Troubled by admin-sanctioned\instigated pile-on...

Post Reply New Topic

Following last evening's pile-on from both a moderator and "site admin" (I suppose I should feel honoured that they felt the need to both pile on as they did co-incidentally at the very same time, as it indicates that what I post is actually noticed. Unfortunately their posts were directed solely at the poster, rather than addressing the topic which the thread was created to discuss, so it does lessen the "honour" to a degree.), I'm certainly understanding why so many members are leaving\have left this site (or going into lurk\hibernation mode), and why it is so rare to see new members appear in certain areas of the site - The site certainly does not feel very welcoming to those who have (or who present) views which diverge from those held by the political "left" (becoming exceedingly less welcoming over the past few months)...I can't imagine a potential new member would be encouraged to stay were they to see that sort of thing occurring.

It is certainly difficult to work out, too, what is "acceptable" on the site, when a member who is abiding by the site rules has every right to expect others (particularly those in "authority" positions) will also abide by those same rules and where the forum has a specific rule:

(under "Personal attacks" at viewtopic.php?t=204613 )
Yet in that thread we saw the "site admin", in responce to a request that people abide by this, instead indicate that this may be freely ignored:

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=394080&p=8706091#p8706091

So it would be nice to have some clarification as to what my "expectations" should be:
* Is ignoring the thread's topic and instead attacking the poster (as outlined in the forum rules) prohibited, even though the "site admin"'s plainly worded responce "Members can and will be permitted to respond in whatever capacity they wish" contradicts this?
* Is attacking the poster (as indicated in the above quote by the "site admin", seemingly giving carte-blanche to respond as a member wishes and disregarding site rules: "Members can and will be permitted to respond in whatever capacity they wish") allowable?
* Or (as the ongoing pile on in the thread gives the appearance of) is attacking the poster allowed if they post discussions\topics that the moderator\"site admin" doesn't like (but which are not breaking the site rules), but punishable if they are attacking a poster with similar views to the moderator\"site admin" (which is a concern given the moderation staff\site admin have given little indication of impartiality in general)?

There is also the attacks via insinuation ongoing there in that thread as well, instigated\encouraged\incited by the posts from the moderator and "site admin" - Is this type of attack permitted or not?

It becomes very difficult to have a discussion where the rules appear arbitrary and capricious, and where moderators and "site admin" feel free to attack those they appear to dislike (or whose posts they disagree with), rather than debate the actual topic within any given thread.

Being treated as an "outcast" simply for trying to provide alternative viewpoints in a community that is often treated by society as "outcasts" is certainly not something I would recommend for the unprepared or faint-hearted...

There's a difference between me being called KT and me being called 'b***h'. Which is why the second one is a hypothetical example and the first one happens all the time.

You were called 'Bric'.

Most people wouldn't see that as an insult.

You should provide a link to whatever post it is where you feel your were violated. Otherwise, there's no point of reference.

I had linked it (the "pile-in" on the first line), but here's a link to where it started...
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=394080&p=8705983#p8705983

Having a moderator outright lie about what I posted with the first point they raise is bad enough (evidencing bad faith on their part, particularly given they were referring to the thread "title" which could clearly be seen on the same page and was not the same as they had posted in their comment), then when corrected saying "it doesn't matter what I have just explained, what they think I mean is more important than what I have just explained" certainly doesn't help, nor on correcting the lies they presented does seeing "I don't want this to be more personal than it has to be" (evidencing an intention to be personal), followed up with an "I think you are extreme-right" (in the full knowledge of how the majority of the community here tends to treat\refer to those so branded...Not to mention having been contradicted in a previous thread). The post was entirely directed at me, as the poster, and not regarding the content\substance of what was in my post (contradicting site rules about attacking the opinion, not the member), and phrashed in a way to either encourage others to participate in the attack on myself (particularly as it was a moderator setting this initial example, not a "normal member"), or to try and make me respond in a way that would breach the site rules...

Then there was the "site admin" popping in unprompted in the middle of this, proclaiming (despite contradicting the specific forum rules) that "Members can and will be permitted to respond in whatever capacity they wish", and so giving explicit permission for anyone to breach the rules (at a minimum in that thread), safe in the knowledge that the "site admin" has given approval for this - The plain language used gives absolute permission to post what they want, with no restrictions mentioned, nor implied - at the same time the moderator is making posts targeting me rather than the topic\material the thread was designed to discuss.

