Oh god, Orange man creates his own social media....

Page 10 of 15 [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,906
Location: Australia

23 Oct 2021, 7:05 pm

Nonsense.
In regard to satirical sites:
How many people bother to read all the site's disclosures? 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

23 Oct 2021, 7:56 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
I’ll tell you what I see in the debate about pm information: Cornflake could have simply repeated his own words, changed a word or two, and it would have fit perfectly into the conversation currently underway. Only Brictoria would have known there had also been a private conversation. That is probably how I would have handled it, since I am hesitant to mention the existence of private conversations.

He could have simply do nothing at all, this post was addressed to you, not to him.

DW_a_mom wrote:
I don’t know how many people still on this site are aware, but I was a moderator for about two years. Our moderators are volunteers, and the job takes a significant investment of time. Some invest 50-60 hours a week into the job, and there is a lot of work involved stopping spam, etc that members never see. We can’t have a site worth visiting without their efforts, so while moderators are obviously human and will never be perfect, I feel nothing but gratitude towards them and actually feel terrible if anything I’ve posted or been involved in needs moderator attention; my personal goal is to reduce their workload, not add to it.

You don't need to feel terrible at all, it was Cornflake himself who opened this can of worms in this instance. No one asked for his intervention, we would not have conversation if could step over his ego and resist the urge to engage. He is increasing his workload for his own amusement.


DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria, I see you as amazing at finding law and legal quotes, it’s a useful resource for us, and I appreciate your ability to read precisely, but I don’t think you are good at seeing when cases are distinguishable from each other. Not many people are, so it isn’t something I expect from anyone, but I think you assume that you have that talent. I don’t think you do, I’m sorry, and I believe you are getting trapped over and over by these types of details, stubbornly clinging to your view. I don't know how to help you with this, I wish I did, but I hope you can learn to look more critically at your own way of linking situations and laws.

Since a lot of posters will ask what gives me the right to think I can say the above, I will note that I do have some official legal training, and part of my paid career job does deal with linking and distinguishing case law. I have professional feedback that says I am very good at it. I have also trained associates to work with the original law. I’m still only one opinion, of course.

I don't see how her capability at seeing when cases are distinguishable from each other is relevant here.

The question is whether moderators are good at seeing when cases are distinguishable from each other and at linking situations and laws in objective and unbiased way, because my experience doesn't support that, e.g. magz insisting that Cornflake didn't breach privacy, while privacy was obviously breached in this instance and both spirit and the letter of the rules were obviously violated.

or how magz previously moved my rant thread from "The Haven" to "Health and fitness" because "The Haven" rules do not allow arguments and she personally wanted to start an argument instead of implementing rules properly and deal with users attacking me for my opinion.

or how Cornflake previously blatantly refused to implement the rules and to deal with personal attacks against me in the same thread under made up excuses and later deleted my whole thread as petty revenge.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,326
Location: Northern California

23 Oct 2021, 8:39 pm

badRobot wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I’ll tell you what I see in the debate about pm information: Cornflake could have simply repeated his own words, changed a word or two, and it would have fit perfectly into the conversation currently underway. Only Brictoria would have known there had also been a private conversation. That is probably how I would have handled it, since I am hesitant to mention the existence of private conversations.

He could have simply do nothing at all, this post was addressed to you, not to him.


In the post he addressed to me, he referred to a situation that did not involve me, related to a post from another party, and that could have involved moderators; neither you nor I know for sure if it did. Quite a lot of room for other people to feel they have a stake.

Quote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I don’t know how many people still on this site are aware, but I was a moderator for about two years. Our moderators are volunteers, and the job takes a significant investment of time. Some invest 50-60 hours a week into the job, and there is a lot of work involved stopping spam, etc that members never see. We can’t have a site worth visiting without their efforts, so while moderators are obviously human and will never be perfect, I feel nothing but gratitude towards them and actually feel terrible if anything I’ve posted or been involved in needs moderator attention; my personal goal is to reduce their workload, not add to it.

You don't need to feel terrible at all, it was Cornflake himself who opened this can of worms in this instance. No one asked for his intervention, we would not have conversation if could step over his ego and resist the urge to engage. He is increasing his workload for his own amusement.


