IranPlanet.net?

Post Reply New Topic

That doesn't cover it?

(I may have added that in an edit last night after you posted this? The most recent edit time on that post, I only added the word "USE" today.)

Something just occurred to me. It takes me a while sometimes.

Comments have been made here about a forum just for dispute settlements, yet when I read through this very thread, most of it involves disputes. Not just discussion of the topic in general, but actual disputes.

That's a bit confusing to me. Comments against the idea of a dispute forum right in the middle of a thread where the exact thing I am suggesting is actually happening really confuses me.

If my suggestion is a bad idea all around, then isn't this thread a bad idea?

All the negative things that have been suggested could happen in a forum such as I suggested, are not happening here, are they? I'm not seeing it anyway.

I did pop in here, as a non-participant of disputes being discussed, but I'm not getting involved with any of them. Just suggesting possible solutions. I do not want to open a can of worms here by saying what I'm about to say. I'm going to say it anyway, and if it does turn into a can of worms, I'll ignore it.

It's kind of frustrating to post an idea, and just have it shot down, but no alternative ideas presented. I see a little of that, and quite a bit of, well, ambiguous suggestions that only point out what people want in general terms. I'm only going to paraphrase what I mean, not quote anyone.

"Tighter Rules."

"Clearly defined rules.

"Not open to interpretation."

"Freer place."

And so on....

A lot of the "ideas" here aren't very clear or specific themselves. Examples of what you guys mean would be a lot more helpful IMHO.

Specific ideas of rule changes or rewording, for example. Specific ideas of rules for the moderators, actually spelled out.

Generalizing what you want is helpful, but it still leaves it up to someone else to guess what you mean. If memory serves, that is exactly the kind of thing most of us here aren't very good at.

Talking over disputes from the past may be alright if they're being used as examples to point toward specific changes that may help avoid similar disputes. Rehashing the dispute though, isn't helping anyone move forward IMO.

Fnord has posted some specific ideas. I think a couple of others have too, but I think this thread could use more of that, and less rehashing and reopening of old wounds.

Just my observations FWIW.

I'm going to STFU now. I've already got three posts in a row here, and that's quite frankly embarrassing. Sorry.

I notice new moderators working with the same old members that have been banned by former moderators.
Did anyone else notice that too?

Sometimes the squeaky wheel just gets replaced, you know.

Sometimes bans are done in an arbitrary manner and we believe in second chances. So if someone provides an example of why they should be allowed back and the old mod logs dont make any reference to them/they seem to understand why they were banned on the first place we give them a second chance.

We are aware alex isnt keen on this but we are the ones dealing with this members at the moment so I dont see why his opinion should matter.

Just so you know we are keeping a close eye on every of this members you mention and they are contacted as soon as they seem to be going back to their previous ways.

Very good point. I'll say the mod staff has gone a long way ever since the old times. I believe in second chances, too.

considering a lot of the endless fighting and rudeness,i think the mods are remarkibly laid back.most websites would censure half the posts made here.if anything the opposite is true

I think you're seeing something of a pendulum effect. Back when I joined in '08, moderation was both stricter and more arbitrary, a lot of questionable bans were enacted, and the clamor finally grew about it to the point where Alex took action with a mod lockout and change of lineup. I'm not sure exactly what went on behind the scenes, but the trend since then has been less authoritarian and punitive and more towards member retention and recognizing that Aspies don't always behave perfectly. The current team takes great effort to work out problems and work with people who are having difficulties rather than simply rigidly enforcing the ToS and either threatening or banning people, it's a real improvement. Just the fact that bans are temporary and appeal-able is huge, I mean it was almost Kafkaesque that a support site would have a policy that would completely excommunicate members at the whim of a secretive group who would not explain their reasoning, and would actually threaten people who questioned them.

Actually I have been to other forums and I have seen lot of rude and hostility behavior as well. There is nothing in the rules about it unfortunately. I have been to a very few places where there was no drama and everyone was friendly. There seemed to be no fighting either nor any arguing.

Honestly, I think a lot of the moderators here are excellent, but hyper appears to make rules up as she goes along during debates, and she "disciplines" members according to her own made up rules as opposed to the ones actually set out by WP. In fact, if you happen to get into a debate with her, she seems to just make up some rule which allows her to silence you

1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images.
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

You did a sexist joke, we tend to overlook them but hyper thought there was need to intervene. Its covered by the rules so get your facts straight and say that she takes the rules too literally or something but the rule is there so your argument about making rules up can be proved wrong by reading the bolded part of the first paragraph of this message/the rules.

There is a rule against sexism, yes, but not a rule against jokes about the subject. No other moderator has ever given me trouble for any type of joke in the whole time I've been here.

Fine, she's taking the rules too literally. Or just bending them to her advantage during a debate, when it suits her.

Also remember that the debate itself was about whether or not sexist jokes are actually sexist. It's obvious she just asserted her authority over me to prove a point rather than in the interest of the community.

Even though it was a joke it was still sexist and rules are open to interpretation by a mod.
Most of us tend to overlook those grey areas but hyperlexian thought there was need to remove it.

Theres a rule against sexism and wether it was said in a serious manner or tongue in cheek it was still a sexist comment and she felt the joke was out of place considering that we try to make this place as gender friendly as possible(still hoping alex eventually sorts the male section issue)

In order to say that she bends rules to her advantage you need to provide an example of a sexist joke where hyperlexian laughed at it or overlooked it(which would show that she doesnt act the way she acted at all times). As far as Im concerned there are none because she is very concerned about the sexism issue and until you provide a link where she laughed at a sexist joke this is all speculation from your side

If she laughed at such jokes, she would have the ability to get off her high horse for long enough to realise they're just jokes, and would therefore not remove them in the first place.

As I added to the previous post, the debate in question was about "sexist" jokes. It's obvious she acted as she did to make a point and assert her authority over me in the debate. In fact, no one in that thread complained about being offended at all. She just used the grey area issue to her own advantage, simple as that.

Just because people don't complain, doesn't mean they're not offended. Maybe they're too shy or beaten down by the opposition they'd obviously face from you.

Also, as a male, you don't really get the constant stream of sexist comments and jokes women get, so it's less of an issue to you - the fact you're making such a big deal of it, shows more really, you need to get off of your "high horse", as you call it.

(ftr, wasn't offended but can see why some might be.)

Im sorry but Ive seen her discussing things with several other members in an ok manner on the same post because they werent breaking the rules.

She even encouraged you to find a way of arguing with her that wasnt rule breaking and you refused to do so.

Making this accusations after she encouraged you to find a way of arguing with her that wasnt rule breaking(since as a matter of fact she does like to have a good discussion here and this can be seen at several threads) just makes you look bad.

I don't see why someone would be so scared of me TBH, I'm not scary

As Boo noted in that thread, yes there is sexism against males, it's just of a different nature. We usually get positive stereotypes attached to our sexual actions instead, which can be just as harmful to those who disagree with them.

I'm just a bit irritated that hyper can silence people in debates so easily. I'm making a big deal about the abuse of power, not the subject matter of the debate.