Similarly in responce to the request that I had made (in slightly different words) that people follow the site rules and discuss the topic rather than direct comments at myself as the poster, the "site admin" followed up that what I "expected" (in this case that members would follow the specific forum rules about targetting the topic, not the member) didn't matter, and that I should "adjust my expectations", further authorising others in the thread to post whatever attacks they wished\waiving the application of the specific site rule I was referring to.

My intention, seeing the site tends to be so "one sided", has always been to try and provide a counterpoint, both to allow those who would normally be excluded from discussions due to their one-sided nature to have a way\venue where they can speak up\feel valued, and to provide context from the less prominent side on the site, to try and help members understand the "other side", rather than simply attack it relentlessly...And in return, I have lies repeated about what I type (not only from the moderator), get falsely labeled "extreme-right" by a moderator (where they are very aware of how people thus labelled are treated here), and the "site admin" declares "open season" on me...

Besides the fact that wasn't the issue I was referring to, there are 2 types of people who try to be friendly by addressing a person in this sort of way:
The honest friend, who knows you well, or who approaches in good faith
and
The false "friend" who uses this sort of approach to appear friendly, before unloading on you.

Given the first thing after this approach was a lie (albeit an obvious one)...

Not really.

People just use nicknames on sites.

Maybe if you're not 'very online' you don't understand that.

Ironically it seems like you're arguing it's a microaggression...

I feel like the mods should've said 'as long as the posters follow the rules, which are looser in PPR, they can say what they like'.

Rather than 'people should be allowed to respond in whatever way they see fit'.

I can kind of see OP's point, to an autistic reader that second one does come across/can be interpreted as pretty nasty & petty.

I can see why the mod framed it like that but wasn't thinking of everything that can mean.

It's sad when an autism support site embraces mob mentality.

Hey Brictoria, hope you're OK. I don't know your post history but it did seem like a bit of a pile-on from an outside perspective. I do think the post where The_Walrus called you "Bric" was supposed to be friendly advice though (but, as I posted to someone else recently, I have trouble judging this stuff).

Thanks for the support...

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that by its nature, any online forum is both "anonymous", and a text-based medium.

As a result of the "anonymity", it can be difficult to really "know"\connect with the person(s) with whom you are communicating - more so if you have (or at least present) differing views on a topic\area which another person feels to be an integral part of their identity. Similarly, there is no real "risk" in responding\treating the other person in a manner which would not be considered in a face-to-face public interaction. Given it is not possible to determine (although in certain cases prediction based on past actions\words is certainly feasible) how any given person\group is going to respond, this component has limited ability for a poster to control, particularly if they wish to reach\engage with a wide audience.

As a result, we are left with the "text" portion of the interaction as being the only area where there is the possibilty to have any potential for "control" of an interaction with another member\group. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to take a while to prepare a post (the initial post in this thread was put together on-and-off over about 12 hours, with many edits to try and ensure what I was saying was as clear (and referenced) as I could make it - I still wasn't entirely satisfied with how I presented what I was posting when I clicked "submit" [This post has taken at least 4 hours, too]), both to ensure I have material to support\demonstrate what I am presenting as well as to ensure whoever reads it has relevent information\details\facts from which to respond, either agreeing with what I have posted, or upon which to research and base a counter-argument, and so further the discussion.

In accordance with site (and particularly in that section) rules, I aim to write\phrase posts to encourage discussion of the topic I am posting on - often picking topics which may appeal to\encourage input from those on the "right" (and centre), as this section of the population appear poorly represented\supported(\treated?) on the site. I have no wish, intention, or interest in being the subject\target of a responce, and try to word what I post as neutrally as I can in order to avoid this occurring (particularly given that posts aimed at\directed towards a person run the risk of being labelled "attacking the poster" which is prohibited across the site, even in PPR as I had noted above), and have on a number of instances requested that people cease directing responces towards me - as the poster - both as I perceived the posts as a veiled attack (or, in the alternative, as an attempt to derail the thread), as well as to try and reduce the possibility of either the person in question, or myself in responce, posting something which a moderator may perceive (rightly or wrongly) as an attack on either person involved (I have certain suspicions as to which way that would go, too).

