It's time to talk abt this Politically correctness madness.

Post Reply New Topic

I don't feel like that's fair to say. You'd said before that the reason you wouldn't reveal what was said was that you felt it would be unfair to LPP. That sounded to me like an invitation for him to reveal what was said. You didn't mention your own privacy, you mentioned LPP's privacy. How is it contemptuous towards you for him to reveal what was said after you stated that it was his own privacy that you were trying to protect? Like how a therapist can't reveal something that was said in a session, but the patient can. If you decide to have, say, a couple's therapy session, and your significant other asks the therapist a question that they can't answer due to confidentiality, and the therapist tells them that, it is an invitation for you to choose to reveal that information yourself. What you said about the confidentiality of your words with LPP seemed to be along those same lines.

I'm confused by the way you guys are responding to this, was the original thread not deleted at all but just moved? Granted, LPP made a mistake by wording his question as a demand, but if he posted a link to a study that he wanted to discuss, is it really unreasonable to want to know why the post was deleted? I think the purpose of his PM was to find out why that particular post was deleted, because he didn't know.
IS it against the rules to post a link to an interesting article that the OP wishes to discuss, even if the OP doesn't already have something specific to say about that article? It's certainly been done that members post such links. (I believe I've seen mods do it as well..) Is the link along with simply the question "What do you guys think of this?" more appropriate? If the particular thread in question had been removed because somebody had complained, could he not have been told (without giving names) that it had upset somebody?

While nobody is allowed to spam the forums, a post with a link does seem far less likely to be interpreted as spam if it's posted by somebody who routinely participates in discussions on WP than if it's somebody's first post. I think that's what LPP meant when he said that it wouldn't have been interpreted that way because he's an old member.

I know it's important for moderators to have discretion, but isn't it also important for active members of the community to understand why something they posted was inappropriate? This is, after all, a community for people who have problems with social appropriateness. Unless there's some totally separate issue that I'm missing, I don't understand why the reason for pulling that specific post couldn't have been explained. When an aspie wants to know why something isn't allowed, "because I said so" just doesn't seem like the right way to go about answering. It doesn't let the person know what they can and can't post in the future. It seems to me that there's a difference between offensive statements and studies with results that people find offensive.

I kinda think of WP as a safe haven for asking why certain things that I don't consider offensive are judged by society to be offensive, since there are so many other people here who have a lot of those same questions.

(Of course, if the whole point of all this was that the post wasn't deleted but moved to a more appropriate section, this is all kinda moot.. but if that were the case, wouldn't that have been said?)

Edited at the request of LPP.

Last edited by RainSong on 28 Sep 2009, 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

:-/ umm.....what the ... my intention was not flaming a rebellion or calling for a fatwa against a specific mod, I was just merely seeking for explanation, no less no more. If some one you have personal issues against a specific mod , I am kindly suggesting you to make your own threads about this.

RS, I'm sorry that you find it cheap, but I don't find error in SB's comments or actions. If LPP needed further clarification, a PM to the mod involved (or another mod) would have been appropriate. The site rules are explicit in that posts may be removed at the discretion of the moderation team, which is what has happened here. No disciplinary action was taken, so I'm not sure where the complaint stems from other than the desire to have his content retained intact. This isn't a problem, as anyone online can start their own blog where their comments may be made without such qualifications - but WP's forums are not the place for those things. Further, situations arise where moderators should not and can not discuss situations in public detail... to expect and demand such a thing is somewhat absurd and extreme. So here we are, in a public scenario, where only two individuals have any real sense of what transpired and a number of other deriving harsh criticisms as a result of their own inferences. If a member has an issue, a PM is the appropriate route to take.

As a second point: Maggiedoll, while I can see your argument, that involves a level of assumption regarding the unspoken intent of another person's words that I am not comfortable with. Personally, I did not see it as an invitation, but a preemptive statement regarding the posting of such content in the public forums. Posting a link without contributing comment is generally frowned upon - yes, asking for feedback is at least some content - as is quoting entire articles in a post w/o additional remarks (or w/o a citation of all things!).

Ultimately, while for some it is an unsatisfactory answer, it comes down to choice. This site was set up to support those on the spectrum, not to cater to each individual whim. Posts with questionable content, or posts made with the intent to provoke other members, are specifically mentioned in the site rules. Similarly, bringing up topics that have previously been locked or removed is also not permitted. If these rules do not satisfy any individual, they are free to find a more suitable setting for their behaviors - but they are -not- welcome to negatively impact this site and the help it offers for many for the sake of their personal beliefs or tastes.


