Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

It seems like the problem comes down to people having one of 2 different approaches:

On one hand you have some with a more "authoritarian" view - These are the rules and you WILL follow them, or punishment (moderator report) will follow.

On the other side you have other members who have a more compassionate responce to new members and realise that coming to a new site (with new rules to learn, lots of people who you have never met) can be overwhelming and a degree of leeway (or at least understanding) should be shown rather than jumping on a minor (probably unknowing) infraction.

Looking at it this way, the former group appear to be looking at site improvement being based on people doing as they are told via the rules (with moderators there to force this) even if this keeps the site population at the same (or lesser) numbers to now, while the latter seeem to see improvement coming from increasing the number of members (with their individual views and approaches) and trying to asist new members to alter their behaviour through interatction with them rather than calling in the authorities.

I once heard of a story in high school from an aspie online and their personal web page. It was called Larry the Watchdog.

In the short story, Larry was a student with Asperger's and he was very adherent to the rules and wanted them all to be followed so he would tell on any student who he caught breaking them. This created him enemies and it lead to other kids bulling him in school because he was seen as a snitch, a tattle tale.

Perhaps other students saw him as the bully so they bullied him back for self defense. It's not uncommon for people to dog pile on someone when they have been bullied by that person or harassed.

I'm sincerely curious why you think the population won't grow if Alex's rules are followed and enforced by personal accountability and / or mod support when and if needed? I think people who come to a new site feel protected when they know what the standards are, and if they see consistency in the application of those rules. Most new members have lurked and they have an idea what the tone is before joining. I think it would be rather intimidating for potential members to peruse the site right now, and see people writing over 800 posts to say there isn't enough consistency. That in itself is a red flag that there are problems with the leadership and efficacy of Wrong Planet. We could be losing potential members we have never even met.

Other autism sites are clear about their rules across all fora, and this reduces anxiety for new members. They know what to expect. Of course we all make mistakes now and then, and may hurt each other's feelings or break a rule unintentionally, but I would hope that everyone is willing to apologise, respect one another, and create a more harmonious environment.

Problem is if rules are enforced too much, it will make it look like that anything you write is an attack and your tone is always perceived as being wrong. So you yourself feel unwelcome to the site and feel there is a clique and it will be like being in high school where there are the popular groups and anything the unpopular says is wrong so they bully you.

It's a catch 22 and you can't make everyone happy.

It would be beneficial if we could remember that we all have compromised ability to communicate. There will be different styles of communication, and different interpretations of posts.

I could be wrong, but I think that is why the rules are concrete rather than interpretive.

We can all find exceptions to rules or examples of how the rules can’t encompass this or that situation.

There are so many excellent posts and positive suggestions in this thread. Frequently I think to write something and before I can formulate the post, another person has articulated it better than I could have. Let’s build on those positive suggestions so we can move forward.

@ League Girl,
That's not my experience with other forums. People are friendly, cordial, accepting, and respectful even on autism platforms. They are just as autistic as we are. They have the same co-morbid conditions and triggers that we do. They have the same differences we do. They all manage. People who are relentlessly bullied here are treated with dignity and given a space to call home. No one complains about others on the public fora, and disagreements are settled privately if they happen to occur at all.

On WP we have fewer rules than any other autism forum I have joined or read, and our rules are based on a basic principle of respect. It's not hard to be nice to people, or to follow the motto "Do no harm". Again, no one expects perfection. We all mess up. It's not like mods go about banning people for every mistake. We're human. We forgive and we forget, but it's not impossible for autistic people to support one another, or avoid those who cause friction.

I find it rather baffling that 800 posts later, some people think our simple rules are too complicated to follow.

It's not the "enforcement" of the rules, but rather the method of enforcement.

How would a new member feel if (for example) they posted a question in a forum, then (whether by accident, because they need to do this as it is how they process information\other reasons) they post a follow-up question as a spearate thread, and they find they have been "reported" for doing so?

Contrast this with a similar situation where the member(s), instead of "reporting" this, explain to the new member what they had done wrong and tried to assist them to correct this behaviour (as well as getting to know them)?

Which of these would give a more "welcoming" feeling to the new member, and which is likely to make a new member feel "unwanted" or "unsupported" and so less likely to return?

We are all cognitively able to “treat others as you like to be treated.”

I am sure people who attack others for mild rules infractions wouldn’t want to be attacked for doing the same thing.

Absolutely. I agree. I wasn't challenging or critiquing your post, but rather wondering if there could be a middle ground. We can follow the standards of collegial kindness whether we are new members or seasoned veterans, and this will in turn increase the membership. Of course the example you provided would be terrible for a new member. I was very upset when I saw that particular person called out, reported publicly, and told they were asking "stupid questions". That new member didn't break any rules and even if they did, it was handled very poorly. If I were that member I would have left as well.

Let me say again, I agree with you and always value your point of view. I just wanted to clarify whether you thought the two groups described in your post were mutually exclusive. I believe (and I'm sure you believe) they can work together.

One person’s “stupid question” is another person’s pertinent inquiry.

There’s a cliche, often stated by college professors, which states that “no question is a stupid question.”

No new member should ever be subjected to an inquisition. If I see this happening, I will seek to offset this inquisition.

My correction. The new member wasn't told they had a "stupid question".

It was called a "crap", "ridiculous" and "asinine" question.

Okay.....one’s person’s “asinine,” “crap,” and “ridiculous” question is another person’s pertinent inquiry.

There have been people here who do ask ridiculous sorts of questions in order to get a rise out of others.

Dear MG , you are one of the nicer persons on here I feel. Some threads just die out on their own. Fear not.

Got any examples ? I am interested to see that posting style .

I don’t, offhand....but I have seen this occur.

If anybody actually knows me, they would know that I don’t actually find many questions to be worthy of being criticized. I answer all sorts of questions without raising an eyebrow.

If I did make that sort of observation by mistake, I apologize for it. I had no intention to be demeaning.

I KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO BE DEMEANED. It’s the story of my life. But I want to transcend that, and move on to better things.