In the thread that caused the current problem, I had come across a video with a title giving the impression of a proven link between 2 things. Whilst finding the suggested link (and included examples) intriguing and believing it worthy of discussion, I did not feel the link was proven, nor (even had I felt that it was) did I feel that posting under the title of the video (which was the basis of the post) was liable to encourage a discussion (as opposed to an argument) - "XYZ explained" is less likely to encourage people to respond in a civil manner than "possible explanation for XYZ" would (particulalrly should they disagree) - whilst ensuring a linkage to the title of the video upon which the post was based. Seeing someone in authority on the site then falsely claim I had stated something (which was easily disproven) that would have been potentially inflamatory and (at least from my viewpoint) implying a dishonest motive behind my actions (not the first time someone on the site has done this...almost certainly not the last), and the subsequent input shortly thereafter from the "site admin" which based on the plain language they used gave a particular "message" (although it seems, according to the explanation later supplied, this may have simply been the result of haste to post, rather than intent behind what they posted), hit my tolerance point...Certain follow-up posts by a number of members there certainly did nothing to alter my view of the intent behind what I perceived as occurring at the time, hence this thread.

I certainly have no objection to Brictoria’s presence here. He has just as much a right to be here as anybody else. As long as he doesn’t express Nazi-type viewpoints, or others which blatantly express a desire to “get rid of” a certain race or ethnicity.

People have political opinions. Brictoria fights intensely for the conservative viewpoint, primarily. Liberals fight just as hard for their viewpoints. Both use similar methods. It’s primarily an ego thing, in my opinion. No one wants to be embarrassed.

Brictoria gives it, and takes it, too. So do those who argue with him.

I am reminded of the cartoon where the Wolf and Sheepdog fight it out....but they only fight it out after punching in with a punchclock, and before punching out. Other times, they are drinking buddies.

Brictoria, I am sorry your feelings were hurt enough in an exchange that to me seemed out of line. (Brictoria)

I would much prefer that everyone use a bit more kindness and respect when dealing with each other. Haven’t we been bullied and ganged up on enough already?

It is important to remember that autism is by definition an impairment in social communication. Can we please give everyone the benefit of the doubt?

I didn’t like it (and still don’t) when everyone ganged up on Fnord a while back. I don’t like to see people gang up on Brictoria either. Or anyone else.

I wish this had not happened.
Everyone here at WP comes here to find someone to talk to who understands us.
We need this whole site to be our haven.

Could someone please show me where it says that the rules are looser in PPR?

I've heard reference to this many times, but when I go to the PPR rules it says: "PPR: This is a special forum. It is for debating and as such pretty much anything goes provided it stays within the site rules and the following guidelines. It is more or less freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if some people have obnoxious or ill-informed opinions regarding politics, religion or virtually anything else. People can debate and criticize any religion, atheism, political party, public figures etc."
(Tallyman, 23 July 2012)

It clearly says that PPR is for debate of ideas, within the site rules and following guidelines.

The site rules themselves outline what constitutes a personal attack (attack the idea, not the person).

I'm still confused why some people say that PPR has looser rules or standards? I've never seen that in print.

Maybe I'm missing something? Heated debate of topics doesn't mean that the rules themselves don't apply.

It doesn't mean the rules don't apply but it's a kind of unwritten thing that if you were going to attack someone in another part of the forum - not even the forum - and have a heated debate with them, you could get into trouble.

Especially on the haven where we all need to be nice to each other. People come on the haven when they're hurting.

I've found that L&D allows for somewhat sexist generalisations (back and forth). And PPR allows for heated debate, anger etc.

It's defined from the opposite side: viewtopic.php?t=204613

My interpretation: PPR accepts more open conflict and one posting there should be ready to see their beliefs challenged. I created a thread about boundaries of acceptable conflict some time ago because in practice, things can sometimes go out of hand, even while theoretically staying within the letter of the rules - and the other way around, too.

Back to TallyMan: also from viewtopic.php?t=204613