M.

LPP, life is full of judgement calls, and on those threads, Sinsbodly made one. I am sorry you disagree, but it was her call to make, and miles of arguing about it won't change that. No one will ever agree all the time with decisions made by any moderator. We can only do our best. Time is limited, resources are limited, and all moderators are just members who got asked to do a job - without any pay or benefits - that no forum can thrive without, and that is moderation. We do listen; if someone can back up to me why they disagree with a decision I will consider changing it. But once you've made your case, the first time, its time to let go and accept.

Side note: I don't remember where you posted those threads, but the moderators are very aware that this is a highly public site that gets views from a variety of ages and cultures so, when it doubt, caution is likely.

Be that is it may, there is a long history here of abusive PMs from mods being sent to members, and though this one is merely contemptuous and asinine, I think the site as a whole has a vested interest in the actions of our moderation team. In other words, when someone accepts the moderator position and then acts in that capacity, they should have no expectation of privacy, whether they communicate via PM or open post. It's bad enough that we have absolutely zero mod accountability and transparency to begin with, what with the silent ban and the positively Orwellian rule against even questioning if someone was banned or have they just hasn't posted in a while, among other land mines hidden in the fine print of the TOS (badly in need of revising, IMHO). Since the position is strictly voluntary, I'd suggest that any moderator who's skin isn't thick enough to handle having their judgment questioned in public take their own oft proffered advice and simply leave the ranks, since presumably they knew what they were getting into when the agreed to being modded... After all, WP is supposed to exist for the good of the AS community, not for the convenience and personal gratification of a handful of people.

Isn't that the point of this entire thread? That LPP needed clarification, and when he PMed a mod about it, he wasn't given an answer besides "I can do whatever I want"?


To say that one "cannot reveal" a PM discussion because they "will not betray" the person's confidence, and then to go on to state that they would do it for others as well is not a statement of mutual confidentiality. I don't see any way to justify the claim that he was showing disdain for a moderator by believing that he could waive his own confidentiality. I would have interpreted the statement the same way.

I understand why SB was offended by the way he phrased his question/complaint, but unless there are circumstances surrounding it that I'm not aware of, I don't see why he shouldn't get a straight answer about why that particular post wasn't appropriate. It seemed to me like the whole reason he started this thread was that PMing a mod didn't help. If he's doing so to be manipulative, I don't see how. It seems to me that it negatively impacts the site to tell regularly participating members to go elsewhere if they don't like having posts arbitrarily removed. Is the reason SB is refusing to give LPP a clear answer about why his post was removed is because he phrased his question wrong? Does inappropriate wording invalidate the question?
When a single-digit poster starts complaining, you have to consider that they're just here to make trouble, but when somebody who is an active member of the community has a question like that, I don't see why the question can't get an answer. I don't see how asking why the post was removed as asking the site to cater to whims.

Am I missing something here?

Maggiedoll: I cannot speak for another moderator, or another member.

If he had trouble communicating with one moderator, there remained a number of other options for him to contact regarding this issue instead of choosing to create a public debate where none of the involved parties, save for two, have any real basis for understanding the situation. An answer was provided regarding the posts in question; whether that answer pleases or satisfies the person asking... that is beyond my control, and in my perspective is their problem to deal with. In terms of manipulation, this is a behavior I have witnessed in my high school students repeatedly over the years, where creating drama or distraction is desired over addressing the issue itself. I am not insinuating that this is the case here, only relating instances in my experience where such events have occurred and made me aware of the behavior.

Dox47: When I took on the responsibility of being a moderator here, it was with full understanding that I would no longer be able to enjoy the same freedom of expression that other members have. In discussions with the other mods, I think that is well understood by all who have taken on that mantle. By that same token, anyone who has signed on to be a member here has agreed to certain rules and terms as part of that account. The rules, as written, do not differentiate between a member and a moderator when it comes to private correspondence.

