MNHQ want money from us

[JellySlice]

Perhaps now is the time to tell MNHQ what we want from them.

eg
Relaxation of the anti-women censorship rules.
Reinstating banned respected posters like LangCleg.

lol
Others are allowed to post apart from you you know

Where have I said I find this thread disturbing?
Or indeed this board.
Just some of the threads
This is bonkers lol

DuchessDumbarton

Saw that Datun and wonder if it's deliberate?

Well I've asked them to change it.

But at least it will make everyone scrutinise my posts!

Says the person who has been complaining about how awful it is here.

Is it a deliberate thing, the way you respond to something that hasnt actually been said?

I came to the conclusion that Emma was clearly related to someone higher up at MNHQ. It really was the only thing that explained their pathetic response.

(Healey's blog which falsely claimed to 'prove' that MN were calling for 'a new Section 28' shared widely by those in influential political positions. This false claim possibly referred to as fact by Dawn Butler MP in HoC)

And this is the problem. It was a deliberate act. And it targeted FWR.

Justine knows, absolutely bloody knows, how we are targeted. She must realise that she won't get a penny out of anyone who has to provide their personal details.

I wonder if she also realises how many transactivists are IT experts?

It would absolutely be in their interest to hack stripe. Massively.

would absolutely be in their interest to hack stripe

Yep, and Justine may as well have signposted in big flashing letters

Stripe is San Francisco based so they might not even need to do any hacking.

stripe.com/about

I noticed that too, Datun, and wondered whether to say anything. At least we know now.

Entirely sensible to highlight a possible imposter, Datun. If they're on the level, they will see the issue, and if they're not, highlighting them removes their ability to cause mischief.

Mumsnet want our money, want to control what we say and have been deleting my posts about possible places mumsnetters might want to try posting where they won't be deleted for saying men aren't women.

"We can see you've been quite vocal on several threads about your feelings about the new premium membership, which is absolutely fine - we're taking on board everyone's views and accept that there's going to be a wide range of feelings about it. But we don't think it's really on to be spamming your new site on our site, so we've deleted the link and would be grateful if you don't post any more links to your site."

and have been deleting my posts about possible places mumsnetters might want to try posting where they won't be deleted for saying men aren't women.

Not allowed to signpost users to the competition?

There are lots of other forums. I do use this woman because it is majority woman and also just because I am used to. If I was starting from scratch I would probably join Spinster instead.
I think MN has went downhill though ever since penis beaker.

I am really careful though who I give my details online and will not give them to anyone who does not show they can safeguard them. I am amazed that anyone would. I have used stripe for an event as the website of a group I run uses software that is linked to stripe. I know that means MN will have people's real names linked to their user name. I am not techy at all, but would not give that information to MN. I am surprised anyone would.

I remember there being discussion at the time on how Emma must have some sort of ties to one of the staff - family or family friend; due to the weirdly personal nature of the defence that Justine was doing - seen again yesterday.

I still wonder if Emma is someone at MNHQs niece or something tbh, I don't know of any company that's normally that protective towards their interns. It all comes across as very "what a silly girl" rather than "this person came very close to getting us into serious trouble and made us look terrible".

At the time MNHQ posted something to suggest that Healey was not a relative of anyone at MNHQ and I remember thinking that it was a Yes Minister-type response of an apparently complete (but in reality incomplete) denial. This sort of thing: "Did you knock the vase over?" "I was nowhere near the vase".

Ahh, I remember now, MNHQ's denial was worded carefully enough not to include Healey being something like the daughter of someone who was best friends with a person with influence at MNHQ.

MNHQ never gave a satisfactory answer to why Healey should be handled with such care leaving MN posters in the lurch.

NotBadConsidering - "Anyone can just click “report”.

Only logged-in, registered users can use the "Report Button" on posts. However, Mumsnet invites absolutely anyone to email them to Report posts and those reports are, apparently, treated in exactly the same way as complaints using the "Report Button".

ProdigalKittensReturn - "Not allowed to signpost users to the competition?"

Don't know if you were being rhetorical there so apologies if you were! That is standard for most forums. Even Facebook Groups that are free, non-commercial, etc. often have a Rule about not posting links to alternative sites.

Posting links and spamming

"We have no problem with people posting the odd link to other sites/blogs that other posters might find useful or interesting. But we'll delete anyone's attempts to spam the boards with links, as a way of promoting their own product, services, survey or e-petition, as it annoys our members."

from www.mumsnet.com/info/netiquette

Datun - glad you posted about the very similar username! I was fooled by it!

Datun
Well I've asked them to change it
But at least it will make everyone scrutinise my posts!

My first username was a real name and a number. I had a run in with someone on AIBU. A new poster suddenly appeared with exactly the same name and number plus one digit duplicated. MNHQ weren't interested.

I mentioned it on the thread and was told I was being precious. I changed my name.

Within 24 hours the other poster had posted absolutely foul posts on the bereavement forum- a forum I never look at. Thankfully someone spotted the names were different and pointed it out and I got some apologies but it was obviously done to make me look truly nasty.

Datun - glad you posted about the very similar username! I was fooled by it!

I think I'd better ask that poster again, in case they haven't noticed. (I didn't @ them).

You know, if someone who I thought was Datun suddenly started saying very un-Datun like things I wouldn't be thinking "clearly I have been wrong all along, for I am Datun's mindless follower and if she's changed her tune I must now change mine too", I'd be thinking "huh, that's odd, is she OK?"

Daten

I am unsure about this, given all the issues raised here.

Hi @Daten, I wonder if I could ask you to change your username? I see it's a new name, or you're a new poster. I wouldn't normally, but it's exactly the same as mine, bar one letter, and I suspect could cause confusion.

and I got some apologies but it was obviously done to make me look truly nasty.

That's horrible, Dido. It's very unpleasant.

Of course, if someone is name changing to deliberately to make another look bad, it does become quite obvious.

So I only see it as a very counter-productive exercise, to be honest.

It damages the person doing it, far more than the person to whom it's directed.

And, of course, it generally indicates that the person they are trying to harm, is effective.

You should take it as a compliment!

I'd be thinking "huh, that's odd, is she OK?"

Exactly.

So you check the name, and realise someone is trying to harm Datun. Then you want to know why!

It's just so petty, when it's about some sort of grudge that the person has against the user they're targeting.

I never saw the posts my impersonator made. Apparently they were on a thread in bereavement about the death of a child but were deleted by the time I found out.

There was no point other than a temporary, spiteful grudge.