How to respond to attack by moderator?

Post Reply New Topic

How do you respond, in a discussion where a person is trying to put forward alternative reasons related to the subject under discussion (not even ones that may be agreed with by the person putting them forward) keeping responces on-topic, and addressing the subject matter, not other participants, when a moderator turns around and the first sentence in their responce is:

(Name of "moderator" involved withheld to prevent retaliatory claims of "personal attack").

The forum rules clearly state:

But who enforces this: The moderator.
This isn't even a case of attacking a member for a view they presented or hold (and at no point had I stated I held the idea I was puting forward, instead merely attempting ot offer it a a possibility in an objective manner), but is instead a pure attack on the person: "you are the issue", as a statement in its own right (I can't even think how you would put together a sentence referring to someone as "the issue" for presenting something with which another disagreed).
If you repsond in kind (possibly the intent behind the statement?), you can then be accused of "personal attack" and removed from the site.
You can't "block" \"foe" a moderator.
So how do you prevent potential future attacks from this same source (or even defend yourself in the first place)?

How is it possible to have a civil discussion, when moderators feel free to (instead of sticking to the topic) attack members with whom they have a different view (If I were to have made a comment\statement such as that about any other member, I have no doubt that I would have been removed from the site quite quickly...), and it is impossible to do anything to protect oneself from these attacks in the future?

I've had something like this happen to me. I let it roll off my back like water at the time and I was more careful about my words and topics. This happened nearly 10 years ago.

Why should anyone, though, be expected to have to put up with this approach to them taken by a moderator?

A normal member - report the "attack", and keep in mind the person and the "character" they have exposed through the personal attack (and content contained within it), certainly, but a moderator (at least on most sites I use) is supposed to give the appearance of impartiality: If they can attack a member in a way such as this, what expectation for "impartiality" is there likely to be, going forward, when you won't know, for example, whether you are to be judged by the standards they displayed in this instance, the "rules" which they are supposed to ensure are followed, or some "personal standards" which are not disclosed?

Given I tend to put forward opinions which run counter to the majority (as a way to encourage others to consider them and either speak about which portions may be valid (for those who feel left out in what would otherwsie be a one-sided discussion), as well as point out flaws in them, not as an endorsement of them nor even an indication I may hold them myself), I have been very aware that stricter "scrutiny" is likely to be paid to what I type, and so spend quite a bit of time proof-reading and researching material to ensure I stay within the published rules, addressing the topic, not the poster (and requesting respondants who try to target me in order to personalise further conversation rather than continuing the discussion around the specific topic, in order to try and prevent any possibility from either side of the discussion reverting to personal attacks).

The quote above was what was felt by the poster of it to be the most important part of their responce to a post, being the first thing a reader would read - How do you respond to that (coming, as it does, from a position of "authority")?
* was it the content of the post that was the issue, and so could be clarified in responce? No.
* Was it the act of presenting a differing "understanding" of the subject being discussed to that which the poster may endorse (itself problematic, but able to be addressed)? No.

Instead it was the person who was presenting information that was the "issue"...
How welcome\accepted is something like that likely to make the target feel in a personal capacity?
How valued, as a person, would anyone else who read the posts and may have agreed (in part or in whole) with what had been posted to see that sort of responce from authority, not indicating issues with the position being presented, but saying the person who presented it (and by extension, anyone who may have held it) is an issue?
How would anyone else visiting the site feel, seeing (on an ASD "support" site) "authority" figures telling a member of the ASD community that THEY are the issue, simply for presenting something (or merely being) "different"?

Hopefully this helps clarify the issue, both from a personal viewpoint, as well as how it reflects on the site as a whole (the later being of lesser concern than the former from my viewpoint, but still something requiring consideration).

People jumping to conclusions is a *massive* problem, here.

ignore them
its like some swallowed a book and can only regurgitate that
but they're always right ofcourse, because "it's the book"

!	magz wrote:
	1. This is The Haven. It's a place intended for posting in moments when one can't handle conflict and criticism. Respond accordingly - supportively or not at all. 2. The sentence OP finds personally attacking him has been removed. Regular ways of reporting or PMing another moderator would have had similar effect.

I apologize in advance for not having much to say that is relevant to the question at hand. Reality is, I have no idea how to deal with such an issue, except maybe try to deal with a different moderator. But given that there seem to be so few of them here, I'm not sure if that's a possibility. I dunno. Maybe you already tried that.

Really, the only reason I'm responding is because I wanted to see if I could try to be something that resembles supportive. I don't hang out in ppr much. On a personal level, I can't tell the difference between casual conversation/debate and a heated argument where people are tense, insulting, defensive, whatever. Those types of subtleties go right over my head. Still, I do venture in now and then to read a topic that might seem interesting to me. Personally, I like it when you respond. I find a lot of what I read there to be... eh, how do I say it, one sided. I don't really understand the point of debate if it's little more than a group of people presenting different perspectives of the same side of a coin. I like it when conversation is more well rounded than that. You bring that to the table, and I appreciate it. Like I said, not exactly relevant to the topic, but I don't know another way to show support. And I wanted to.

I'm saying a lot, but the short of it is, I hope this gets resolved for you. And for what it's worth, I see a big difference between saying your words are the issue, and you are the issue. That's not okay. I'm sorry you have this going on. Again, I hope this gets resolved for you.

You have these options:

• Post your question in the Moderator Attention thread, where everyone can read it and respond.

• Send a Private Message to another moderator asking for them to intervene on your behalf.

