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.)

I just wanted to add the following:

A friend of mine got banned for posting something pretty innocuous. Probably along the same lines as a Panto Dame comment.

The Mod who responded to the appeal said they were having a meeting about whether it broke the new rules or not.

A - the rule was made after the comment so my friend couldn't have known about the rule as it hadn't happened yet. It was applied retrospectively.

B - if the MODERATING TEAM have to have a meeting about a rule, and whether a comment does or doesn't break that rule, how on Goddess's Green Earth are the users supposed to know whether it does or doesn't break a rule?

They never got back to her, never undid the temporary suspension and that was that.

They never got back to her, never undid the temporary suspension and that was that

unbelievably uncivil. It seems only men warrant civility MNHQ?

I mean, I don't object to following rules that are clear, reasonable, and fairly applied. If "no swearing" was a rule I might think it was a bit silly but it's easy enough to comply with that. It's the deliberate creation of an atmosphere in which users are expected to walk on eggshells at all times, consider carefully each comment before they make it and consult the rules to ensure they're in compliance, and then meekly apologize and ask for forgiveness if this particular case happens to trigger a report even though other similar comments didn't.

Leaving for a good while and then coming back really makes it obvious what a stilted, unnatural atmosphere that is. It's like talking to the ex who you broke up with because they were too controlling - it doesn't take long for them to remind you why you left. Which is a shame, because this could be a very useful space, and many people clearly want it to be.

It is sad to see Mumsnet mods behaving much like the police at last night's WPUK meeting in Brighton

(Crazy aggressive arseholes bang on windows/report anyone who they feel is insufficiently deferential)

"Why are you making these nice people bang on your windows/obsessively monitor what you say for signs that you don't believe in fairies?"

being consumed by a fetish is not a healthy way to live. we saw with the NSPCC rubber pup, it can lead you to make choices which jeopardise your livelihood (or should). In the case of AGP men it could lead to damaging their bodies with hormones and surgery

If a little sniggering helps them to come to their senses before making life changing decisions then I would consider that a kindness in the long run

and come to their senses before (in many cases) throwing a grenade into their children's lives

There must be some payoff to the policy though - although it’s not clear to me what.

Because currently unique voices are being lost over minor infractions (eg Lass was a strong dissenter, Girl was chill, Jess was forthright, Floral was measured - and I never saw them being goady in the least!)

I find it really wrong that women are forced to mis-sex anyone.

Agreed. It's like insisting we all say the sky is green, even though we can see it's blue. It's that level of denial of reality. We evolved to be able to tell the male sex, it's an intrinsic instinct. It's REALLY abusive to compel our speech in this way.

I don't believe in gender. Therefore I use sex-based pronouns, as has been the norm for all of recent history (probably the whole of history in which we've had speech involving pronouns though I don't have time to verify that)

I'm not going to change so that I can be sexually harassed by someone wanting to rope me into his fetish.

The best they're ever going to get from me is avoiding pronouns altogether.

You're eventually going to slip up and use pronouns anyway though, because it's built into the language. If this is MNs suggesed workaround it's a clumsy, awkward one that imposes and undue burden on users and hinders communication.

Well!

*We're sorry we left out the link to your deleted post. We won't be reinstating it though, as it broke our guidelines - specifically:
We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

This is a challenging issue to moderate, and in order to keep hosting it, we ask users to abide by basic principles of civil and constructive debate. Posts comparing trans people to pantomime dames don't help that cause, to be honest. While we're here, we should also remind you that our guidelines also say we won’t allow aggressive or rude behaviour towards our moderation team who are doing their utmost to keep this discussion going - so please bear that in mind.*

derogatory or aggressive

Two words that sum up many posts on AIBU quite well there.

It's going to look strange when all those posts get deleted too...

I do sometimes feel like going on a reporting spree in AIBU

except the solution to women being censored is not to censor other women

Tempting though

If mentioning Widow Twanky was enough for the post to be reported, then it has really touched a nerve.

The mods should have simply rejected the reporters request.

Will there be protesters outside pantomime theatres at Christmas.

Will there be a pantomime dame appearing at Brighton this year.

No because they don't go for the men.

But that’s just it, isn’t it, DickKerr?

MNHQ doesn’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people

So all those other posts, on AIBU, chat, in the doghouse (does it still kick off in there?) and so on are perfectly safe, because, well, umm, double standards, innit?

Fine to post practically anything you like if it’s about a sleb, or the royals, or even towards each other, as long as it’s not towards trans people, cos, well, cos they is trans.

Pretty much proves that FWR (or posters well known in FWR) is being held to a different standard than most of the site

And again my question is why? If there's a legal reason then MNHQ might find themselves getting a more sympathetic response if they'd say so. Right now it just comes across as a blatant double standard and a prioritizing of men over women.

Sorry my post should read...

Will there be protesters outside pantomime theatres at Christmas.
No because they don't go for the men.

Again, to reiterate, my real issue here isn't with the deletions, silly as they are. It's with the pattern of commenters being given escalating warnings until finally being banned because a. they get reported a lot (this has happened to many of the more outspoken commenters) and b. they then show insufficient repentance and deference to the mods giving them the talking to about not being good girls.

It's just a deeply unhealthy pattern and it's led to the loss of many good people.

Interesting. I got deleted for saying that I would not feel safe in the bathroom with a certain subset of TW - namely the “macho ma’ams.”

I explained that NATWALT, but this subset represents a safeguarding issue which we need to discuss. I asked how to describe this subset without breaching guidelines, but answer there came none.

Are the people reporting deliberately picking off posters one by one?

And the problem is that what you were saying is a. true and b. very very common. I'd feel safe in a toilet with Blaire White. I would not feel safe with the demographic you're referring to. Nor would most women, because large angry aggressive males are a threat to women and we all know it. Apparently pointing this out is uncivil? Well then, I guess we little ladies better remember that our feelings don't matter at all. On a feminist forum, on a parenting site for women.

We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

But they do allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards other people. Categorically. What a shambles of the 'by parents for parents' tagline this is. And so disappointing.

So, MN built a USP based on women swearing a lot and not being afraid to tell arseholes to fuck off. Telling arseholes to fuck off happens all over the boards every day but is not allowed on FWR and not if that arsehole - hey, MNHQ! Guess what? NATAALT! - happens to be trans.

But if we notice this, it's derogatory and aggressive to say so?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good one!