My PM rights

Post Reply New Topic

They are right not to try to respond to requests for quotes here. That could be seen as advertising or using this site for business. This site has never allowed that sort of thing. There are lines that need to be honored.

If you read my explanation of what happened, you will find that the reason I lost my PM rights is that I did ONE specific thing for ONE specific reason. Namely, I was scammed; I didn't know he was a scammer; thus, I asked ONE member for money to help me pay what that scammer promised will be returned within a week or two. After all, I believed his promise; now I know I shouldn't have.

Right now I KNOW he is a scammer, as evidenced by the fact that I keep using the word "scammer" to refer to him. For that reason, I ended contact with him; I haven't been communicating with him the whole year. Furthermore, I will not get involved with any other scammers, since now I KNOW the concept of a "scammer" which I didn't know back then. Thus, I will no longer ask anyone for money. So I don't see why anyone would "regret" giving me PM rights.

Roman, there's no need to get defensive. She was only stating a hypothetical. Note the "if" in that statement. It's natural for people to be wary of people who betray their trust. If a dog bites you, you're not going to go up and pet it. I don't doubt that you'll be given a second chance, and if/when you are - just remember that you have to earn back everyone's trust. It's not automatically given just because you say you're sorry, regardless of whether we believe you to be genuine or not.

If the dog bites you, it can't explain why it did it since it doesn't speak human language. I do. Furthermore, explaining myself is different from simply saying "sorry". One can intentionally scam and then be "sorry"; on the other hand in my case it wasn't intentional, and I explained why not.

This is one thing that puzzles me about NT-s. How come even when I explain myself they stick with their conclusions? It is not just about the PM right business. Throughout my life I made numerous mistakes because of not knowing "rules of the game"; then I explained myself afterwards, but no one took my explanation seriously.

In fact, back when I was with Jennifer, she kept being ANGRY at me for explaining myself. Once me and Jennifer went to a museum and they had four tapes of couples that fight. They told us three of them will break up, and one couple will stay. They asked us which will be the one that will stay. My answer was that the one where one of the partners keeps explaning himself will stay. Jennifer's answer was the one where they were "angry" will stay. Jennifer ended up being "right" on that quiz. And this really puzzles me. From my perspective anger is counter-productive, while explaining oneself is what brings understanding. Yet, they seem to think just the opposite.

By the way, if you read what lau said, explaining myself is what got me to lose my PM rights to begin with:



When I first read him saying it I was like "what? I thought I wasn't even asked to stop, they just took away my rights right away! And when did I ever 'refuse' to do anything?" But then when I re-read my PM exchange I found out that yes they did FIRST tell me it was "inappropriate" to send such PM-s, THEN I "explained myself" and then after their REPLY to my self-explanation they took away my rights. So, in other words, my "explaining myself" was interpreted as "refusal to listen to what they say". But I didn't even KNOW it would be interpreted that way. To me, explaining myself is so natural, I didn't even know I was doing it UNTIL I re-read my exchage just recently!

I mean when mods told me it was inappropriate behavior, they didn't tell me that I have ONE chance to make a clear indication in my upcomming PM that I will not do it, NO OTHER INFORMATION ALLOWED. So obviously I did what I naturally do: self-justification and stuff like that. But apparently the above is IMPLICIT in other people's minds. No wonder in real life people feel I am immovable. Whenever I justify myself just for the sake of justifying or whatever, others just don't have patience for that.

Going back to your example about dog biting me and how I won't trust that dog afterwords. Well, the situation between the dog and a human would be different IF a human was given a room for "self justification". But, apparently, most people don't have patience for that; that is the only reason why they ended up judging each other by actions (just like you judge dog by actions) since there is no time for discussion of "why's" (and if I insist on such discussion it will be misinterpretted as "refusal to behave").

Last edited by Roman on 26 May 2011, 2:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

I realize the situation is a sore point, but there are always multiple sides to a story, and the moderator who made that decision at that time felt they had a good reason for it. There really isn't any point in arguing over if the call was right or not and, sorry, I don't know you well enough to know if you wouldn't make a different mistake ... nor do I know you well enough to worry you will. My sentence was, just as sliqua-jcooter posted, a hypothetical. The current moderators wouldn't have the option of removing pm rights but saving posting rights; for the same reasons they can't fix your situation, they have to make all or nothing calls. It simply seemed prudent, for the benefit of those reading this thread, to point that out.

Now isn't that a can of worms to ask! Or is your question entirely rhetorical? Well, you know what ... I'm going to try to answer it anyway.