No moderator increases their own workload for their own amusement, and they don’t take joy in tangling with members. People do the job for the love of the community. Elements of human nature will creep in while trying to do the job, it’s only natural, but there are better ways to handle that than negative accusations. My point in writing all that wasn’t that I feel bad at this moment, but to try to change how members view moderator actions. You have no idea how stressful the job is, how much it takes from the rest of one’s life, and how quickly it starts to feel like you’re all there is holding this fragile community together, while your own ability to benefit from friendships and support on the site takes a nosedive. That’s a lot on the shoulders of people who are volunteers.

Quote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria, I see you as amazing at finding law and legal quotes, it’s a useful resource for us, and I appreciate your ability to read precisely, but I don’t think you are good at seeing when cases are distinguishable from each other. Not many people are, so it isn’t something I expect from anyone, but I think you assume that you have that talent. I don’t think you do, I’m sorry, and I believe you are getting trapped over and over by these types of details, stubbornly clinging to your view. I don't know how to help you with this, I wish I did, but I hope you can learn to look more critically at your own way of linking situations and laws.

Since a lot of posters will ask what gives me the right to think I can say the above, I will note that I do have some official legal training, and part of my paid career job does deal with linking and distinguishing case law. I have professional feedback that says I am very good at it. I have also trained associates to work with the original law. I’m still only one opinion, of course.

I don't see how her capability at seeing when cases are distinguishable from each other is relevant here. The question is whether moderators are good at seeing when cases are distinguishable from each other and at linking situations and laws in objective and unbiased way, because my experience doesn't support that, e.g. magz insisting that Cornflake didn't breach privacy, while privacy was obviously breached in this instance and both spirit and the letter of the rules were obviously violated.


I don’t think there is an “obviously” involved. While you wrote a good example for why what can be allowed from a pm conversation should not be as simple as quoting one’s own words, my point earlier was that if you take out Cornflake’s reference to a pm and use of quotes, everything he repeated here was natural to the conversation here, IMHO, and, thus, didn’t add any new private information. The sole potential violation was in pointing out it had previously been said in a pm. Cornflake could potentially argue that Brictoria had dragged me publicly into something the two were talking about in pm, if that is the case (we don’t have the trail to be sure). It feels to me like there was some tit for tat going on with Brictoria’s post to me that neither you or I can speak to, that we don’t have all the pieces for. I would suggest to Cornflake not referring to the pm conversation at all, as I did in my first paragraph, but he could say back that he felt his approach was more honest. There are conflicting priorities showing up in this situation, and a judgement call was made. I suspect the moderators are having their own conversation on if the choices made were the best; that is a constant for the team, and I’ll trust them to figure it out.



I see you’ve made some edits and additions to your post since I quoted it and I obviously have not addressed them here. I am sorry for your frustrations with the team, but I don’t know the details of any of the situations you mention. Moderators are human, they won’t always call it right, and I know it feels frustrating to sit on this side of those decisions. I know that feeling, too. Still, I’d encourage you to let it go. Nothing good happens from trying to “call out” a moderator. They want to do right by you, but it gets more difficult when members escalate into battle mode. Take a deep breathe. Try to see things from another perspective, then remake your case logically, calmly, and gently if it’s that important to you.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

23 Oct 2021, 9:22 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
In the post he addressed to me, he referred to a situation that did not involve me, related to a post from another party, and that could have involved moderators; neither you nor I know for sure if it did. Quite a lot of room for other people to feel they have a stake.

The point is we are not supposed to know, not just for sure, but that there even was any involvement, it was handled in PMs for a reason. Cornflake feels he has a stake and can't get over his urge to intervene. That is the problem.

DW_a_mom wrote:
No moderator increases their own workload for their own amusement, and they don’t take joy in tangling with members. People do the job for the love of the community. Elements of human nature will creep in while trying to do the job, it’s only natural, but there are better ways to handle that than negative accusations. My point in writing all that wasn’t that I feel bad at this moment, but to try to change how members view moderator actions. You have no idea how stressful the job is, how much it takes from the rest of one’s life, and how quickly it starts to feel like you’re all there is holding this fragile community together, while your own ability to benefit from friendships and support on the site takes a nosedive. That’s a lot on the shoulders of people who are volunteers.

