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

Post Reply New Topic

Far be it from me to claim any sort of dominion over a privately owned website, I only mentioned the Constitution as an example of a far more solid governing structure than the WP TOS that is nonetheless flexible. However, don't you think it's a little rich to claim to exist for the betterment of the AS community while rigidly adhering to an ambiguous and Orwellian set of rules of exactly the type that people with AS so often find incomprehensible and reprehensible? Presumably you (Mak) have a better way of contacting Alex than us mere members do, if you agree that changing the TOS if for no other reason than clarity is desireable (as you have indicated), why haven't you asked him? If you have, why haven't you related his reply or lack there of to the board at large?

Again, be that as it may, when you act as an organ of the site a certain amount of transparency is called for, and frankly I would hope that you wouldn't say something to a member in private that you wouldn't want made public, as that implies that you believe your actions would not stand up to public scrutiny. Also, as moderators occasionally feel the need to rebuke someone in public, they can't exactly cry foul when someone publicly calls them out for misbehavior, turn about being fair play and all.



You're still pretty new to this whole mod thing Mak, I'm mostly referring your cohorts in moderating who in the past have explicitly stated that they are not accountable to the members of this site but to Alex alone, not that anyone can ever seem to get a hold of him, leading to being defacto un-accountable. My position has always been that the PURPOSE of having moderators is to make this a better site for the membership at large, and that this goal is often lost sight of in a spate of ego tripping and pissing contests, I've got an inbox full of PMs that can attest to that. What's so frustrating is that we have such limited options as members here when dealing with moderator misconduct, and being under constant threat of the silent ban hammer and being disappeared with no recourse is not conductive to an open environment for addressing concerns about how the site is run.

It's also frustrating hearing a mod say in one thread "we never delete threads, this site is an archive of autistic thoughts on the Internet" then seeing the same mod delete threads with hundreds of replies and not only not even have the courtesy to leave a post as to why, simply deflecting all inquiries with cut and pastes of the TOS. Or how about having a mod huff and puff about cleaning up a forum, only to find this same mod launching personal attacks on people who's politics don't suit him, and upon being called on it claiming that he's allowed to use personal attacks in this case because they're "true"? Are you (Mak) going to give your co-moderator a warning (in public like any of us would have gotten) for the personal attack? Are you going to tell that mod to reinstate that huge thread or at least come up with a very good reason for having deleted it? I'd like to think that we have at least one mod who's willing to call the others on their own BS when it happens, but I'm not holding my breath to see it.

Getting back to my central point though, your collective job as moderators is to make this site as supportive as possible for the AS community, part of that means knowing what's appropriate content and behavior for each forum and not enforcing say "The Haven's" standards on PPR or vice versa, part of that means either getting clarification from Alex about what his whacked out rules are supposed to mean, and if that proves impossible, at least come to an agreement for a consistent set of guidelines that may not follow the letter of the original TOS, but make sense and can be implemented fairly. I think a simple exercise would also improve moderator/group member interactions enormously; before replying to any post or PM as a moderator, simply think "how is my post helpful?", since that's what you're supposed to be, helpful. C&P of the TOS *AGAIN*, not so helpful, "this thread is temporarily unavailable while we clean up a personal attack and some spam", clear, concise and helpful.

I'm not done yet, but I hear my Ambien calling and I have to get up in the morning, so finish with this later...

Last edited by Dox47 on 29 Sep 2009, 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

High school students have absolutely no problem with distracting from the purpose of high school (education) by doing anything including causing drama to make it "more interesting" and make less learning happen, because usually they don't want to be there in the first place. The purpose of this site is to discuss Asperger's and autism related issues, including the social confusions and problems that go along with that. (As well general information and conversation about dating, sexuality and other such interpersonal issues that are so difficult for autistics.) So while high school students might make a public spectacle of an issue for the purpose causing drama to distract from the reason they're in school, LPP's post in this forum was (it seems) precisely because he feels that there was an arbitrary moderator decision that stopped the discussion of what he considered a related issue. I think he would much rather be in one of the other forums debating the article that he posted a link to, rather than here, discussing whether or not he can post links to articles he wants to discuss, or whether or not he can ask why a particular topic isn't allowed.