First, however, I'll point out that you haven't been arguing with NT's. The moderator who made the call on your pm rights was AS, as are all the current moderators. Me - who knows what I am. So blaming differences on NT's is a bit irrelevant.

Second, I'll point out that the problem with explaining yourself over and over is that it can show you have little interest in resolving and moving past the issue (not to mention that it is just plain annoying). Explanations tend to be offered as a way of saying one did not do anything wrong, or has no fault. If you believe you did nothing wrong then, from your perspective, there would be nothing to resolve. If you aren't willing to look at the situation from a different angle, progress cannot be made. Explanations can indicate your position is set and the typical response to someone whose position is set is a similarly set position. You seem to expect that if you explain often enough the other person will finally understand your position and your position will be validated. But in most cases, the other person has heard your explanation perfectly well, but continues to find fault with it. In that situation, rephrasing the explanation will not advance understanding, because that isn't what is needed. What is needed, more often, is re-examination. You need to show somewhere in the conversation that you want to try to understand the OTHER person's point of view, not just to validate your own. And, yes, you need to show that you are willing to admit fault in the interest of moving forward, if that is what moving forward is going to take.

I realize this is an awkward attempt to explain a complicated social rule, but I hope it makes sense and I hope it helps.

I agree with the GENERAL statement "there are multiple sides to every story". But that statement is applicable only when both sides have a lot of information and then, of course, there are lots of different ways of "put all this information together". But I don't feel that the mods had "lots of information" when they took away my PM rights. As you saw from what lau said, he didn't even know I PM-ed just one person (he thought I sent multiple PM-s), also sinsboldly (the mod who contacted me before removing PM rights) thought it was "business apportunity" (whereas scammer never described it as "business" nor were I trying to recruit anyone, I just asked for ONE TIME help). This seems to be a general pattern, especially with NT-s. When NT-s consider you "bad", they DON"T CARE about any information; they just hurry up and pass judgement. So how can you say there are "different sides to a coin" if one of the "sides" didn't even care to gather any info to begin with?



Look it is easy not to make a general mistake. I just have to remember few things:

1. A stranger has no interest in helping, no matter how friendly he seems. So if I am told that I can EASILY get something or other, it is most likely a scam. Even if it doesn't involve money, it can still be a scam: perhaps later on the money will be needed for some "plane tickets" that haven't come up yet.

2. Even if I DO plan to do an HONEST job (such as flying to school at another country) I should NOT ask any members of the forum to help me with plane tickets. That part is just a common sense, of course.

No, it is not a rhetorical question. It is a genuine one, and thank you for trying to answer.



I guess when i read over this forum it sounds like I have more severe Asperger than most other people. After all, I am the only one whose posts are so long winded. Also, a lot of aspies on this forum talk about friends and stuff like that. I am the only one who has no friends. Finally, I hear a lot of complaints how people don't have enough support from their parents; in my case it is the opposite: my parents are over protective -- apparently because I am more obviously an aspie than most ppl in this forum. And finally, the very thing we are talking about: the fact that I was fooled so easilly by a scammer is also probably an aspie trait; and the mod who banned me was not as much of a fool as I was. This has always bothered me since back in 1997 Brina SIegel said I was very mind (milder than 99.5% of aspies), yet my experience teaches me the opposite. Thats why I feel it is aspie/NT thing.



The purpose of explaining is precisely to resolve/move past the issue. In my mind, I feel that the other person doesn't have all of the information. So I am trying to "pass to them" the information they don't have. At the same time, I am equally open to THEM passing TO ME the information that I don't have (and thats the point they often miss). On my end of a line, the more information "passed" the better. When both sides have all information, then the issue can be resolved.



Yes, this is the same thing that Jennifer said. And my question to her has always been: what happens with forgiveness? From Jennifer's point of view, if I refuse to "take blame", it means that I "pass blame" to the other person. But my question is "why should EITHER side be blamed?" This seems to assume that the two sides are "at war" so one has to "win" and the other has to "lose". But if there is a "war", how can they ever be in good terms again, even if one side does "win"? Why not just be at peace without winning or losing? That would, of course, mean ALLOWING someone NOT to "take blame" WITHOUT implying that it "passes blame" to the other person, either.

In my mind, self justification is a step to such a "peace process". When both sides justify themselves, neither side has any grudges against the other side. On the other hand, Jennifer seems to say that "each side has a RIGHT to be angry" and then she goes on to say that by INSISTING they don't have that right (during self-justification) I am "not respecting them". But from my point of view, there is nothing "good" about being angry anyway. In fact, anger is a bad feeling. So by asking someone to forgive, I don't see any disrespect. In fact it is quite the opposite; when someone is angry, they disrespect the person they are angry AT. When either side is NOT ALLOWED to do "self justification", that is also disrespect. But when both sides are allowed to justify themselves and fight their anger, that is what builds both peace AND respect.