Every single person takes up such duty to feel good, selflessness is fundamentally selfish. Some people want to do good, some want to be appreciated and respected for their selfless efforts, some do it to have power. When person is professional and unbiased in their judgements, it means their motivation is true respect and true selflessness. If they use their position as means to obtain power to enforce their personal beliefs, show dishonesty and double standards, I refuse to give them respect and appreciation. I had growing respect for magz over last couple months, but now it's gone. I have very little respect to Cornflake.

DW_a_mom wrote:
I don’t think there is an “obviously” involved. While you wrote a good example for why what can be allowed from a pm conversation should not be as simple as quoting one’s own words, my point earlier was that if you take out Cornflake’s reference to a pm and use of quotes, everything he repeated here was natural to the conversation here, IMHO, and, thus, didn’t add any new private information. The sole potential violation was in pointing out it had previously been said in a pm.

Yeah, and it makes all the difference. Just like consent makes all the difference between making love and rape. Would you say "the sole potential violation was in that woman was too drunk to agree to have sex"?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,610

23 Oct 2021, 9:55 pm

badRobot wrote:
When person is professional and unbiased in their judgements, it means their motivation is true respect and true selflessness. If they use their position as means to obtain power to enforce their personal beliefs, show dishonesty and double standards, I refuse to give them respect and appreciation. I had growing respect for magz over last couple months, but now it's gone. I have very little respect to Cornflake.


That's quite a strong accusation to make. Moderators are human too. Both Magz and Cornflake have over the years warned me on many occasions and one occasion gave me an involuntary holiday from WP. While I don't necessarily agree with all their reasons or decisions I do respect they have a very difficult job and both of them are very diligent and thorough (particularly cornflake). I wouldn't have the patience that either of them have in dealing with disputes (many of them quite petty).

You need to be a little flexible and accept that sometimes things don't go your way and that rules/by laws on WP don't align with your values/thinking. Any forum these days (and with social media these types of forums are now the domain of us older folk) has constraints and boundaries. I've seen many ex-members post threads on why they dislike WP and/or the moderators and try and convince others to leave this forum. It's not like the grass is greener on another autism forum. There are always rules and moderators.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,326
Location: Northern California

23 Oct 2021, 10:36 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Apparently, the SPAC associated with this is going nuts, the Wall Street Bets people are onto it, and pushed it from $10/share to over $150/share, who knows where it's going to end up. Kinda makes me wish I'd been paying attention to the money side, 15X return in one day would be pretty nice.


The financial market gambling opportunities we miss, eh?

Boy have there been a lot in my lifetime.

Of course, none of that money goes into the hands of the company. Wonder how well set it actually is ...


I may have been wrong on the last paragraph, in a way … they are playing a game, apparently.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

23 Oct 2021, 11:03 pm

cyberdad wrote:
badRobot wrote:
When person is professional and unbiased in their judgements, it means their motivation is true respect and true selflessness. If they use their position as means to obtain power to enforce their personal beliefs, show dishonesty and double standards, I refuse to give them respect and appreciation. I had growing respect for magz over last couple months, but now it's gone. I have very little respect to Cornflake.


That's quite a strong accusation to make. Moderators are human too. Both Magz and Cornflake have over the years warned me on many occasions and one occasion gave me an involuntary holiday from WP. While I don't necessarily agree with all their reasons or decisions I do respect they have a very difficult job and both of them are very diligent and thorough (particularly cornflake). I wouldn't have the patience that either of them have in dealing with disputes (many of them quite petty).

I don't understand this argument. Does having a difficult job, e.g. as a firefighter excuse stuff like looting buildings where the fire happened? I've witnessed Cornflake trolling a member and then using his administrator privileges to clean up the mess. He refused to address direct personal attacks against me after bringing up my responses as examples of my allegedly "aggressive" behavior. Then he deleted the whole thread as a petty revenge. I just can't respect someone doing that no matter how difficult his job is.

cyberdad wrote:
You need to be a little flexible and accept that sometimes things don't go your way and that rules/by laws on WP don't align with your values/thinking.

Rules align with my values very well. Their loose interpretation of rules and their reasoning "because I said so" when they don't like my opinion doesn't.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,326
Location: Northern California

23 Oct 2021, 11:28 pm

Pepe wrote:
Nonsense.
In regard to satirical sites:
How many people bother to read all the site's disclosures? 8)


I’m not sure I’ve been able to find the link Brictoria was concerned with, which leaves me speaking in the dark a little. It seems he was referring to a link in a signature. I never follow links in signatures and rarely read quote style signatures at all. I don’t know how many people do, certainly less than read a thread.

