Civility, reasonableness, and those rules

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

So, since I'm most likely on my way out anyway, why not start a conversation about this? I just received a warning/threat for posting a Widow Twanky joke (not directed at any specific person) in a thread. Not sure which one, because the very keen to enforce deference upon women person who sent it forgot to include a link to the thread they were complaining about, maybe Munroe Bergdorf and the silly FB ad? Anyway, apparently this breaks the guidelines, which does rather raise the point of whether those guidelines are in any way fit for purpose. You're trying to ban jokes? On this site? On any British site? You are aware that our pointed humor is somewhat of a national trait and something we're often admired for in other parts of the world?

I think that this is neither reasonable nor constructive, and I do not agree that it in any way helps to facilitate debate. I also do not think it's reasonable or constructive to have moderation that enables the targeting and therefore harassment of specific users with the aim of preventing them from participating in the debate. Numerous longtime commenters have been picked off this way, the most recent one being Lass (a person who I often disagreed with but respected, and who deserved the right to speak). This space is less interesting and less useful as a result of their being removed at the behest of angry TRAs and/or regular old blokes who don't like women critiquing the sex industry (which I assume is what happened to Lass).

Apparently MNHQ recently had a big internal conversation about this (or at least they said they were going to), and what has emerged is a continuance of the special rules that only apply to feminists being applied in a way that censors women's opinions and stifles debate in order to avoid upsetting male people with delicate egos. Do we think this is reasonable?

(If I vanish you know why - suspended for insubordination. If I can peak a few more people on the way out then I'm absolutely fine with that. I am still Spartacus.)

*had

Who was distressed by women sharing insights and support about raising kids?

Can people who dislike the forum not simply block it? Serious question.

Bump

So, insight please.
Which off these things was most likely to result in recent smack across the fingers from MN?
Calling a male professional 'mate?'
Using the slang term 'bloody'?
Calling gender ideology sexist and homophobic?
Calling male insistence on access to female resources 'a colonialist land grab?

*of

I'm assuming it's ok to talk about the content of deleted posts here as they're not in the context of the actual debate?

I had one deleted for not being civil. It pointed out that the "OP doesn't seem to be able to answer 99% of the questions on here" and sarcastically said that a garbled sentence I couldn't understand was "very clear" with the face. (I was confused!)

This was seen as verging on trollhunting - not my intention.

They said due to the fact they'd contacted me before I didn't get the benefit of the doubt. When I queried this (as I'd not received anything before) they said they'd been wrong and I hadn't been contacted before. Deleted post still deleted and strike still stood.

So I see it as arbitrary, and unfortunately a way to get anyone banned. I genuinely don't understand what is uncivil about what I wrote, at least not compared to nearly all other posts I see being sarcastic on MN. I'll probably name change more, I guess, but this doesn't stop people reporting posts.

Had been meaning to sign up to Premium but not until I understand what the rules are!

I've also sent an email to MNHQ asking for advice on how best to report or deal with persistent derailers. I spent quite a while composing the email to be even-handed and open to advice. No response.

I'm all for guidelines, they help keep debate civil and I don't envy MN moderators and am grateful for them.......here it comes

However, TRA activists are becoming more and more organised and their parameters for what constitutes transphobia are reaching into more and more areas, that it then becomes very difficult to defend any post.

I am very sad that some really good intelligent voices are gone because they are vital if we are ever to protect women and girls from the misogynistic mindsets trawling for comments to beat with baseball bats. Yes, we can carry on and their are some great voices here but dilution of debate isn't healthy

Yes me too. I replied to @MNHQ’s email informing me of my deletion to query it but no reply.

Deletion number one was I think for referring to people who may be watching threads and reporting - not even sure if I can say that without a deletion.

Deletion two was for using a phrase which was not banned until I used it and is still not on the banned list as far as I know. But it still got a deletion.

I think MNHQ could do with looking at their policies and tell us what we can and can’t say. Deleting us on the hoof when we have no way of knowing a phrase is unacceptable to third parties is not ok.

Oh and could we have some further discussion on how MNHQ respond to these third parties given that they police us so ferociously but do not have women’s or MNHQ’s best interests at heart.

I'm mostly a lurker, partly because I don't understand the intricacies of the unwritten rules. Hoping mumsnet HQ can provide some guidance on these issues for us inexperienced users.

I avoid ALL the things MN have told us to avoid. MN didn't tell me to avoid sharing my perceptions of a land grab. It might be uncivil to mention it, but it's even more uncivil to censor it. I am so tired of having my language - my non-abusive language - monitored and reported. I'm sure it's almost always a malicious reporting. Wish those who have nothing better to do than report women's voices would take a break. It doesn't help. It's not encouraging women to support TW. It's fostering resentment and undermining the rights of those desired/feared others, women.