Please do not think I am against being accountable; on the contrary, it has pleased me when one of the members here has taught me something, pointed out a perspective that I had not been able to see, and I have admitted on more than a few occasions that I was wrong or had misinterpreted what was said. Generally speaking, unless it is a severe issue I will address the problem in the relevant thread instead of a PM, in the hopes that the feedback will help more than one person interact better on this site. By doing so, I place my opinions and actions in the public sphere instead of a private conversation. At the same time, there are times when issues are larger than is appropriate for the public arena. To address your concerns in general terms... those who I (personally) have banned fall into two categories - those who were explicitly warned prior to a repetition of the behavior in question, and those whose posts and behavior demonstrated a complete and knowing violation of the site rules (whether spammers, virulent trolls, or other such characters). Both situations fall within the province of a moderator's responsibility, and it up to their best judgment using the tools at hand to act appropriately. The restriction on questioning applies to forum posting - if a member has a question regarding a situation, they are welcome to ask privately... but the answer may not be as detailed or informative as the person asking may desire.


M.

I deleted my post out of respect for LPP (although it wasn't flaming), but since I got a response anyway, I'll just go ahead and reply anyway.

Clearly, the PM to the mod was not effective, and I doubt any other PMs would have been either. I might as well put this in copy and paste, but the rule she quoted provided no reason beyond want. She said the supposed reason, about it being offensive, was not true either. So what was the reason? It's not a complex question or an unreasonable one. Since the avenues you just suggested obviously weren't working, the logical next step is to post here.

Furthermore, I don't understand why he should have to PM another mod. If the community at large isn't allowed to participate in discussion (and let's be honest here, that's essentially what it's boiling down to here: it was done, so no one has the right to question), why would another moderator have any more say? And why should you (or DW_a_mom or lau or anyone else) have to answer questions about the action of another mod? Especially because you seem to have no more idea about the clear answer than LPP? Would you expect me to provide reasons for Maggiedoll's posts on the account that we're both non-mods and seem to have the same general viewpoint? I would certainly hope not. Be completely honest here: do you know sinsboldly's reasons for removing LPP's posts?

I don't recall remembering anyone say that removing the posts were against the rules. However, because they don't clearly violate any of the specific rules (the "want" rule doesn't count as specific), the question of why it was removed is a valid one. The complaint is that the moderator in question refuses to give an actual reason. I am absolutely baffled that this appears to be an elusive concept that has no answer. It should have been cut-and-dry - the post was delelted because of a, b, or c.

As for should not and cannot discuss this... that's more sidestepping, and I have to say, I'm disappointed to see it from you. The good of the community line is too (although I believe that's a previous post, not this one). You attempted to explain it publicy all ready (although that explanation was rebuked), so clearly this isn't a situation so sensitive that it should not and cannot be discussed. Also, the studies of correlations between sex are somehow against the greater community good? Meandering over to the Adult Section, I see multiple threads there about sex and no apparent destruction of the community. Or is it the questioning of an authority figure that does harm to the community? I see no manipulation or bullying by bringing in others either; unless I've missed something, the majority of us are quite capable of thinking on our own.

You'll find that I'm not one of those people who are against moderators - indeed, if you go back a year or two ago, you'll find multiple long posts from me defending how much it was increasing and why that was a good thing - but that doesn't mean everything that's done is automatically correct. I find the implication that the OP doesn't deserve an answer and that everyone else should agree with the mods to be disturbing.

If you want a good example, look at that video that DW_a_mom removed the other day. People objected, she explained her reasons, and in the end, a reasonable discussion took place. She acted maturely, and that's ideally how the site should run. Had she not explained her reasons (or used the fun ol' "want" rule), I'm sure it would have turned out much differently.

Here, we disagree - contacting another moderator may have helped with communication without inciting a more reactionary environment. Having a third party mediate the issue is more effective (in my book) than creating a public furor. Perhaps the subject was not offensive to you... this does not mean that it did not offend another member of the site and affected them adversely.

Do I know the reasons for the removal of the posts? As said, I will not speak for another moderator or member. I can see where several aspects of those conversations would offend various individuals, however, through their gross overgeneralization and denigrating implications contained therein. There have been threads that I myself have removed completely after attempting to prune out offending material because those threads continued to generate the same responses and problems time after time - I am not saying that is the case here, but I am offering an alternative view of the situation. [edit] However, I refer you to the site rules that are posted at the top of many of the forums here:

[/edit]

As frustrating as it is, for all of us at various times in our lives, there are situations where things are as they are. As children, our parents guide our lives; as adult, we are subject to governmental and other external influences and controls. Our freedom lies in what we do about it. We can seek to improve the situation, or we can seek to make a ruin of it; this is a choice we all face.