The rule, however, as you've pointed out, is that posts can be locked or removed for any reason. As far as I know, it's not that they can be removed for no reason. The insistence that the reasons shouldn't be talked about does smack of lack of accountability. Moderator decisions affect the community, and the statement that things can be removed without explanation is pretty disturbing.
What really upset me was the statement was the statement about LPP's belief that he could waive his own confidentiality being disrespectful to the moderation. I know when I posted in this forum asking for clarification and general community opinion on whether or not it's appropriate to talk about other members in a positive light, at least one person messaged me to tell me that he certainly didn't mind people publicly saying nice things about him. The assumption that one can give others permission to talk about them is not exactly a radical idea. Anybody who has been through a first therapy session will have gotten the explanation of confidentiality, where the therapist tells them that they will only ever talk to somebody else about them if legally obligated, or with permission.
While I think I see no reason for somebody who has complaints about WP from the beginning to just leave and go elsewhere, when somebody has been here awhile and posted a lot, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to want to discuss their concerns rather than just leave the community. If everyone who had an issue simply left, there wouldn't be anybody here. It's like telling somebody to leave a country if they don't like it. It's dumb to move to a country whose government you completely disagree with, but if it's your home, you don't just up and leave because you disagree with a government decision.

People fairly regularly post links to articles they want to talk about. LPP has said that in this case, there was active discussion about the article in question. I know the moderators don't like to receive demands, but isn't one of the major responsibilities of being a moderator to keep the environment around here at least somewhat fair, so that people can feel free to discuss things? If he wanted to know why that particular discussion was removed, and the moderator didn't like the way he phrased the question because it was a "demand" for fairness, could he have been told both to quit making demands and why that post was inappropriate but the others were appropriate?
It seems like at this point, SB is defending her actions purely on the "I don't have to explain myself to you" principle, which I find pretty disturbing.
If LPP thought that the question "what do you guys think of this article?" was implicit in his posting a link to it, and that was an inaccurate assumption, the answer to his "why was this post removed" question could have been to tell him that he needs to expressly ask for others' opinions of articles that he posts links to.

Granted, I could be off in my interpretation of others intentions in what has been done and said here-- but that's exactly why I'm here, that's why everybody is here, because we have trouble determining others intentions, because we have trouble understanding these things. The "I don't have to explain myself to you" principle seems quite inappropriate to this particular venue. Aren't we all here because we have trouble understanding social appropriateness? Doesn't that make it all the more important to understand why something is judged inappropriate? I don't see why it's unreasonable for him to expect a straight answer, or unreasonable to want community support of the reasonableness of his request to have that explained.

Maybe SB has a reason she doesn't want to share, it's certainly possible that she knows something about the situation that I don't.. but I don't see why she couldn't have said that there is something in particular that she doesn't want to discuss, rather than just invoking the "I don't have to explain myself" line.
I've recently defended moderator activity as generally justified and beneficial.. I'll feel really dumb if it's going to turn out that it's arbitrary.


Yea.. that stuff. That was a lot of what I was trying to say..
Bottom line kinda that if something is good for the community, then why should it be hidden from the community? The point of moderation is to keep things running smoothly, not have personal attacks, etc. If the majority of the community wouldn't agree that something is for the good of the community, then maybe that something should be re-thought. The purpose of a forum is to discuss things. The purpose of the "WrongPlanet.net Discussion" forum is to discussion issues on WrongPlanet.net.
To tell somebody that believing that they can waive their own confidentiality means that they are disrespecting and disdaining the moderators.. seems to me like a personal attack.

(Eek, this turned out way longer than I meant it to! Again, it's that tendency I have to type out every possible way of getting out what's in my head, 'cause it never quite seems complete or right. )

Edit: It seems to me like LPP and SB were both rude to each other. LPP, by making demands rather than politely asking about the posts in question, and SB by reacting to LPP's rudeness with rudeness of her own and pulling the "I don't have to explain myself to you" bit instead of explaining when links to articles related to a forum topic are or are not appropriate. I just thought that the reason somebody would be made a moderator is the ability to stop themselves and NOT respond to rudeness with rudeness of their own. Isn't that maturity why somebody is chosen to moderate?

A few things I want to say here, and I hope this thread can end.