I’ve been trying to distinguish between past situations based on information gleamed from the discussion alone, and trying to see potentially distinguishing factors.

However.

You have a point.

I would personally feel it would be fair, going forward, to ask all satire to be labeled, whether provided through a link, copied, originated, or in a signature.

I don’t have a problem asking moderators to apply that interpretation going forward. Final decision is theirs, of course, not mine.

It’s also the kind of thing i would hope no one is ever censored for forgetting. Once noticed, just get it fixed. I would hope members don’t fight over the labeling request; just do it. It shouldn’t be a big deal. Labels provide clarity.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,610

23 Oct 2021, 11:45 pm

@Badrobot
You have highlighted one of the issues I have with mods which is the deletion of discussion from threads. Often some effort goes into posts and its a little discouraging to see one's efforts removed, However I can also see the other side of the coin/flipside which is namely going off topic and/or triggering some/many other users.

I appreciate when personal attacks are made against me (I'm a popular target :lol: ) that often I am not cognisant that I may have contributed to the responses. I may not initially agree but I accept my role in the fracas.

Interpretation of rules tends to be subjective and will vary from individual to individual. But that's precisely why moderators are required. I assume there are minimum requirements applicable to a potential moderator and apart from notable exception (an ex-moderator) all of the mods I have seen are trying to the best job they can and remain objective, impartial and unbiased in handling disputes.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,326
Location: Northern California

23 Oct 2021, 11:49 pm

badRobot wrote:
Rules align with my values very well. Their loose interpretation of rules and their reasoning "because I said so" when they don't like my opinion doesn't.


Ah, the world’s favorite line, “because I said so.”

I challenge you to change your perspective. Obviously the line is an inadequate answer. So why does it get offered so often in this world?

In my experience, it is an expression usually used by people who’ve been pushed past their limit.

At that point accept that you can’t get a better answer than one already given. It could be because a solid answer was offered that you refused to accept. It could be because they are exhausted or stressed and unable to think clearly in the moment. The reason doesn’t change the reality that the person defaulting to the classic line doesn’t have anything more, in that moment, they can give you.

So step away.

Or ask if there is something you can do to help.

You can’t extract more from people than they have to give, no matter how much you need more. And it may not be anyone’s fault at all. Sometimes it just “is.”

If you show that you can accept they have past their limit, sometimes they will come back to the question later when they have more bandwidth and provide a better answer. They know they cut you off. If you aren’t showing them consideration, it’s easy to leave it there. If you are showing them consideration, they will want a better resolution and initiate one when ready.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

24 Oct 2021, 12:10 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
badRobot wrote:
Rules align with my values very well. Their loose interpretation of rules and their reasoning "because I said so" when they don't like my opinion doesn't.


Ah, the world’s favorite line, “because I said so.”

I challenge you to change your perspective. Obviously the line is an inadequate answer. So why does it get offered so often in this world?

In my experience, it is an expression usually used by people who’ve been pushed past their limit.

In my experience this line usually used by people who understand they are wrong, but their fragile ego and insecurity prevents them from ever admitting that.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

24 Oct 2021, 12:14 am

badRobot wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I don’t think there is an “obviously” involved. While you wrote a good example for why what can be allowed from a pm conversation should not be as simple as quoting one’s own words, my point earlier was that if you take out Cornflake’s reference to a pm and use of quotes, everything he repeated here was natural to the conversation here, IMHO, and, thus, didn’t add any new private information. The sole potential violation was in pointing out it had previously been said in a pm.

Yeah, and it makes all the difference. Just like consent makes all the difference between making love and rape. Would you say "the sole potential violation was in that woman was too drunk to agree to have sex"?

So, do you agree that it was breach of privacy by Cornflake or I'm pushing to "Because I said so" again and should change my perspective?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,419
Location: Melbourne, Australia

24 Oct 2021, 1:16 am

badRobot wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
In the post he addressed to me, he referred to a situation that did not involve me, related to a post from another party, and that could have involved moderators; neither you nor I know for sure if it did. Quite a lot of room for other people to feel they have a stake.