In the terms of service, members agree not to discuss banned members or locked/deleted topics in the forums. That in no way precludes anyone from discussing it with a mod, or privately with another member - nor do I think anyone here has discouraged the ability of any member to address issues publicly. Discourse is essential to ensuring that the site remains a reflection of its membership. That being said, there are better ways to handle it than the method chosen here.



And I agree - that worked out for the best for everyone. There have also been instances where after discussion, threads have been restored to the forums after being temporarily removed. Yet in that case, as DW has said, the OP came and explained the context and the situation to the satisfaction of the moderator who made the decision. That has not occurred here, as far as I have seen.

That you disapprove of my belief that some situations require a different approach... well, we disagree, and my job is not to make everyone happy - it is to attempt to enforce the rules of the site while maintaining the culture and environment of the membership. I don't believe anyone has said that any one or any approach is perfect; we all continue to refine ourselves.



At no point did I attempt to explain anything about this situation; I gave a perspective (three, actually) on what had and was continuing to transpire. Please do not read more into my words than is expressed. For clarification, however - discussing sex and being sexist are two entirely different things. An answer has been provided; whether it satisfies those involved is beyond my control.

Lastly - to quote from the OP here:



Since their opinions did not coincide, there is yet another derisive and insulting comment made regarding those who are offended by such words and behaviors - perhaps this will help explain why such threads may have been removed.


M.

I'm not getting involved in the argument about whether the mod made the right decision, etc, but I feel the need to ask: how can a scientific study be "sexist"? Science does not discriminate, it just IS.

There was a lot of 'science' used as a basis for racism, slavery, genocide, et al... just because the principle or process is free from discriminating, that does not mean those who wield it are free from the same biases and beliefs. One can make statistics say just about anything, depending on the semantics used and how the numbers are manipulated.


M.

But, of course, the scientific soundness of that particular study cannot be discussed when the topic has been removed.

There was recently a post (in The Haven, I believe, but I can't seem to find it again) about people getting bullied by non-specific criticism. Someone said that they were talked to about seeming "unmotivated" or something along those lines, but that the person giving the criticism could give no actual reason for saying it. To be told that one's actions are wrong and given no reason whatsoever is not fun. Not only does it feel awful, but you can't correct whatever the problem is.
M, you mentioned that teens will make a public spectacle of a issue better handled privately just to cause drama, but the difference is that most teens don't WANT to be in high school. We want to be on WP. We want to be talking about issues and discussing things with people who understand. We want WP to be a safer, easier place to talk, not more dramatic. I imagine that LPP thought that a bit of community support for the issue might help his case. If he felt bullied, he'd have wanted further conversation to take place publicly where others could see it too. I've mentioned before that there needs to be a bit better communication about what exactly the rules here are and why. Having something removed with no specific cause given just leaves people feeling bullied.

Yes, WP does have that "want" clause in the TOS, but should any member who, ahem, wants to know what is an is not appropriate to post just leave? That seems like what's being said. Of course mods need to use discretion, but does that mean that the only explanation when somebody asks why a post is removed should be "because I said so"? That makes for a very unstable community where everybody constantly feels on the edge, not knowing what is and is not appropriate.
Is burying issues really the best way to go?

I'm on my mobile, so I'll be brief and fill in more when I get home, but a few quick points.

Even the Constitution can and has been amended, just because people "agreed" to the TOS does not mean they cannot question it. Endlessly quoting the rules is not helpful, especially when the rule in question is somewhat ambiguous, if nothing else it comes off as condescending and lazy.
As to why someone would prefer to take an issue with a mod public rather than stick to PMs, I'd say it's for similar reasons that people prefer to talk to the police with a lawyer present, it keeps everyone behaved. True or not, there is a perception that the mods here will generally back each other up in a dispute with a member regardless of the circumstances, and since we have no system of moderator accountability here, going public is often the only option.

Maggiedoll: My comment about science was in general to g-g's question, not in reference to any of the posts in question here - just a clarification.

