child transition.

Thanks for your reply kate

Marzy had a few deletions in the thread for self ID questions, however..hes actual ban appeared to be for calling out gaslighting by staff. Her posts had been deleted, and then undeleted and then staff said that nothing had even been deleted in the first place. This was false. I feel maryz was well within her rights to call this behaviour out. It may have been a mistake, one mod might have deleted, and the other undeleted..but it did happen. And it was not until she started getting quite irate at the denials from staff that this happened that she was banned..so it was not about asking the same question over and over.

I continue to be grateful to HQ for allowing the discussion, but I think honestly the latest quideline update was just a shitshow, and ever since then moderation has been so erratic that members have no clue if they are coming or going.

Anyway, I highly suspect I am one of the next ones lined up for a ban..so probably shouldn't have said anything, but I really feel the treatment I saw of maryz in that thread to be so unfair. And I highly doubt shes been sending in abusive emails or anything behind the scenes (though as a mod on a busy forum, I agree that sometimes this does happen and the mods get the blame because members do not know about the behind the scenes behaviour)

Perhaps the webchat threads should be pre-moderated - not to filter out any issue, but to prevent too much repetition or one issue dominating the thread to the exclusion of others. I guess ideally there would be a way of aggregating similar questions so that the sense of the number of posters with the same concern, and more nuanced questions which I think can develop as a thread progresses aren't lost. No idea of the technicalities but trying to post-moderate a fast moving thread with many posters must be worse than cat herding.

I wasn't involved in the creasey thread but it may have been particularly problematic because it came up at too short notice?

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

This.

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

Also this.

Doesn’t this just highlight the need for women’s spaces perfectly?

I would just love to be in SC's head though. She must have read that thread. It was polite and passionate. It was not repetitive. The questions tackled different aspects of the issue. I'd like to think she had a bit of a shock and then a bit of a think.

Bolloxio

Maryz, to my mind is the paragon of a polite, assertive poster

Prawn

The thing was, the thread was only publicised that day, and the bill she was putting forward was the next day. It seemed to me that it really was a no-brainer that we would all agree with her, akin to someone asking: "Are puppies cute?" Well derr - yes of course (bear with me here)...

So really it seemed like a good opportunity to not just pat someone on the back for a great idea, but to drill down a bit on what Woman means. I don't understand how anyone doesn't understand how fundamentla it is to define your terms

I'd like to think she had a bit of a shock and then a bit of a think.

I admire your optimism, but no, she did not. Issues have repeatedly been raised with her on twitter and she is dismissive, patronising and arrogant.

fundamental

BTW, I don't mean you, I mean her. But that's not what she was expecting and she didn't have much time, and we were eager/desperate to talk about it

IAm

I am not on Twatter. Oh dear...

Wot they said.

See how desperate I am to not be disappointed - to think she'd be a bit thoughtful, able to take criticism, having a bad day; not so much of a politician

You do know which one Stella Creasy is, right?

IAm

I know her, but I don't know her IYSWIM.

I get that a lot of people asking about the same kind of thing can 'drown out' other questions (though in reality, guests just ignore the many same topic posts and cherrypick easier questions to answer) but honestly, I think this new 'rule' is about selfID/safeguarding/etc rather than anything else. I cannot imagine that if Corbyn stop shitting himself at the thought of MN and came on, multiple questions on antisemitism, for example would be censored.

Not sure how comfortable I am with effectively saying that ocne a few people have raised a question coming from one angle, anyone else who comes from that angle is punished. I guess I am thinking more of the NSPCC thread than the Creasy one there...given so many of the questions came from a (IMO obvious...) angle of 'safeguarding issues' and selfID is a huge problem right now fort safeguarding stuff, as much as the NSPCC wish to stick their heads in the sand to avoid answering questions on child protection.

Looking at the most recent Corbyn thread, if the self ID and antisemitism posts were premodded, he'd have been left with that one biscuit question...!!

Thanks Beyond

Agree with OP.

It's absolutely crucial that women are able to speak freely, using words that are accurate and which describe a situation accurately. To ban women from expressing important viewpoints and asking important questions is to allow a specific group of males with a particular agenda to dictate what women can and cannot say in public. I support the OP's request as I strongly believe some of the banned women should have their bans reconsidered and removed. In my opinion, to not do so is to seriously devalue Mumsnet as a forum for women to discuss urgent and important issues.

..to ban women from expressing important viewpoints and asking important questions is to allow...etc...

They were banned because they flouted the rules and weren't prepared to abide by terms and conditions at the time - that's the message that I'm getting from Mumsnet.

Mumsnet have repeated (and repeated and repeated) the reason for banning a number of times on this thread, but still posters are arguing that they were banned for 'wrongthink' or for being controversial.

Mumsnet have done a fantastic job with this forum. They have earned credibility in the media and with the general public BECAUSE they have been prepared to enforce rules and have been seen to enforce rules. Without those rules, this forum wouldn't have survived a series of civil actions.

Give the Mods a break, people.