1) Moderators are not perfect. However, given that it is a thankless job and not one any of us asked to take on, it would be nice if the membership could give an inch in those instances where a very human but perhaps unpopular decision has been made.

2) Sometimes there is context surrounding a situation that the poster involved is most likely aware of, but the other membership is not. That context really cannot be discussed here, due to privacy of the poster, but it is possible that it influenced the decision involved (not to say it did, but to note that such things can happen). As is often true in life, you can't pull a few pieces out of a hat and have a fully informed discussion.

3) The threads we are talking about had nothing to do with the mission of this site and, thus, long run, weren't important to the membership. This discussion would be more relevant if the threads were more relevant, but they were not.

4) The TOS are very similar to the TOS of many, many sites and, most likely, are designed to provide the site and its owner legal protection in certain instances. What we feel about them is no doubt far less relevant than how the lawyers feel about them, and that is life, you deal, you move on.

5) Moderators don't work entirely in a vacuum. Decisions are posted for the record and are discussed when appropriate.

6) Transparency isn't usually feasible on these sorts of things because it risks damage to the members involved. I've been on other forums where the moderators felt it necessary to publicly discuss their decisions and, honestly, it made things really ugly. You may think you would prefer but, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

7) Life is a learning process. Things have been aired, note has been taken, and its time, IMHO, to move on.

The thread will end when the participants feel that their concerns have been addressed, not because someone said so.

Obviously. No one MADE you accept the mod position, no one is forcing you to stay on, if you don't like it, then leave. Or is that advice only valid when it's being given to members who question the moderators? You are going to be held to a higher standard than the rank and file and have your actions questioned, it's part of the job, otherwise just anyone would be able to do it.

There's a simple fix for that, doing everything aboveboard with the understanding that bringing a dispute to the board waives one's expectation of privacy. This also sounds like more obfuscation, with possible contexts that may or may not have influenced a decision, if the reasoning can't stand up to scrutiny it probably doesn't hold much value.

So now you're claiming to be the arbiter of what is and isn't important to the members of this site? And you really don't get where this hostility towards the mod team is coming from? Obviously this was important enough for the op to start several threads and PM a mod (for all the good that did...) and for people to write pages of long and well reasoned posts, but what do us peons know...

So it's the lawyers that insisted on a poorly worded and ambiguous code of conduct, since a ban on cross-posting is a well known legal protection? Please... At least have enough respect for us to admit when you are just wildly speculating, we most likely got our crappy TOS because it was copy and pasted from another site, though only long lost Alex can tell us for sure. Do you accept things as imutable simply because other people do similar things? It's a document on a webpage, nothing more, it can be changed in less time than it's taking me to post this, and if enough people raise enough of a stink, it very well may be.

No, they aren't, we are prohibited from even discussing missing members who may or may not have been banned, because we may be breaking the rules without even knowing. Does that sound like "posted for the record and discussed" to you? If a decision is the right one, it should withstand scrutiny, not need to be burried and mere inquiry on the subject prohibited.

If a mod needs to get involved, members are already damaged, and have recourse would lessen that damage. Lack of transparency at least creates the impression that something is being hidden, and so should be avoided whenever possible.

Have you and SB learned that modding by fiat isn't terribly effective yet? If not, we're not done yet.

I generally do appreciate the moderation, and I believe I've thanked and defended moderators on more than one occasion. I don't expect anybody to be perfect, and if they were perfect, that'd just be creepy.
I just think there are better ways to explain why a post is removed than "I don't have to explain myself to you." If there are extenuating circumstances that somebody doesn't want to discuss, saying exactly that, is at least not as rude as asserting that the person asking simply doesn't deserve a explanation. It also doesn't mean that moderators can't take suggestions from the community.
Anyway, somebody can't present their side of an argument when nobody will tell them what the other side is! If LPP feels that his thread is relevant, how can he present his case if the moderator who decided it should be removed won't even tell him why?


I don't see a formal mission statement, but this is the site description:

Maybe I'm crazy, but I interpret Aspie guys discussing studies on things like what women want to be well within the scope of what this site is designed to address. The conversations about things like dating and sex that take place here could not happen elsewhere. The questions, perspectives, and confusions, while not completely exclusive to the autism community, really aren't things that could be discussed in the same way on other forums. Aspies have questions that simply couldn't be addressed elsewhere. You see that every time somebody asks some "crazy" question that they've always felt stupid for not knowing the answer to, and suddenly finds a whole community of people who have the same issue.


