Unfair

JessM, well said.

Yes I think any spiteful PMs should be reported instantly. People may feel like it is telling tales. But it is protecting others.
"Don't tell tales" is the morality of the schoolyard, reinforced perhaps by exasperated parents who don't want to hear siblings complaining about each other. But it is not a sensible maxim - these days in school there are great efforts to encourage children to report bullying and abuse and not to suffer in silence.
A member may think themself able to cope with an attack but the likelihood is that other more vulnerable members are going to get PMs too. There are many people on GN who are lonely and vulnerable. The only way they can be protected is if we do tell GN if it happens to us.
Same goes if you or someone else is being picked on in open forum.
GN are the referees. Only they can see behind the scenes. Complain to them if you think their decisions are unfair. They do not have an easy job but they always listen to reasonable argument and do their best. I am not sure what complaining about them in open forum is supposed to achieve other than upset.

Ceesnan Before I leave this topic completely, I can answer the query in your OP easily. If a poster patronises and insults another member, it is contrary to Gransnet guidelines and the post is likely to be deleted. If a poster patronises and insults Cherie Blair, Louise Minchin, the Duchess of Cornwall, the woman who lives next door or any other non-member, the post is likely to be left intact. It is a fairly simple system – and it is simply fair.

Cheelu was not a member of Gransnet at the time I posted. Cheelu had left Gransnet by the time I posted. My comment was not addressed to Cheelu.It wasn't just a gratuitous comment out of thin air – Mey asked "Who is Cheelu?" Obviously Mey knew she was a former member as she mentioned two other threads about Cheelu (although I can only think of one). I simply described this former member as I saw her. This is turning into something resembling a Monty Python sketch.

Btw I can think of at least one Gransnetter who often tells us that she is a simple soul and is, presumably, happy to be so and does not consider such a description insulting.

There are plenty of descriptions on Gransnet, far ruder and more unpleasant than unimaginative and banal, applied to a large number of people who are not members or,at least, known to be members.

I rather think that this particular 'hoo-ha' might have been avoided, absent if you had paused to think before you posted your comments about cheelu. Did it not occur to you that to label someone as an unimaginative, banal, simple soul might be hurtful?

Sel I did not see your post yesterday until it had been deleted – in other words, I haven't read what you wrote and did not report it. I am told that it was a personal attack on me. I would have left it. I did not report your first deleted post either which was also a personal attack against me. I did read that one and comment on it in the open forum. However, if you must jump to conclusions without any evidence, I think you should keep them to yourself.

Ceesnan, Kali et al. Cheelu left Gransnet – not, I would point, because of anything I said. If she returned under another name, then it was a second-rate performance to ask who her first persona was. I can only assume that she was looking for a boost to her ego (as in Sel's Isn't Cheelu wonderful? thread or whatever it was called) in which she could bask in secret. That seems a singular insult to every other Gransnetter – and their intelligence – far in excess of anything I may have said.

Finally, I shall report spiteful personal messages and rather wish some other Gransnetters whose feelings have very recently been deeply hurt had done so too. Then all this hooha might have been avoided.

Kali I have to agree that some responses do get a bit curt in their "tone".

NellieM I agree that challenging a view makes fir lively debate. No problem with that. But if someone cannot mount a challenge with being insulting and patronising or worse, then they they should not say anything at all.

Ceesnan I agree.
HildawpW would you like to be called 'unimaginative', 'rather banal' and a 'simple soul'? Of course not. That is not in the least subjective and certainly not a hoot. Patronising, insulting, rude.
Faye I agree that if you don't point out unfairness nothing will improve and am shocked at how many people have left lately, and all for the same reasons.
Don't you leave please Sel
Anyway it's tomorrow now so

The problem, is in the word "implication". Implication depends on how the recipent percives what has been said, so its always open to interpretation whether or not the post is insulting or patronising or what ever. So trying decide if it's "against the rules" is very difficult.

There really is no way of knowing how someone is going to take what you post some people are far more sensitive than others to a challenge. I cannot help thinking that if all just went out of our way to avoid challenging anothers views GN would be very boring indeed
Perhaps on top of such a thread there should be a warning. Such as.

This thread might contain views that are controversial and may offend sensitive types. Look away now if you don't want your feelings to be hurt.

I saw your post Sel and didn't think it offensive. As I said before when there was a whole thread criticising one member and I complained to GNHQ not one thing was done about it. Yes it is bringing up the past but if you don't point out unfairness nothing will improve. I dislike new members or even old members leaving, how boring if it is just the same people posting.

I am at the suggestion of favouritism j07 !! And I'm also gobsmacked (to use the vernacular) at your comments re social or educational scale.

Are you serious, or is it one of your mischevious type posts?

Jo then I am obviously deemed very low in the scale as I've had two posts deleted. I must read all the fine print here - the post which was deleted asked another member not to make posts that meant to hurt another. I also said the faux innocent tone didn't convince me. Offensive? No. The poster I responded to had asked what was peoples' problem, who could tell her. I said I would do so but was on a train with little battery on my phone. I can only assume the poster was quickly on the cyber blower to HQ to report me.

I doubt this post will make it through the night

There's no rhyme nor reason to it what-so-flippin' ever!

I think a bit of favouritism might go on tbh. Perhaps some posters are considered to be higher up the social, or educational, scale and thereby more valuable to the site. Or more in tune with HQ's own thinking/occupations (journalism and suchlike?)

I have NOT got a chip on my shoulder!

Just thinking aloud really.

It does seem to be a rather woolly area. In the past I reported a post which I considered to be extremely insulting to another member, but GNHQ decided that the post was only attacking the member's views, so that was all right. Yet posts have been deleted which attack or question a member's attitude.

I think that the phrase "by implication" can be a bit of a deep mine. The fact that this type of communication has neither face nor voice can lead to things being interpreted very subjectively. I have tried to put this across in a thread, but appreciate that that too, could be open to misinterpretation!

I think its a bit of an tricky one this. It can all be a bit subjective. What patronises or insults ones person can be deemed just a bit of a hoot by another. I think I'm happy for most things to be aired as long as they dont actually breach the guidelines. Freespeach is no bad thing. If I dont like or thread, or dont like the way its going (some go right off on a tangent) I just stop visiting.

Ceesnan

I agree.