The point is we are not supposed to know, not just for sure, but that there even was any involvement, it was handled in PMs for a reason. Cornflake feels he has a stake and can't get over his urge to intervene. That is the problem.


All that he needed to post, as he felt the overwhelming desire to intervene, was what rules he has decided should apply regarding the situation being discussed. The mention of private conversations (whether including content or simply mentioning subject matter) was (to me) a serious breach of trust and of confidentiality, with there being no need for it to have been made. People enter into PM's with an understanding that the messages (content and subject matter) will be kept confidential, but through this calculated action, the "site admin" has opened the door, showing either that he will not respect other's confidentiality, or that no-one else on the site needs to keep such messages confidential.

badRobot wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
No moderator increases their own workload for their own amusement, and they don’t take joy in tangling with members. People do the job for the love of the community. Elements of human nature will creep in while trying to do the job, it’s only natural, but there are better ways to handle that than negative accusations. My point in writing all that wasn’t that I feel bad at this moment, but to try to change how members view moderator actions. You have no idea how stressful the job is, how much it takes from the rest of one’s life, and how quickly it starts to feel like you’re all there is holding this fragile community together, while your own ability to benefit from friendships and support on the site takes a nosedive. That’s a lot on the shoulders of people who are volunteers.

Every single person takes up such duty to feel good, selflessness is fundamentally selfish. Some people want to do good, some want to be appreciated and respected for their selfless efforts, some do it to have power. When person is professional and unbiased in their judgements, it means their motivation is true respect and true selflessness. If they use their position as means to obtain power to enforce their personal beliefs, show dishonesty and double standards, I refuse to give them respect and appreciation. I had growing respect for magz over last couple months, but now it's gone. I have very little respect to Cornflake.


I'll let others decide on the level of respect I hold for those who would breach the confidentially of private communications, or those who wish to excuse such actions. I, personally, would never disclose such communication in a public post (either the content or even simply the existance of such communication) without the express consent of the other party, and at this point I do wonder how much other confidential material (from myself or others) now has the potential to be publicly aired given the site admin, through this example, has demonstrated that this type of action is acceptable.

badRobot wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I don’t think there is an “obviously” involved. While you wrote a good example for why what can be allowed from a pm conversation should not be as simple as quoting one’s own words, my point earlier was that if you take out Cornflake’s reference to a pm and use of quotes, everything he repeated here was natural to the conversation here, IMHO, and, thus, didn’t add any new private information. The sole potential violation was in pointing out it had previously been said in a pm.

Yeah, and it makes all the difference. Just like consent makes all the difference between making love and rape. Would you say "the sole potential violation was in that woman was too drunk to agree to have sex"?


If a person does not feel "safe"\"confident" enough to post about something in a public forum post (there is a section of the forum where these issues can be aired, after all), the only way they previously had to bring the subject matter up was in a PM. Now we see that even this is not a safe\confidential option, so how do people bring up issues\concerns they do not wish publicly aired?

Were a member to go through a period of time when they were posting in a questionable manner through having consumed too much alcohol, and to later appologise via PM to a moderator explaining the reason, how would they feel to see the moderator later mention in a post "As I mentioned in a PM, alcohol can affect how you post, so posting while drinking may not be a good idea" where the moderator disliked\disagreed with the content of the post. Or a member who privately discloses a medical condition which can affect their judgement having this brought up by a moderator in a public post...

There were many ways that the desired subject matter could have been presented while not breaching the trust\confidentiality of another person, and would have required much less typing\content in the post. The inclusion of (and disclosure of the existance of) private communication on the subject was not an accident, but appears an intentional act... He could even have simply explained what the new rules were to another moderator and asked if they could post them instead, for that matter, had he wished to have a "neutral" (rather than personally attacking) style of post made.


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,326
Location: Northern California

24 Oct 2021, 2:54 am

badRobot wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
In the post he addressed to me, he referred to a situation that did not involve me, related to a post from another party, and that could have involved moderators; neither you nor I know for sure if it did. Quite a lot of room for other people to feel they have a stake.

The point is we are not supposed to know, not just for sure, but that there even was any involvement, it was handled in PMs for a reason. Cornflake feels he has a stake and can't get over his urge to intervene. That is the problem.


When I connect the dots and fill in the gaps, I get the sneaking suspicion that I was being dragged into a disagreement between Brictoria and Cornflake that already existed. That’s my best guess.

