LangCleg

[dragongirlx]

I am a long time lurker but infrequent poster here but I needed to bring this to everyone's attention.
I have found out that Mumsnet HQ have banned the fabulous LangCleg simply for repeatedly pointing out the repeated times coercive control has been used by the moderators to stop women talking.
I understand it started with a conversation when a post was deleted because she allegedly used a sweeping generalisation but they couldn't or wouldn't confirm the generalisation and when she challenged them they decided to ban her on the basis of previous comments.

So it now seems pointing out coercive control is now grounds for being banned, thus proving that coercive control is being used.

I for one would like @MumsnetHQ to provide an explanation here as this is really not on

(also taking bets on how long before the thread is deleted)

Banning an expert in child safeguarding.

MNHQ - can you see that your users are distressed and unhappy while a lot of people over on twitter who are NOT contributors are celebrating.

R0! Wonderful to see you!

I know we like to kid on that MN is all of us round a kitchen table with gin in a teapot, and I would never condone being shitty to the moderating team. BUT the reality actually is that MN is a multi million pound turnover business, of which Lang, and all of us are both the customers and the product. Making women feel guilty for asking pointed questions about how and why the business that we support conducts itself is baffling. That’s not how business works.

I’d be for the high jump if I asked my clientele if they could frame their requests to me a little more “nicely”. I get my head down, I do my job, and I don’t take it personally, or huffily demand that people moderate their demands to my feelings.

I’ve always defended your modding in the past, MNHQ, I know how relentlessly shitty it can be to deal with endless complaints and people getting bent out of shape over words on a screen. But I’m your customer, and I am giving you the feedback that your core customer base does not like what you’re doing. You may do with that what you wish.

I mostly lurk but refuse to sit here in disgruntled silence! LangCleg was clear, calm and knowledgeable and should not have gone.
If you're reading this LC, you will be missed and I hope HQ see fit to reinstate you.

Waking up early, and having only recently returned to the FWR MN boards I thought I'd flick through previous threads to try and understand this one.

30 mins later I'm none the wiser as to why someone I can now perceive as a well-informed, articulate and civil poster has been banned.

Good to see you R0

Waking up to see this was not a dystopian nightmare, but a bleak reality.

The threat remains.

R0wan is back??
As Lang would have said, Ha ha ha ha ha!

I am critical of the mods team. They screwed up that webchat and blamed contributors for it (‘shouting’ ‘haranguing’) and then banned them. They tried to hide the true nature of their contributors, suppressed discussion, slagged us off and made a pig’s ear of the event in the process. Then to cap it all they banned an expert on child protection.

MNHQ need to look at this for the sake of their business model if nothing else.

I have just been directed here by WhatsApp so haven’t read the entire thread but wanted to note my horror and dismay. LC didn’t suffer fools gladly, but was never abusive. She has this unique talent of being able to cut through the flannel and wrote with incredible clarity.

This is appalling. Very poor call Mumsnet.

The advertising thing still doesn’t make sense to me. The prevailing view is that advertisers will only advertise to us if we are the sort of people they want to advertise to, as opposed to looking at the sort of people we are and working out how to advertise to that. Why would advertisers give up access to millions of unique users just because some people express that they don’t believe TWAW and Twitter gets upset about it?

The whole concept of that is off, just doesn’t make sense to me.

Does Joss Prior really think that was a reply from MNHQ tailored to their specific needs?
‘Keeping an eye.....monitoring the thread/situation.....’ are standard replies to reports. A polite acknowledgement that gives nothing away as to whether the mod or MNHQ as a whole believes you, agrees with you or will take action just on your say so.

Hope MNHQ reconsider Lang’s ban and that Lang feels this is a place that she can continue to share her views and expertise.

Well this is shit. Haven't had time to read the whole thread - but MNHQ are discussing posters here with Joss Prior? Seriously?

And Joss Prior is reporting back to Twitter about this? Seriously MNHQ?

Are MNHQ aware that Joss Prior was banned from Mumsnet??

Another mostly lurker on the FWR threads who appreciates LC's clear and thoughtful contributions, and is appalled at this ban. Please reinstate her MNHQ.

What on earth possessed you HQ?

Not RTFT yet but just got to the bit where a tweet link to Joss Prior....who has posted on Twitter the attached....FFS @MNHQ, sort yourselves out! This is a really really poor show and bad look for you.

Why the fuck are moderators having protracted discussions with someone who has been repeatedly banned from here for trolling? Calling women “toxic” and “keeping an eye” on particular posters that they don’t like? I mean...seriously wtf, where are you going with this. Cui bono, cui bono. Would you take advice from the poo troll about which posters on toilet training threads they dislike? Ugh.

Is the generalisation rule open to abuse?

Is the accused expected to prove the generalisation Or is the accuser expected to give evidence that the generalisation is Untrue? Because then we get back to the situation that we see with trolls, expecting women do to all their leg work whilst the just sit and throw rocks?

Is the generalisation rule open to abuse?

Given that in Lang's case the mods wouldn't even say what the offending generalisation was, or couldn't, then I'd say the answer there is a pretty clear "yes".

Very disappointing. I don't spend much time on here anymore. There is even less reason to do so now.

Delurking again to as I've woken up this morning and I'm still pissed off about Lang. I really hope that someone senior (looking at you, @JustineMumsnet) will reconsider.

Also, I agree with Lang that the mods might benefit from training or briefing in coercive control and how to spot it.

And welcome back R0wantrees!

The more information comes to light the more I am appalled by your actions @MNHQ you engaged in dialogue with a known TRA for two weeks (One, who I might add, has been banned repeatedly from Mumsnet for trolling) and allowed them to influence your decision on silencing one of the most rational voices on here?

I was pretty disgusted with the removal of posts from the Jess Phillips Webchat but with this as well?

While I appreciate you've, until now, stood firm and have given women a voice on the FWR voice the moderation of late has been Orwellian in nature and reminiscent of 1984.

It looks like you need to have a serious look at your moderation policy and who moderated for you.

If this gets me a ban, so be it but it will prove that I my concerns are justified.

@MNHQ another poster who appreciates the chance to discuss these issues and accepts moderation regulations, but thinks this was a bad call. The site is being gamed by the people whose actions are chipping away at women's rights.

MNHQ have been in discussion with TRAs? What the actual?

Yes Joss is stirring. But what Joss wants is attention.

"I've been in discussions with two moderators on Mumsnet for about a fortnight. Langcleg was one name I mentioned as toxic."

Followed by:

"I am having a shitload of abuse for the actions of a mumsnet poster vs the mods. Its hyde park all over again. Why drag me into it???"

Well Joss you dragged yourself into it. I'd bet Joss didn't even talk to the mods. With Joss it's all 'me me me me look at meeeeee!', then 'oh my God they're looking at me, they're obsessed!'

I was pretty disgusted with the removal of posts from the Jess Phillips Webchat but with this as well?

This wasn’t the first time posts have vanished from a webchat. It seems to be standard practice now.

I'm shocked that Mumsnet accepts complaints/reports from non members. Let alone mods getting into discussions (if true).
Plus aren't we talking about a previously banned poster?

I’ve just looked at Lang’s posts over the last two weeks and clearly there is nothing “toxic” about any of them, and I doubt there are many deletions I’m missing because it’s rare to see Lang deleted.

@HebeMumsnet, say it isn’t so, tell us Joss is on the wind up and you haven’t been scrutinising Lang at Joss’s behest?