Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

Looking at the statement on Mumsnet moderation principles vs what happened with Lang it seems she was treated very, very leniently for a long time compared with other posters.

We’ll be introducing a three strikes system whereby users deleted more than three times in any rolling six week period will have their membership automatically suspended

Justine said:

LangCleg has had over 60 posts deleted and we have emailed many times to politely request that she post within our rules.

Furthermore, we’ve looked at the data and LangCleg was reported by 53 different users. Of those, 51 were regular posters

There are plenty of posters who get more than three deletions in a six week period and have posted a lot less and for a much shorter time than LC to be fair.

Now you are actually demonstrating your ignorance. Lol

Was actually somebody else who said that, care to lol at them?
I did agree with them though I suppose which is why you must have got confused easily. Lol.

We are told that the mods working conditions must be protected. Then Hebe is lied about on Twitter in such a way as to suggest she is in cahoots with them. And that should be left to stand whereas useful and valuable Lang who doesn’t lie or defame is banned. Something is out of proportion here.

I wouldn’t blame MN for not going after Twitter or it’s resident weirdos - even though the statements are damaging both personally and to the corporate body. But then to go zero tolerance on their own decent and valuable users ? No I don’t get that order of priorities.

Now you are actually demonstrating your ignorance. Lol

It was me who said the original quote, not Willis

We are told that the mods working conditions must be protected. Then Hebe is lied about on Twitter in such a way as to suggest she is in cahoots with them. And that should be left to stand whereas useful and valuable Lang who doesn’t lie or defame is banned. Something is out of proportion here.

What can realistically be done about Twitter though? They've denied it on here.

And tbh, Justine has only said what she's said about LC, and it's been very moderate, because she's been pushed to do so by the furore that's been created. Unless any of you were actually party to conversations between the mods and LC I have no idea how you can be so certain that you know it's all a misunderstanding. Mnhq have been very definite about why the ban gas occurred and that plenty of warnings were given. Clearly a choice was made not to heed those warnings.

It's like my neighbours who describe stuff that happened 30 odd years ago as if it was in the last couple of years. Seriously, grey rocks and weetabix pictures are so passé

If it's so passe, why does it still frequently happen?
Making out like it's not done anymore,, move along, nothing to see, you're mistaken doesn't happen, um yes it does

I really don't care which one of you posted the original statement, my answer applies to lol of you. Lol

Obviously that should say to all of you, getting carried away with the lols.

Justine look at the posters you have pleased and the very many you have not.

I really don't care which one of you posted the original statement,
Colour me suprised. Snipes at wrong poster but won't admit? Oookay.

My answer applies to lol of you. Lol
Um, what?

Cross posted

I would start by saying to us that JP is not tweeting in good faith and that at no time has there been any discussion with them and nor have MN taken seriously any reports from them.

Well, statements have moved from references of “aggression” from LC (and I think “abuse” but that may have come from posters rather than MN representatives) to now “disparagement, rudeness, contempt”, but plenty of people have pointed out that there is clearly misunderstanding of terminology about ‘monitors’ for example, which hasn’t been addressed, and Justine’s post comes across to me as being quite cavalier about recognition of abuse of the system, given how subtle and insidious we all know coercive control techniques can be. It smacks of not taking the concerns seriously. And it’s not about ‘what I want’, really, is it. It’s about what is the best way forward for the users of this forum to feel that the owners are listening and understand their concerns, for everyone to feel they can discuss contentious issues freely without fear of censorship or banning due to others - often people not even part of the discussion, or using the site - disagreeing with them (and claiming they are ‘being attacked’ by being disagreed with), and for MNHQ to ensure their staff are adequately trained and supported to manage what is required of them in their roles - dealing with the concerns of and complaints from users without it affecting them personally, being able to more accurately recognise vexatious use of the reporting system etc.

Cohle - you absolutely denied posting exact wording that I posted above, which you’re right I did think it was odd as it can all be read in the thread, but 🤷🏻‍♀️ it doesn’t seem that further discussion between us will be fruitful so I agree to leave it too.

I don’t think grey rock/recipes etc are posted to provoke a reaction btw, at all, rather to demonstrate that goady fuckers will not provoke a reaction and will not be responded to.