What you are saying has two categories:

a) Right
b) Wrong

But I think in three categories:

a) Right
b) Unintentionally wrong
c) Intentionally wrong

What I claim is that whatever I did falls into a category b rather than c. Still, because it is b and not a, I will not do it again (hence, yes, I WILL listen when I am told "don't do it again"). But, at the same time, I want to "make peace" by making sure the other person doesn't think it is c (hence, self-justification).



I am aware that this is exactly what most people THINK when I explain myself. But that is where there is misunderstanding. On my end of a line, BOTH sides are equally welcome to explain themselves. I basically want an open discussion. But others seem to wrongly feel I won't listen to their side.

Speaking of set position, this is the problem I encounter very often. For example back in 2006 I needed to find a professor to work with (and i would have been EXPELLED if i were to fail to do it by set date). So ON MY END OF A LINE, I knew I was willing to do anything and everything the prof were to tell me, just to stay in school. But on their end of a line it was just the opposite. They felt I was REFUSING to do what they were offering me simply because (DURING 15 MINUTES OR SO, which is THE ONLY the time i got to talk to them) I went on and on describing specific problems *I* am interested in working. Then, after they had such misunderstanding, I would then INSIST on telling them "yes I am more then willing to do what you are giving me"; but they would never take it seriously; they would insist on ignoring me because they DECIDED that my mind is set on only doing what I want to do, despite my telling them otherwise.



If thats the case, that would be misunderstanding on my end. Because I certainly do feel that the other person is still missing some information whenever I explain myself. Probably this misunderstanding would have been cleared if the other person were to tell me "Roman, I know what you said -- you said such and such -- but I find fault with it for such and such reason". And yes, I would most certainly welcome such a statement. But usually the other person doesn't say anything like that; they act like they ignore whatever i am saying. That is why I keep assuming they didn't understand what I said, hence my repeated explanations.



And I was willing to re-examen things. If, for example, mod were to tell me "yes Roman, I know that you THINK you will get money back in a week, but you won't, because it is a scam, and I know it is a scam for such and such reasons", THEN I would have listened and probably engaged in discussion about it. In fact, I had a HUGE personal interest for having such discussion: if someone were to convince me that the guy was a scammer, I wouldn't have lost the rest of the money that I kept sending him.

By the way, it later turned out that the professor i was working for in the Institute knew all along I was involved with the scammer; but she never told me anything because she assumed that telling me anything is "useless" since I was arguing with her back when she was telling me some other things (such as "are you sure it is okay to take blood test in India since I was told in USA the needles are infected", "are you sure it is safe to take a shower, since water in India is not clean", and so forth).

Again, she was completely wrong when she assumed I won't listen to her and will just argue. I was FORCED to avoid approaching her or anyone else in the institute since I ASSUMED they didn't know, and I didn't want to ruin the impression by having them "find out" about the scammer. But IF ONLY I knew that they knew it, I would have asked lots of questions AND LISTENED TO THEIR ADVICE. But they WRONGLY ASSUMED I won't listen simply because I CAME ACROSS as "stuck up" which I am not.



But I want to do both: understand the other persons point of view *AND* validate my own. Most NT-s assume it has to be EITHER one OR the other, not both. But there is no contradiction between the two. In my case, I have EXTREME desire on BOTH ends: I really-really-really want to understand the other person AND I really-really-really want to validate myself. Both can co-exist. There is no contradiction.



Suppose I learn physics, and I misunderstood some point in the book; then the teacher clarifies it. Is it REALLY so important to admit that "I was really stupid for the fact that I didn't understand it to begin with?" No. As long as I understand it, I can move on.

Now, suppose the teacher tries to hold it over my head how stupid I was for not having understood it. In this case, I would want to justify myself by telling her "no I was not stupid; I just didn't have enough sleep that day" or whatever the case might be.

Self justification does NOT mean I am sticking with my old opinion. No! I already believe the CORRECT version of physics (just like I WOULD HAVE believed he was a scammer if the mod were to take time to tell me that); all I am trying to do is to get the other person to see that it wasn't entirely my fault I USED to be wrong on a given topic.



Yes it helps. I do see some of your points.

I had a small word with the admin about what you mentioned. And he fixed the forum colors up so that it may suit your visual needs better hopefully. If not, there are options you can choose from to change the look and colors of the forum. The font size has been enlarged also.

