Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

It's very interesting to see which posters write sycophantic posts in response to Justine. Very interesting indeed.

Really? Most of the posters who have agreed with her had been saying the same thing for dozens of pages beforehand. Plus what do you think we're hoping to gain by agreeing with her?

What a weird post.

Sorry, I missed this response from Cohle to me last night (heavy duty painkillers knocked me out!)

I think this is bit of a strawman as I don’t think this is what has happened

Respectfully, you asked me to walk though my feelings about a specific statement by another poster. If you now feel that statement is a strawman, then it's not one of my making.

No, the other poster said MN is being “unwittingly being used to abuse and harass women” - in your post you changed that to “being told regularly and insistently that you are "abusing and harassing women"” - there’s a distinction between being used to do something and actively doing it yourself, hence why I thought your change made it a strawman - but it seems one possibly created through misunderstanding.

I think it's victim blaming to tell people they should toughen up and you wouldn't be distressed in their position. If someone tells us that they have suffered harm as a result of someone else's behaviour I think it's very damaging to knee-jerk disbelieve them.

Respectfully, I didn’t say ‘people should toughen up’, I said ‘Resilience is an important quality to build’, and I stand by that. People suffer harm as a result of others’ behaviour all the time - but that doesn’t always mean that the behaviour is at fault or the other person is to blame or was deliberately causing harm. And saying that doesn’t mean one is disbelieving the person saying they experienced harm. It’s possible that the second person was acting completely reasonably and with no intention to be antagonistic, but due to miscommunication, personal experience or individual susceptibility, knock-on effect etc the first person perceives or experiences the behaviour as harmful, there’s no reason not to believe them, but it doesn’t mean the behaviour objectively is harmful, or that the appropriate change to remedy the situation is necessarily to change the behaviour.

I don’t think it implies anything of the kind tbh, of course victims of coercive control are not all foolish and stupid, quit victim blaming.

I've said nothing of the kind.

You wrote ”It also of course implies that moderators are too foolish or stupid to realise that they are being manipulated”, your exact words, which came across to me that you think victims of coercive control are too foolish or stupid to realise what’s happening, whichI think would be fair to describe as victim blaming.

Not sycophantic, just no reason to disbelieve people when they say they feel attacked.
It's shit when it happens, if someone else says they've had the same treatment I tend to believe them.

Me too. Having been on the receiving end of it I can well believe that's how mods feel.

If anyone can’t cope with not receiving responses to their posts, then I suggest message boards may not be for them.

That isn't what happens though is it?

On this board, if people disagree with you there follows a barrage of grey rock pictures and recipes, usually involving breakfast cereals. That's neither disagreeing nor not responding. That's being goady and frankly childish.

I'm grateful for your response Cwenthryth, but, respectfully, I think in light of today's clarifications about LangCleg's actual behaviour it seems unnecessary to continue discussing hypotheticals.

in our opinion this was a case of genuine and continuing disparagement of and rudeness to our mod team - persistent accusations that Mumsnet mods are proxies, behaving coercively and/or abusively, which as I’ve said previously is incredibly demotivating as well as deeply unfair (and against our stated terms of use). It had got to the point that our team were reluctant to engage with LC because they found her obvious contempt upsetting.

I just don't think it's reasonable to expect mumsnet moderators to continue to tolerate that sort of behaviour despite multiple warnings. (Although apparently that makes me a sycophant ). I understand some disagree but ultimately it's mumsnet's site and their first duty is to their staff.

While some people see the whole concept of grey rock as a protection, when you're on the other end of it, it feels like being sent to Coventry. That can be isolating and hurtful
It's quite clear that this poster really doesn't understand the meaning of grey rock

Ok, I’m not writing hypothetically though, especially about you denying things you wrote - and I don’t think Justine’s post today has clarified anything, sadly, certainly not cleared up how Lang’s behaviour constituted disparagement, rudeness, contempt etc - Justine states it’s ‘our opinion’. All it clarifies is that MNHQ has no intention of changing their mind no matter what, nor of listening to the concerns being expressed by hundreds of women on their busiest (I think) chat board driving traffic to their site. Honestly Justine’s post feels very much like MNHQ is disparaging our concerns and holding us in contempt.

I understand the meaning and the intent behind grey rockt but that's not necessarily how it's used on here and in any event those who use it are bound to perceive it differently from those it is used against.

and I don’t think Justine’s post today has clarified anything, sadly, certainly not cleared up how Lang’s behaviour constituted disparagement, rudeness, contempt etc

Seriously? I mean, what? How are they supposed to put it any clearer?!
What else do you want, actual examples from the mods, them sharing personal pms etc?
As they've already said they're not doing that.
Which is fair enough, I can see why nobody would want to do that.

Good post from Justine. I believe her.

As such it’s really not on for one group of users to declare that their position/ argument is the only one that is acceptable and to deliberately make it difficult for those who disagree, to post

Definitely agree with this.

And nothing about what to do about Twitter lies. And nothing about improving the guidelines so that they are manageable and enable truthfulness.

Grey rock isn't about ignoring people you don't agree with. It's about not being drawn into something designed to get a reaction.

I'm not denying anything I've written, not least because it's all here for anyone who cares to read it.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for MNHQ to prioritise their staff wellbeing, and I don't think any cause, however worthy, justifies treating moderators with contempt. This after all just an internet chat room.

What can MN do about what someone posts on twitter though? They've denied it and said it isn't true.

This is all getting a bit over the top and frankly bizarre now.

MN have made it quite clear why LC was banned. I really don't think it's that difficult to post in accordance with the guidelines - if your message is so important then you make sure that you don't get banned don't you?

Grey rock isn't about ignoring people you don't agree with. It's about not being drawn into something designed to get a reaction.

Except on here posting pictures of grey rocks, or breakfast recipes, is actually done in order to provoke a reaction.

Except on here posting pictures of grey rocks, or breakfast recipes, is actually done in order to provoke a reaction

Exactly.

Crikey if I only posted when guaranteed a reply/acknowledgement I'd never post And I've had my fair share of sarky nasty comments when I do get a reply.

But luckily I'm a sucker for punishment so carry on regardless because it's what I gain from reading the knowledge, experience and expertise of others that makes me hang about, Plus on the whole (and definitely on FWR) most MNers rock

But back to the thread topic - MN response continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

No. You're still misunderstanding but misunderstanding seems to be the thing.

Breakfast threads are deleted quite quickly now, because disruptive posters reported them.
After all it's no good if the targets of some very disruptive posters don't react

Except on here posting pictures of grey rocks, or breakfast recipes, is actually done in order to provoke a reaction

I completely disagree. It's to remind posters that sometimes people attempt to derail discussions on purpose.

I wasn't around in times of The Dog House - what was that, anyone know?

Willis
Except on here posting pictures of grey rocks, or breakfast recipes, is actually done in order to provoke a reaction.
Now you are actually demonstrating your ignorance. Lol

MN is not owned by its correspondents but by its owners and in turn the advertisers who provide an income. We therefore either comply with the rules set out by the owners or are removed by them or by ourselves in exasperation at the moderation.

Personally I think it sad that such an admirable idea and venture has come to this point: however, MN has served its purpose in bringing many excellent feminist voices together and into the open. The future lies in websites which are not reliant on advertising, some of which have already been mentioned on this site.

Agree pope.

I don't think anyone can deny that derailment is a frequent issue on these threads.