Behaviour on this forum

Post Reply New Topic

The general behaviour has not improved on this forum despite repeated warnings. The moderators patience is now at an end. This means it is time to put into effect the threat of banning those members who continue to indulge in personal attacks and trollish behaviour.

The banhammer is poised and ready. You have all been warned.

THANK HEAVENS...

It was becoming impossible to actually discuss any thread topic appropriately here at all.

Well done TallyMan, you have made me smile. This has made my day !

Thank you!

I find that being made out to having insulted another when it was just a sensitive topic for instance is unreasonable when I was not even the one who brought it up originally. It was brought forth in a reply in a very mature way but originally another for instance did so under a political premise. Having a moderator say I am not credible is also redicilious. The admins where applicable are involved in self-advocacy as well. These are personal attacks from a moderator effectively breaking the rules. The issues however are sensitive so I can understand the feelings of the need to backlash a bit but setting an example is important. I propose that sensitive issues be allowed to be brought up and for others to participate with maturity or allow it to degrade then be punished.

W.P is a political organization with advocacy against mainstream autism advocacy in origin such as autism is a jail sentence (isolation advocacy). Since then they receive compensation from Autism Speaks and I understand their is some unease with that situation by some who help lead. My proposal is that madorators do not take sides on issues and conduct personal attacks just the same as they would not like others to do to each-other. I think this compromise is fair.

I will be speaking to Alex so to make sure this results in some fairness.

Why is it that one never hears the words "It's not fair!" from someone who is justifiably in the right?

Hardened beliefs which are rightful to individuals will not concern the legitimate concerns of others not about those specific concerns. If there are rules they ought to be followed not just when it's convienant. That applies to everyone but I myself would never want to run a forum dealing with these social messes. It's a tough job.

Ci, in the kindest possible way, if you try to turn this thread into yet another bunfight, you are almost certain to be banned as soon as a mod sees it, and you are not daft, you know that for yourself really...

So for your own sake, cool it, please?

I believe you're complaining about me. If not, my bad.

I don't think I've behaved at all unreasonably. I have merely stated how I am seeing things, and am attempting to create a base level of decorum in this forum.

While we must follow the letter of the law, there is also the spirit, and the matter is that one or two people are making this forum into some kind of war den, which is not its intended purpose.

I believe it is a moderators job to attempt to help foster an environment (reasonably) suitable for all its (law abiding) users.

'Credibility' is in the eye of the beholder, and pretty much irrelevant. It is my opinion that you've blown any credibility you might have had or created with your behaviour, and that's not an attack, that's information.

You've been trying to leverage your 'credibility' in order to somehow influence us, and we haven't bought it at all. Sorry

Sensitive issues are allowed to be discussed, but acting like barbarians about them isn't. Pure and simple.

We are not taking sides. We are attempting to address problems. You've been a constant problem magnet on this site for about as long as I've been a moderator, and we've shown you much tolerance.

If Alex wants to can me over this, then my understanding of reality will be proved to be much less solid than your own.

Last edited by Moog on 12 Sep 2011, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have no interest in discussing this matter with other members directly anymore but with the organizations founder. I'd like to see individuals whom are isolated advocated for by the organizations that do not like advocacy about isolation. I think it would help people. I'm not interested in appeasing what seems to be violations of the rules by most with concern to these alike discussion. If I was take the rules literally most are guilty and I don't want to discuss this further in this topic.

I am interested in protecting others from peer pressure politics and biased issues with a fairness of portrayal in substitute by applicable organizations for at risk individuals. It is no longer about this behavior topic.

Well, it does seem to be all about you, now.

I simply speak about matters that are not focused on by other online advocates in these alike forums. But I can assure you it is not just about me. Also I do not want to go into the self-identity with a label analyses as to why isolation advocacy is rejected. I could argue in just the opposite way but it's getting old. Autism is a disability label and it's great to have a good self-esteem and to seek to enrich that. However issues conflict with one another.

Issues do not conflict; people do.

Well yes and kind of. I would really like to be friendly in this reply. I am blunt.

Here it is...

Self-esteem can conflict with the truth of the disability of autism at times..

Then some others are not advocated for because people complain that it does not reflect how they are.

Yet the most social are online in these forums and not the most disabled.

In the social justice sense it doesn't quite seem fair but that does not mean self-esteem is not important..

I am not sure if this post is appropriate for this discussion.

Then I suggest that you post your opinions in a more topically appropriate forum.

I already have and this is the correct forum but not perhaps the right topic.