I do not see the relevancy of your argument regarding the compulsory nature of high school vs. the voluntary membership of WP - please understand I am not lessening or dismissing it, but I simply do not understand. Would you please explain in further detail? Because in this case, an answer was given... it just wasn't the answer that was wanted. Without questions and clarification, nothing improves - but that doesn't mean that the rules are thrown out as well. Let me ask, then - LPP, are you bullied? From what I have seen, you've been given a rather extensive freedom to express yourself in the eighteen months or so that I've been a member here, but I would like to know from your point of view. As for wanting to know about what is appropriate, it would make sense to ask prior to posting instead of taking the risk of offending others. Burying issues is not the best way to go, but neither is creating a public campaign for a personal issue.

Dox47: Yes, the Constitution can and has been amended; it also belongs to the citizens of the US. As for a privately owned site, those rules were put forth by the owner as direction for how the site should be operated. Anyone is welcome to question it, but with that comes the cost that those who choose to violate the policies of the site do risk consequences of their actions, which do included being asked to find another forum to frequent. Are there times when I want more clarity in the rules? Absolutely - it would make my job easier, at least personally. But this is the scenario we are in, with the rules as they are given; when I have the opportunity, I make suggestions about things. But that doesn't change my responsibility. I'm curious why there is such a sense of no accountability, when there are few instances where I have been contacted about the actions of another mod - and when I have, then I have followed through on those as I would any other situation.


M.

And we will continue to disagree about such, I suppose. You're not attempting to open communication; you've been trying to shut it down.



You know, it's not even about whether or not I think it should be put back. It's about the reason they were removed. If, say, they were removed because the science was largely biased, that would be understandable. If they were removed because there were multiple complaints, that would be understandable too. The problem is that the reason isn't known, and the moderator in question refuses to answer. And that raises the question over whether or not the topics were deleted because they were somehow against the TOS or because the mod just didn't like them. And if the latter is the reason, then the posts should be seriously reviewed by multiple people - mods and non-mods - to see whether they really do warrant removal or not. I saw a mod take off posts that had been made months before - including a post that she made - because she had personally attacked someone and rather than admit it when called on it, she tried to get rid of it to say she never had.

Look, I'm not just randomly spouting things off. I haven't modded at this site, but I modded at another (now defunct) site for some time, and we had very similar rules. Every single time I did anything, I stepped back first and made sure it was objectively the better thing to do or if I was just reacting. If anyone asked me about why I did something, I had an explanation. And trust me, people would ask. There was one woman who publicly questioned me on every single thing I did - even though most of it never concerned her - and I answered publicly, because there was no reason for me to hide behind rules that said I didn't have to explain. And yeah, it was a bit of a hassle, but they had the right to know, and they ended up trusting my decisions. It showed that I wasn't just doing things out of spite; there was an actual reason behind it, and that reason had nothing to do with me.



That was the question, yes, and it's really just a yes or no answer.

Realistically though, you are speaking for sinsboldly. Because this was her decision, she should be the one who answers seriously. Instead, she sidestepped multiple times and now hasn't come back at all. You're the one who's doing all of the explaining and covering for her. Do you see that?



And I, yet again, refer to my copy and past.

That's the "want" rule. First off, it's still not completely cut and dry - the mod in question isn't an owner. Furthermore, having had one of those rules at the site where I modded, it's not meant to be a do-whatever-you-want. It's supposed to give you the freedom to remove posts that do violate the rules. It doesn't stand as an explanation.



Your first sentence voids the second; no one should discuss these things publicy, but no one is discouraging talking about it publicly. When a mod acts responsibly, there's no real reason to discuss it publicly, but in this case, that has yet to happen. If it had happened from the beginning, there wouldn't even need to be a thread here. If something fails, there's no reason to continue trying the same way.



Ok, allow me to rephrase. You offered three scenarios, which is more than the moderator who removed the post offered.

Anyway, the first two were suggested by LPP. Sinsboldly said that his posts were not deleted for the reasons he thought, which means that the first two are incorrect. And if all threads without content or commentary - and the OP said that he did put a few comments on it - then about half of the news and currents events would be gone. So if none of those three are correct, what does that leave? No answer has been provided.

You know, if I went around personally attacking people and then said, "Because I wanted to," it would never be accepted. There's no particular reason that it should be accepted now.



Italics added by you.

Anyway, was that out of line? Perhaps. Probably, actually. I've seen multiple posts saying that people who don't agree with science are simple-minded; you're on an Aspie site with people who have strong opinions. Without seeing the threads though, there's no way to say whether or not that's why they were removed - and to be quite honest, I've seen a lot of LPP's posts, and I doubt that's it.