And it is difficult to post within the guidelines, because they are ever-changing, elusive, inconsistently applied and there are hidden ones not included in the written ones - it takes a lot of cognitive skill tbh, to do the mental gymnastics to both not lie and not fall foul of them when posting. It’s discriminatory in effect.

What's weird about MN is that there is no way for posters to show their appreciation and love for a post (beyond saying 'great post there, Barbara!'). I think that means that the dislikes/reports have unfair weighting. Because we all know that on a board with millions of posts, only the ones that are reported are scrutinised for meeting the guidelines. It's simply not possible for mods to read everything. If likes were also recorded, it might redress the balance.

SapphosRock

Can you point to the part from MNHQ that says LangCleg had 60 posts deleted under the new FWR three strikes guidelines, and not under the general normal site guidelines, pre-date those special rules, were for other things like quoting deleted posts etc?

It also needs to be mentioned again that when MNHQ do email you for deletions (they don’t always) it doesn’t say whether it’s a strike or not. I don’t think anyone truly knows how many posts they’ve had deleted because it’s perfectly possible for posts to be deleted without a notification, unless you keep track of every single one and go back to old threads to check.

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.

Exactly.
MN is unusual among the forums that I visit in that there is no 'Ignore poster' button.
I might, for instance, have the opinion that someone is not posting in good faith. I may consider them to be a goady fucker, perhaps.
Grey rock works for me in that scenario. In the absence of the facility to hide a GFs posts, I grey rock and my scrolling finger gets some exercise.

Clymene

But the guidelines aren't a popularity vote are they? Just because a post was popular it wouldn't make it inoffensive would it? The guidelines, which are minimal tbh, favour both sides don't they? Certain terms that GC posters disagree with are also banned. By your reckoning someone could post those, get a lot of likes so they wouldn't be deleted?

The guidelines, which are minimal tbh, favour both sides don't they?

I don’t know how people can post stuff like this with a straight face.

There aren't 'two sides'
This characterisation is a false one which obfuscates the many issues.

Well, I've managed to not fall foul if the guidelines. It isn't difficult.

I think that means that the dislikes/reports have unfair weighting

As Justine said upthread though, they either fall foul of the guidelines or they don't.
If you're not breaking them, even if someone did report you then your post wouldn't be deleted.

Wow.

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. (Those of you who’ve been with us over the long haul will remember this happening on other boards before - the one that springs to mind is The Dog House - where we’ve felt compelled to act to diffuse what had become an aggressive orthodoxy.)

We on FWR have begged, repeatedly, over many years, for those who disagree to bring their best arguments and debate. It's the one thing we've wanted, open discussion. NEVER have we made it difficult for genuine posters with robust arguments to post. We do not, however, abide goady or manipulative 'arguments.' The grey rock and recipes etc grew out of a debilitating weariness with the same old utterly devoid of logic or substance b.s, an attempt at bitter humour to keep our sanity from swirling down the circuitous TWAW WHY CAN'T YOU JUST BE NICE whirlpool.

Drawing a comparison of FWR regular posters with an aggressive orthodoxy is really offensive. Mumsnet FWR was one of the only places on the internet where the aggressive (ya know, violent threats and acts, lawsuits, job losses etc) orthodoxy of genderism could even be whispered aloud. It's the only reason I joined.

Thanks for the past few years. We've made other spaces to organise now, and their memberships are growing exponentially. Good luck to you, Justine and mumsnet mods.

So have I, hooves, I think at least, but I wouldn’t say it isn’t difficult. And it’s not a simple fall foul/don’t fall foul, is it, as there is interpretation of ‘rudeness’ for starters and other aspects where the opinion of the person reporting or moderating comes in to play. As demonstrated many times on this thread people can easily see exactly the same written statements very differently.

Well, I've managed to not fall foul if the guidelines. It isn't difficult.

How are they fair to “both sides”? Someone people are motivated to report and others aren’t. How are they minimal? They mean you have to lie about the sex of certain people, but you don’t have to lie about the sex of people MNHQ have deemed awful enough.

I had a post removed because one word was deemed inflammatory (it wasn’t). I didn’t receive a notification. I complained and was able to repost with that one word changed for the sake of appeasement.

It’s only people who want to tell the truths about certain matters that are likely to fall foul of the extra rules.