I don't think the objection is over the content of the TOS, but of the enforcement. It makes perfect sense for the owner of a site to be able to make such decisions and not be liable for running the site as seen fit. That clause, however, is not an obligation to never explain anything. Just because moderators can remove posts for any reason does not mean that they can't tell the poster why. An option to do so is not the obligation to do so.


No, moderators don't work in a vacuum. I hope the moderation team doesn't work in a vacuum either.


That sounds very black and white. Not being completely transparent doesn't necessitate being completely opaque, does it?


Yes, it probably is. I just hope that the moderation team will take into consideration that the community needs to feel listened to as well. Trouble understanding intentions and, um, "things like intentions"-- I can't think of the right word, but understanding what goes into why people do and say the things that they do and say, and how to interact correctly-- is a large part of what brings many people to WP in the first place. Does that make sense? Half the posts here are questions like "why is it wrong to say ______" or "how do I say _____ without offending" or "why do people think/do/say _______." I see those discussions as important. They're questions that can't usually be asked elsewhere. Am I overestimating the value of aspies having the chance to discuss those things?

Posted for the record where those with mod tools (whether or not they choose to use them) can see and comment. We don't always agree. For privacy reasons, I wouldn't want the entire forum to see it all. It was a very strange feeling when I first walked in.

You are right, no one made me accept, and I was planning to say "no, thank you, I've already got way too much on my plate" when that day I was on the forum and 40 spam posts struck and no one else with mod tools was available. I hemmed and hawed and hoped someone else could do it but eventually went to work because it had to be cleaned up for the safety of this site and its members. That crap is 90% of modding. Time consuming and invisible. I am not going to defend some things that have been said by anyone on this site that I don't think was the best choice of words, but I can understand running out of patience when you've just spent hours clearing out spam and someone wants to fight with you for the apparent sake of simply fighting, and that exact situation does happen quite a bit given that people rarely feel they were properly modded no matter how obvious it may seem to everyone else.

I think the mod team is willing to have its actions questions, but there is a difference between questioning and refusing to let go. The questions have been registered.

I wanted to say thank you for saying this, and also point out that the OP acted maturely in questioning the decision. That helps a lot.

If this one ends, I'm sure one below it will start, as it seems that's almost identical to this - sex/money thread deleted, no explanation given. I'm placing my bet on the mod who did it refusing to answer, but that's just my guess.



Anyway, by being a mod, you can still be human, of course. You can say whatever you want in discussion just like other members, and you can make your own topics and share your opinions, and etc. But you're not supposed to make human decisions, really - it's supposed to be fairly objective. When a mod loses that capability, there's a problem.



But if the OP knew why his thread had been removed, there wouldn't be a post. In general, yes, I would agree with that statement, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.



Here's where I really disagree.

When you have a big, "relevant" discussion that abruptly goes missing, more people are going to notice. And when more people notice, more people are likely to question. And then the answer for removal will become more of an issue to the point that the mod needs to have one - a good one, not the "want" rule - before even making that kind of move. In this case, the dicussion was smaller and more specialized. It wasn't something everyone on the site could relate to, and it's not something that was an urgent read or even necessarily a suggested read. So getting rid of it for personal reasons is so much easier. If you had a more meek OP, this probably wouldn't have been brought up at all. And when "unimportant" threads can just go missing with a mod refusing to acknowledge them, there's an issue.

As for being important to the membership... I'd say that any discussion is fairly important to the membership. I've found more help in small threads than the huge ones that everyone loves. It's a perspective thing.



That's kind of the point. The TOS is there to protect the owner (Alex), not give completely free reign to any moderator to begin editing based upon standards other than the rules.



I have no idea what you mean by that, since Dox said essentially the same thing I was thinking (although Dox, you need to cool down a bit), and that's apparently not what you meant.



I publicly explained my decisions when I modded over at another site. Does it make everyone love you? No, because the person who's thread/post you deleted will probably still disagree. But if there's a valid reason and you're asked about it, especially by the person who made the post/thread, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't answer.