I'm aware you're probably not interested at the moment in joining, but just thought I'd let you know.

Here's the link again:
http://autisocial.freeforums.org/

Roman,

I don't have time to read through all of your posts right now, but I'll offer my thoughts on the first one. I understand your explanation - there's no need to go over the same thing over and over again. As DW_a_mom said, that repetitiveness is annoying and confrontational. Like I said, I have little doubt that the people reviewing the issue will grant you a second chance, but not based on your explanation. In fact, your explanation has little to do with it. The fact that you said you were sorry, and that you said it won't happen again, is enough in this instance (in most instances). You already made your case, so there is no need to keep making it over and over again. To use a courtroom analogy, the trial is over, and all that's left to do is wait until the judge/jury come back with a verdict. You can't appeal a decision until one has been made - and even then, making the same argument while offering no new information isn't going to change the outcome.

As for your comment about anger, my father once told me that the opposite of love isn't hate, the opposite of love is indifference. Basically, what I understand that to mean is that even when you are angry with someone, you have an emotional connection with that person that can be picked up in the other person, when you try to "explain something away", you're being argumentative for the sake of argument.

It's not just aspies who have that problem, I extremely frequently get into very heated arguments about my actions; although I typically do so because I don't think my actions are wrong (and sometimes I realize they are and shut up).

The only point I was trying to make is that you can't explain to someone why they should trust you - you have to demonstrate they can trust you by your actions.

Roman, I didn't write the social rules for arguments and disagreements, so there isn't much point in telling me why you disagree with them. If you want to avoid misunderstandings, it is best to accept that the other side will make certain assumptions and look for certain responses. It is an area in which to practice and adapt, and not one you will succeed in changing by explaining why you think the rest of the world has the wrong approach. I sympathize with your points, but they change nothing.

The reason people don't go deeper and deeper in the realm of detailed explanation is because they are not programmed to do so. It does, in fact, drive most people NUTS. They don't have the patience for it and they don't have the time for it. Try to force them to engage in that process and they feel harassed. My kids get one round at it when they disagree with my decisions, and that is IT. They are learning fast to make it a good one! Someone has to make the call and move onto the next step, even if that means sometimes a decision is less than perfect, and sometimes it means a result is unfair.

In the situation with the pm rights, you are overly focused on the fact that not everyone remembers all the details as well as you do, but there is only one point that matters: the moderator who made that call felt that you had broken a rule and didn't fully understand how to avoid breaking it in the future. That moderator, as a VOLUNTEER, did not have the time to read endless explanations about WHY; the only thing she needed to know was that you accepted you had broken a rule, and that you would not do it again (which is difficult to be sure of with a newer member you don't know well). Everything else is a waste of time. What you can and should practice is how to get to that key point as fast as possible, and stop worrying about the fact that the person you are disagreeing with isn't sitting accurately inside your head and understanding all your motives. Going into that level of exchange is not what people do; they accept there are details they don't know, they accept that they don't have the time or energy to invest in knowing them all, and they try as quickly as possible to cut to the core of the conflict and move on. It is in your best interest to learn to do the same: shift through the details and figure out what one thing makes or breaks the deal, and then address that. I totally get that that is incredibly difficult for many on the spectrum to do, but that doesn't mean it isn't a skill worth trying to learn.

So. Practice it. See if you can say in 3 sentences what you could have / would have / should have said when the mistake was made way back then. And don't make them run on sentences. Not because you need to to get the result you are looking for in this thread; as sliqua-jcooter pointed out, that decision has long been made, you will get the pm rights back as soon as someone with the right tools can get to it; but just to see if you can figure out what we're saying about style.

Big improvement. The intro before was a little like fireworks. But, earlier in life I was hyposensitive/ADD and loved that kind of thing, so I understand one has to work to get peoples attention these days too.

I appreciate you bringing the site to my attention, I like the volume/variety of opinion here and find it interesting. If this site ever goes away, that seems like a good alternative.

There are others I would never consider, because they seem divisive from an administrative standpoint. I personally like less administrative input than forceful opinionated influence on a discussion board.

WP protects diverse opinions; I like that.

Ugh I can't stand those colors.

I saw League Girls Comments, and looked on the site to try figure out how to change the forum colors. I saw an administrative option to globally change the colors, in the general information section, about the company that hosts the site, but not one for member personal preference. Am I just missing it?

There is an option under: Options > My board style and a dropdown list with lots of different styles.

Do you have to join as a member to see it? Sorry, otherwise I must be overlooking where options is on the starting webpage.