Quote:

DW_a_mom wrote:
No moderator increases their own workload for their own amusement, and they don’t take joy in tangling with members. People do the job for the love of the community. Elements of human nature will creep in while trying to do the job, it’s only natural, but there are better ways to handle that than negative accusations. My point in writing all that wasn’t that I feel bad at this moment, but to try to change how members view moderator actions. You have no idea how stressful the job is, how much it takes from the rest of one’s life, and how quickly it starts to feel like you’re all there is holding this fragile community together, while your own ability to benefit from friendships and support on the site takes a nosedive. That’s a lot on the shoulders of people who are volunteers.

Every single person takes up such duty to feel good, selflessness is fundamentally selfish.


I disagree. It’s about doing your part, and knowing that you have the obligation to do your part somewhere, sometime. The choice is when and where to exercise that duty.

Do you know how I became a moderator? I logged in one day to a message that I had been handed the tools. No one asked (that has since changed, I believe). I had two young children, a paid job, and a volunteer job already, so I had no intention of taking up another duty. But suddenly the forum was under a spam attack and no moderators were on-line. So I could watch the place get destroyed, or use the tools that had been handed to me. Perhaps you would say it’s selfish that I couldn’t bear seeing the forum taken down while I had the power to do something about it. But if you believe in things, you do your part. It isn’t noble or selfish IMHO; it’s pragmatic. It’s taking your share of responsibility for the world you live in. We all have different talents, and a duty to use them when the relevant challenge arrives.

Quote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I don’t think there is an “obviously” involved. While you wrote a good example for why what can be allowed from a pm conversation should not be as simple as quoting one’s own words, my point earlier was that if you take out Cornflake’s reference to a pm and use of quotes, everything he repeated here was natural to the conversation here, IMHO, and, thus, didn’t add any new private information. The sole potential violation was in pointing out it had previously been said in a pm.

Yeah, and it makes all the difference. Just like consent makes all the difference between making love and rape. Would you say "the sole potential violation was in that woman was too drunk to agree to have sex"?


You can’t compare a pm reference to a rape. The level of harm matters. In fact, I would say the level of potential harm is everything. Is there really potential for harm to Brictoria to find out he’d been talking to a moderator about someone else’s link to satire? That news did not make me think anything different or negative about Brictoria. It wasn’t a revelation that Brictoria was in trouble with the moderators, but that he was seeking clarification on what he saw as inconsistent moderation. You know what?If that was the conversation, I think he was doing exactly what he should have been doing. As for Cornflakes response in this thread, he can read just like everyone else how I would have preferred him to handle it. I see our role as done; we’ve expressed opinions and the moderators have had the opportunity to read them. Their decision what they do with it.

I have had members try to publicly trap me into revealing private conversations, and those situations are the reason for the “no discussing pm’s” rule. I know there would have been emotional harm had I fallen for the trap.

In contrast, what’s happened here has essentially been about getting clarification and consensus on how some rules should be applied. Ultimately, that will be healthy for the forum.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,326
Location: Northern California

24 Oct 2021, 3:22 am

Brictoria wrote:
There were many ways that the desired subject matter could have been presented while not breaching the trust\confidentiality of another person, and would have required much less typing\content in the post. The inclusion of (and disclosure of the existance of) private communication on the subject was not an accident, but appears an intentional act... He could even have simply explained what the new rules were to another moderator and asked if they could post them instead, for that matter, had he wished to have a "neutral" (rather than personally attacking) style of post made.


First off, I want confess, it’s felt strange writing posts that include speculation on your feelings and motives knowing you were off-line due to the time difference, so I apologize if any of my comments made you uncomfortable.

Now that you’ve been able to express your thoughts, I can appreciate what you are saying about the overall sense of trust, and that you have listed some alternatives for how the situation could have been handled instead.

I don’t think referencing a pm was an intentional act. I see it more as an awkward act. Place yourself in Cornflakes shoes (now I get to feel awkward mentioning him because I think these are offline hours for him). Imagine you’ve been having a conversation with a member in pms, and now you see the member (I assume) bring the same conversation into a public thread. How do you respond? The efficient thing to do is repeat. Then you find yourself worrying you’ll be accused of redundancy, so you decide the most transparent thing to do is mention the parallel conversation. You feel something has to be said, but aren’t sure how to do it, so you take your stab at it and move on. What you do isn’t ill intended, but it isn’t perfect communication, either.