Actually, things haven't been aired, and that's the problem. We're still here debating whether or not it should be, but the mod in question hasn't aired anything. To be honest, I doubt she will, but it's not something that should just be packed up.

Last edited by RainSong on 29 Sep 2009, 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Um... you're welcome?

I was writing my post at the same time about how that made me thankless. Give me a few moments to go edit that out.

Edit: Ok, there we go.

Anyway, I meant it. You were asked for an explanation as to why you took the video down, and you gave it. There was no sidestepping or secret keeping involved. As for the OP being mature - I'll leave that judgment up to you, of course. But meandering over to the thread in question (not the Net thread, the PPR one), I see one person directly insulting you, so clearly it wasn't a completely mature discussion in general. And that's also kind of my point: you not only listed more reasons to begin with, but you didn't just dig in your heels and swear you were right. You explained in-depth why you had taken such an action, and you reconsidered maturely when asked. In this discussion, the mod hasn't even gotten to the listing reasons section yet. That's the problem.

Incidentally, when did you become a mod? I assumed it was fairly recent, since I had never seen you do mod posting before (I do hang out in this board sometime, for no particular reason), but you said you were an unlisted one, so I really don't know. You don't have to answer, of course; I'm just curious.

Just to clarify, I'm aware that both Mak and DW are probably the mods least guilty of the abusive practices which so annoy me, THOSE people don't seem to want to venture into this thread... If my replies to Mak and DW seem harsh, it's only because I prefer their lighter touch as mods and want to discourage them from making the same mistakes the others do in the clearest possible terms. When they defend sketchy moderation by other mods, I'm going to call them (or anyone else) on it, otherwise how are they supposed to learn their jobs? Call it tough love, I just don't want to see them descend to the condescending, arrogant and ineffective style of moderation that has become all too common around here. I tend to view it as the duty of the membership here to moderate our moderators, threads such as this being an excellent example of such. Their job is to keep WP a great site for US, so we need to let them know what that means from time to time, just as they need to reign in aggressive posts from time to time.

I agree that sometimes there are those reasons for saying something in public rather than keeping to PM. But, seems to me it should still be taken up with the moderators first, rather than opening up a general discussion, as was done in this thread.

That isn't necessarilly true. If he knows but doesn't like or agree with the reason, he may be trying to force a discussion on it, or just seeing if he can get the mod to react. People bait mods all the time, and other members not knowing the background get stuck in it. Which is one of the reasons you might see obtuse answers. I can't answer for him because I'm not inside his head, but it is always a question in these situations.

The first response he sent me, in pm, was handled well. At that point I made a decision to get a second opinion and most likely restore the video, since it seemed I had missunderstood it. I had lost the link so the process took a while, and he posted some things in the meantime I was less fond of, but I didn't think I should change my mind just because he wasn't as patient as I would have liked. Since most people agree I made a mistake with the deletion (I honestly still don't "get" that video and just see the attack, but I know I'm not good with satire) I also felt it understandable that he was frustrated and, well, few act perfectly when frustrated. I have a pretty thick skin, even if it didn't seem like it in that action.



I was given mod tools last March or so, and other than talking about it when these sorts of threads come up, my preference has been to stay unlisted and more or less in the shadows, not because I don't want to be accountable for what I do but because my availability to do anything with this job is inconsistent. I have committed to trying to stay on top of a couple of forums and rarely venture beyond them. PPR is NOT one of those I am committed to modding.

You might want to think about what is the chicken and what is the egg. Does someone start patient and give up upon finding they can't win no matter what? Or do they learn to be less patient because older mods teach them that? I'm going to vote the former. I'm already noticing arguments I don't want to venture into because I've been there, done that a few times too many and don't have the patience to do it again. I hope that my style will always be my style, but what happens when you've worked your tail off for a place and all you get back is crap? It's one of the reasons I have not committed to being more involved as a mod, despite how much the other mods could use the extra hands. That and the fact that I think my whole family would divorce me, but THAT is another topic You have no idea how many hours some of the other mods devote to this site, and the sacrafices that has involved, and the number of days I've seen them kill 9 spam attacks in one sitting. Someone willing to do that level of work without pay gets my respect, period, because I know I'm not willing to fill those shoes.