Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

t came down to repeated accusations that we're coercively controlling

Huh. Every time I saw Lang say that it was in reference to the people monitoring MN from the outside not the moderators of the forum. It was more that you were being controlled by them than you controlling. It was said enough times for me to know I haven't got this mixed up. But you seem to have it mixed up.

It's been repeatedly asserted that we were both abusers and proxies for abuse at various times - and the distinction doesn't feel very important when you're on the receiving end of it.

Ok, this changes the entire way of using mumsnet. If we think a begging post is a scam, by reporting it we are saying that mumsnet is being used as a proxy for a scammer - and that means that we think mumsnet is complicit in the scam

So when I've reported begging scam threads, some mods have taken that to mean I think they, the mods, are scamming? Because you don't see a distinction?

Lol - I see I am the last in a long line of people saying the same - we can't all be wrong.

... So, effectively the mod team got annoyed at a user repeating something over and over at them?

It took my sister nearly 20 years to realise and accept she was being coersively controlled...

She was suicidal by that point.

So, I would respectfully suggest perhaps, mn mods are not best equipped to deal with nor understamd when they/mn are being coersively contolled to control others?

The feedom programme would be a great start. They would learn to recognise the language and script these motherfuckers use.

I totally understand not wanting to be accused of allowing/condoning coersive control. It would upset me greatly too.

But I like to think I'd have enough integrity to accept there are situations I know nothing about.

Cross posted

(my underlined sentence above is my new understanding of what the mods are saying, not what I previously believed!)

There's been about 100 new members to Spinster over the last few days, thanks to this.

It's been repeatedly asserted that we were both abusers and proxies for abuse at various times - and the distinction doesn't feel very important when you're on the receiving end of it.

What? Where did Lang accuse you of being abusers? Nobody thinks that the mods are abusers. That would be ridiculous. If this was said, by all means show us where.

I don't think that you fully understand coercive control.

@michaelmumsnet as someone who was subject to coercive control and abuse myself, I know with complete confidence that there is no shame in having been in that position. Likewise, there is no shame in undergoing training to help you understand how to deal with being subjected to it and how best to deal with it.

Fantastic post, CousinKrispy.

Ok, this changes the entire way of using mumsnet. If we think a begging post is a scam, by reporting it we are saying that mumsnet is being used as a proxy for a scammer -and that means that we think mumsnet is complicit in the scam

Yep. Just ridiculous.

Possibly there is a mix-up because some here refer to those mass-reporting TRAs as "our monitors" - and thought they meant the MN mods.
You’d think the mods would be familiar with the language/culture of the forum they moderate, though.

This is all a bit bonkers.

It's been repeatedly asserted that we were both abusers and proxies for abuse at various times - and the distinction doesn't feel very important when you're on the receiving end of it.

I've never seen you being accused of being abusers. This isn't sitting right with me.

I don't think that they are necessarily familiar with the language. They can't possibly read all posts on all threads across the boards. I think that a misunderstanding is quite likely in this instance.

[quote CousinKrispy]**@michaelmumsnet* and @justinemumsnet*, thanks for your responses. I can understand that it's not appropriate for you to share private messages from a poster, and that you need to maintain the well-being of staff. It's no good continually losing hard-working mods to burnout!

I would really appreciate further detail, however, about what falls within the "unacceptably robust" category.

Many of us do not intend abuse or aggression but may express ourselves strongly or bluntly. Sometimes this is due to being from a different culture or being on the spectrum, or simply being at a point in one's life when one believes it's ok for women to be blunt (as long as we're not abusive) rather than softening everything we say (maybe we're gender nonconforming in that way!)

How can we help reduce the burden on your moderation team, while ensuring that posters with a valuable contribution aren't banned unnecessarily, and have an open debate on controversial issues? If being robust isn't acceptable, how can we learn to judge that better?

Or is it possible that robustness canbe ok after all? As someone from another culture who struggles with British norms sometimes, I find this very worrying.[/quote]

Good question - we've always welcomed constructive criticism, much more so than most other forums we can think of, and we don't have a problem with users challenging individual decisions (as users are doing here) or aspects of our rules; what's not on is 'rudeness and aggression' as Justine has outlined before. Accusing us of abusive behaviour - repeatedly, and after we have explained many times that we don't think it's acceptable to accuse us of this - falls pretty clearly into the 'rudeness' category, we think.

I sadly know several women who have done the freedom programme. It's life changing.

In the course of my work I intend to do it too.

Ok.

Where are the posts accusing you of being abusive???

Fuckitywhy
As of now, it's not just the one user.

Justine says: persistently agressive and rude.

Michael clarifies: Just to be clear about the rudeness in question - it came down to repeated accusations that we're coercively controlling. It's a nasty accusation that has an impact on staff wellbeing and it's one of the places where we draw the line.

We all know: LangCleg believed that Mumsnet is being coercively controlled by misogynist monitor, as many of us do. And that this is neither rude nor agressive.

As for 60 deletions. So what? LangCleg was a regular poster over the course of years, not months. And there are all sorts of reasons for deletions - I've had deletions that were no fault of my own, such as because I quoted someone elses post that went on to be deleted, and deletions at my own request, after a name change fail or deciding I overshared. I've also, yes, had deletions for breaking TG's, however these have been rare compared to my output.

If PosterA is banned after 6 deletions and PosterB is still a member after 600 deletions that sounds grossly unfair until it is also revealed that PosterA was a member for one hour and Poster B for a decade.

The pertinent information is as follows:
How many deletions leading to a strike has LangCleg has recieved?
Over what period of time did she recieve these and what percentage of her total posts were they?
Were any of them later overturned on appeal?
How many strikes had she recieved in the 6 weeks before her banning?
And, if any, had she been informed of those strikes?

Accusations of persistent agressiveness are hyperbole. Misunderstanding of the point she was making is... erm... unfortunate.
And reporting deletions with no context is meaningless.

🙄

Saying 'I think the MN mod team are victims of coercive control' (& tbh by this point I reckon most of us think this!) is aggressive & accusing you of abuse?!

That was it? That was the reason for the ban?!

Are you guys, as they say, on glue?

MNHQ, I am really disappointed at your level of reading comprehension.

Oh for goodness sake. The TRAs are the coercive controllers and MN are the unwitting facilitators. That’s just a fact. It’s why we can’t speak biological truth.

^^this.

The moderators are victims of the coercive control, and we suffer as a result.

The natural reaction for a victim of mobbing is to highlight what is going on & the common response of those around the victim is disbelief. So, what often happens is that victim becomes increasingly desperate to point out what is happening but, because the ringleader has been able to retreat, only the proxies are visible. So the abuse is effectively invisible in plain sight." (continues)

^ This, posted by R0, is exactly^ what has just happened.

My question, Justine, is why would regular posters bother reporting a post from Lang that is questioning mod decisions, or the aspect of coercive control? What is the point, what is their skin in the game, what's their damage? None.

Just ask yourself the question, who benefits?

The moderators would never even know what the hell Lang was saying unless someone drew it to their attention. What kind of person consistently draws the moderators' attention to a post like that?

And yes, i'm pretty certain some of your moderators are confused about the terminology used.

Moderators are people moderating the site at MNHQ. Monitors, are people monitoring the site on Twitter to shut down the women on it.