Funny, we’re on a forum where communication is an issue for every last one of us.

Fumbles happen.

I can see both sides on this, but I going to default to believing the larger goals of the forum are best protected by not referencing pms at all, even if the reference was done in a way that really is harmless. Regardless of how harmless any one reference seems to be, one has to consider your point about the erosion of trust.

As I said in my last post, I think conversations like this can be healthy. I suspect the moderators will read, discuss, and make their own decisions that may well include some changes to their own approaches. The later we don’t get to see, but I trust they are working hard to figure out how to do the right thing for the forum. I know they are. You can’t sit in that chair and not want to. It makes me sad that you all don’t know that, but such is the thankless job of moderating.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

24 Oct 2021, 4:57 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
When I connect the dots and fill in the gaps, I get the sneaking suspicion that I was being dragged into a disagreement between Brictoria and Cornflake that already existed. That’s my best guess.

How is your guesswork relevant? We are not supposed to know there was PM exchange between a moderator and a member unless the member decides to disclose the fact of such exchange. PERIOD.

DW_a_mom wrote:
I disagree. It’s about doing your part, and knowing that you have the obligation to do your part somewhere, sometime. The choice is when and where to exercise that duty.

Do you know how I became a moderator? I logged in one day to a message that I had been handed the tools. No one asked (that has since changed, I believe). I had two young children, a paid job, and a volunteer job already, so I had no intention of taking up another duty. But suddenly the forum was under a spam attack and no moderators were on-line. So I could watch the place get destroyed, or use the tools that had been handed to me. Perhaps you would say it’s selfish that I couldn’t bear seeing the forum taken down while I had the power to do something about it. But if you believe in things, you do your part. It isn’t noble or selfish IMHO; it’s pragmatic. It’s taking your share of responsibility for the world you live in. We all have different talents, and a duty to use them when the relevant challenge arrives.

And taking your share of responsibility for the world you live in caused you moral suffering?

Do you know how I got involved as a member and what I was banned for? I logged in one day to see an individual spreading pro-suicide beliefs on this forum in public, where vulnerable people can see it. I had 6 freelance projects and 2 personal in progress, so I had no intention of taking up another duty. But suddenly the forum was under attack and no moderators did anything about it. So I could watch the place getting infected by toxic mentality or try and challenge these false beliefs and pseudo-logical reasoning. Perhaps you would say it’s selfish that I couldn’t bear seeing potentially dozens and dozens people being driven toward depression and committing suicide while I had the power to do something about it. But if you believe in things, you do your part. It isn’t noble or selfish IMHO; it’s pragmatic. It’s taking your share of responsibility for the world you live in. We all have different talents, and a duty to use them when the relevant challenge arrives.

DW_a_mom wrote:
You can’t compare a pm reference to a rape. The level of harm matters. In fact, I would say the level of potential harm is everything. Is there really potential for harm to Brictoria to find out he’d been talking to a moderator about someone else’s link to satire? That news did not make me think anything different or negative about Brictoria. It wasn’t a revelation that Brictoria was in trouble with the moderators, but that he was seeking clarification on what he saw as inconsistent moderation. You know what?If that was the conversation, I think he was doing exactly what he should have been doing. As for Cornflakes response in this thread, he can read just like everyone else how I would have preferred him to handle it. I see our role as done; we’ve expressed opinions and the moderators have had the opportunity to read them. Their decision what they do with it.

I have had members try to publicly trap me into revealing private conversations, and those situations are the reason for the “no discussing pm’s” rule. I know there would have been emotional harm had I fallen for the trap.

In contrast, what’s happened here has essentially been about getting clarification and consensus on how some rules should be applied. Ultimately, that will be healthy for the forum.

This is not your judgement call to make. What is ok to you, might not be ok for this member of the forum. There are rules, it is her consent. You might as well argue sex without consent doesn't cause any harm, your argument is identical to "but if this woman was sober she would most likely agree to have sex anyway".

Or in case of my example, gynecologist might believe this is not a big deal to disclose the fact of interaction with a patient, you might believe it is not a big deal, but for a woman with orthodox muslim family it might be a death/life difference.

Your interpretations are very bizarre for someone who claims to have legal training and positive professional feedback.