Winesalot wins ...

[QueenoftheAir]

the internet today.

Thank you!

and No.

Excellent thread. Gutted I missed it. The sense of entitlement oozing from one particular transperson who claims to stand for women is really quite something.

Oh I did see the start! My goodness, "we have our own different challenges" yes, indeed, so do disabled, black and gay men.

I do think that MN are applying tighter moderation in trying to encourage more conversation. They say they want to discourage pile ons. So, maybe we need to ask what that means. Does that mean we each get one post in answer to each post we disagree with before it becomes what they call a pile on? If we think of other angles after, well... we have to wait? I am not sure what a pile on actually is.

I think it is all too often misapplied. If people have something to say, even if it is just ‘no’, are they not allowed to say it because others have already said it. I always thought pile ons were where people engage with abuse.

People should never be abused, but pointing out areas where they are wrong, where they have offended others, where they are claiming something false, isn’t abuse even if it is worded strongly.

I think some clarity is needed about this going forward.

The archive should have most posts intact, I think.

Wines, I agree. I don't think MNHQ do it vindictively, and am happy to play by the rules. But clarification is always welcomed - I don't want to get strikes or banned.

I think arabella I am more concerned about the change in application of the rules without clarification.

I am more than happy to stay within the guidelines, however, I actually thought I was and so did many others. Obviously, I wasn’t.

It is having this clarified for the future that is important to me.

I think arabella I am more concerned about the change in application of the rules without clarification.

Well that is mighty clear isn’t it?

I think I am more concerned about the change in application of the rules and how it has been done without clarification.

To be clearer, I am responding to at least one post I have seen from MNHQ saying what they want. I think that also indicates a tweak in application of the guidelines and maybe into more stricter adjudication of them.

From the site thread message. We've said in a couple of places recently that we want MN to be a place where opposing viewpoints are welcome

@YetAnotherSpartacus

The ones referencing a certain interesting twitter account are gone despite this account being in the public domain and also being quite ... problematic in terms of how being a woman was represented.

I’ve finally caught up with the 50:50 thread this morning after it was turned into Swiss Cheese. I stumbled upon that account because Barraker’s post had gained traction on there.

A perfect illustration of why women are saying no!

We've said in a couple of places recently that we want MN to be a place where opposing viewpoints are welcome

What does this mean though? People can come and give opposing views but it doesn't mean anyone has to agree. The complaint seems to be that opposing view posters get 'piled on' but the vast majority of us are here because we have strong feminist disagreements with gender ideology.

If I went over to The Dog House and belittled dog related issues and told them they should be more interested in the real issues cats face I'd be 'piled on' too.

Are we expected to draw up a rota where approx a quarter of us soothingly agree with sexist nonsense under the guise of being welcoming?

If I went over to The Dog House and belittled dog related issues and told them they should be more interested in the real issues cats face I'd be 'piled on' too.

Good point. This is again an example of FWR having completely different rules from the rest of the site.

I think the context is being lost. I was told I was deleted for a comment that (if read out of context) could be deemed to be against the guidelines but in the context of what was posted by the person of the view was merely a response to say that what they were claiming was incorrect.

Clarification would be very useful. I am very reluctant to post anymore having had 2 strikes on the last thread. To me those strikes didn't seem to be in the 'spirit' of encouraging conversation.

should say 'of the alternative view'.

That thread will be another good resource to direct newcomers to. The ones who join a conversation in FWR and say 'I don't get why this is such a bad thing?'

The deletions of brilliant, incisive comments are so frustrating, but they tell their own story.

The archive should have most posts intact, I think.

I am probably being a bit thick, but can only see the last few posts? Is it possible to access the earlier ones?

I don't think there's always clarification because it's often based on the same nebulous concept as hate crime reporting e.g. something does not have to be proven offensive, the only criteria is that someone says it's offensive. Too much power is given to those who wish women to stop talking about things they don't like.

If MNHQ are concerned about a welcoming environment then maybe they should check out the number of posts from women who say they are now apprehensive about commenting because they don't feel articulate enough or because they fear accidentally falling foul of the rules.
I think it would be very sad if this became a board where only the eloquent and agile of thinking felt they could comment. If
barristers and politicians feel comfortable posting on here and ordinary women do not then maybe you have a problem.

If someone posts something contentious or ridiculous in AIBU, and all the responses are “YABU”, often worded quite strongly, the threads are never pulled for being a “pile on”.

If you come into FWR with an anti-woman agenda, or supporting an ideology that is doing active harm to women as we speak, you should expect to get your arse handed to you on a plate, quite frankly.

If someone posts something contentious or ridiculous in AIBU, and all the responses are “YABU”, often worded quite strongly, the threads are never pulled for being a “pile on”.

Quite.

And if an AIBU with a poll added, has 90% YABU, is that a pile on?

Is 80%?

Is 70%

What constitutes a pile on? The majority disagreeing?

An AIBU poll would be hard to delete as a pile on, wouldn't it?

AIBU to think that the 50:50 panel to encourage women into politics should endeavour that all panelists are female?

They can't expect us all to ignore and not respond to those people who come here to give their opposing viewpoint, can they? If we provide biscuits or recipes we get told off for not being respectful enough.

Do they think we should say 'thank you kind madam for trampling over my rights, my daughter's rights, my mother's and aunts' and cousins' and friends rights. Please will you teach me how to be a better woman'?

Yes, clarification is needed.

There would be people who think any sort of quotas are wrong, and they would get bundled with the TWAWs in a poll, is my only concern. It would need to be worded quite precisely.

An AIBU poll would be hard to delete as a pile on, wouldn't it?

Exactly - and yet mumsnet facilitates such piles-on.

Actually, come to think of it, that moveable feast thread, which started on AIBU, was moved to FWR, then back again...had it's poll deleted.....

Exactly - and yet mumsnet facilitates such piles-on

And many of them against women who are regular posters (such as teachers) or otherwise in the public eye (such as Meghan Markle). That’s ok apparently and it is often those calling out the pile-on who are deleted if they are a bit blunt or sweary.

picklemewalnuts shall we try it?