• Send a private message to ALL moderators, appealing to their better natures.

• Send an email or a private message to Alex, the owner of this website.

Last edited by magz on 15 Feb 2021, 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.: un-Havenly content removed

Book = Narrative.

I agree.
There is a prevailing attitude of antagonistic 'one-up-man-ship', rather than engaging in mutually beneficial discussion.



Agreed.
'Alas', I have given up expecting 'conversations'.
There is a dominant mindset of 'us against them'.
Partisanism on steroids.

Many people don't understand the principle of making objective observations.
People generally jump to conclusions without verification.
There are so many examples of binary thinking.

For people like Brictoria and myself, it is baffling that many people see 'forensic analysis' of a situation as being 'argumentative'.



Agreed.

Last edited by Cornflake on 15 Feb 2021, 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.: un-Havenly content removed

I am sorry that any of this happened.
Most of us come here for conversation, support, for someone to help us understand what is going on in the world.
Being The Haven, this is where I come for someone to talk to when I need a pat on the back or someone to help me figure out the right course.
I wish that things like this did not happen.

Want a hug?
I am a clean skunk and had my glands removed.

Cherry-picking quotes without context is a great way of misleading people and possibly playing the victim. What was the wider context? What had you written which was apparently contentious, and what was the full response? Verbatim, not carefully edited.

Thank you for your responce.

I approach PPR in a similar manner to that in which you appear to do so: Find a specific topic that seems "interesting" (either personaly, or because I feel there is room for "exploration" of the subject) and look at that, not try and blanket the entire section (I do the same with the "news" section as well).

Generally, I also find that the threads are very one-sided (people repeating each other and putting forward their own interpretations\opinions\charicatures about what those on the "other side" believe\what their views are), which doesn't appear to me to do "justice" to either those other views, or those who may hold them (regardless of my personal thoughts on the subject being discussed).

I'll then do some research (where I don't have personal knowledge from other sources) and try to put together something that would provide a less partisan\more accurate (in as far as my limited ability\understanding permits) representation of what the other side of a discussion's views\opinions may be, both to provide a "way in" to the conversation for any who may agree (in part or in whole) with that side of the discussion, as well as for the current participants to have a more "accurate" target against which to test their own opinions\beliefs rather than one which may have been "crafted" from a lack of understanding\knowledge or based upon a charicature of those views\adherents - In most cases I am not putting forward my own opinions (I do note in posts where I state something which is my opinion\belief, as opposed to something sourced elsewhere), but simply trying to remove misrepresentations that had been presented by others and\or trying (as far as I am capable of doing so) to provide context\understanding of the reason behind the alternative views. (In this case, I had been hoping to explore the (naturally subjective) question of where the line between "love\protection of one's own culture" and "fear of another culture" is positioned, but sadly it was not to be...)

Similarly, when starting threads in PPR, I look at interesting\intriguing topics which I believe have the potential to start interesting discussions\allow people on all sides to explore\challenge their own beliefs\understanding of the subject matter and gain a better\clearer understanding of those who see the subject differently (I have several "prepared", but hadn't worked out which to post first). Given most people (both on this site and elsewhere) tend to have their views on a given subject and make assumptions around what the "other side" believe (rather than going out to research\seeking to discuss their beliefs with others who hold differeing views), I feel it to be irresposible (from my personal view) for me to not at least attempt to provide a level of "balance" where I see something that has the potential to be an interesting discussion, but which is not currently at that level - I know how I have felt in other forums seeing my opinions presented as a charicature and this being ridiculed with no-one standing up and trying to corect the misconceptions, rather than the participants having an honest discussion that is focussed on the real opinions, and don't like to encourage (whether through action or inaction) this to occur to another person on this site.



The problem when a discussion becomes "personal" (addressing the person providing the message rather than the message content), is that it risks escalating with participants becoming either "aggressive" towards someone who isn't agreeing with them, or "defensive" in protecting themselves from this. Eventually, should such a discussion continue, you will end with one making an attack on the other person (here, breaching "personal attacks" rules, in person, potentially a physical attack), which is why whenever I am directly addressed, I try to direct the person involved back towards the subject...There are times I have a feeling I am being "followed" around by certain people (who knows, maybe it's paranoia speaking) trying to trigger an attack such as this from me, based on a pattern of interactions, but having found that requests to address the subject are ignored, simply tailor a "neutral" responce around the subject.

As you noted, there is a difference between a person saying "what you are saying is the issue", where it allows a chance to discuss what part of the message being conveyed is causing concern (or is "defective", for want of a better word) to the person who is indicating an issue exists, and their saying "you are the issue" where the message received is that there is a problem with the target (they are "defective"), which only has 2 realistic (as I can see it) ways to respond: Either the subject lashes out in retaliation (personal attack), or they internalise this "invalidation" of them as a person, which can lead them down a dark path (particularly with repetition). When there is a difference in status between those involved, this will impact the probable direction\options open to the target and where they go.

Hopefully that all makes sense...

Thank you for that.

My goal, with what I post, is to try and find a way for the portion of the ASD community who have views which differ from the "majority" of the site to feel welcome to express their side in discussions, rather than simply having it attacked continually (regardless of my feelings\opinions on the subject matter) or feel they need to remain silent because of what they fear will happen should they speak up.

We're all (or have been) "outcasts" (for want of a better word) to some degree from society, yet instead of trying to be welcoming\accepting to others in our "community" despite their "differences", we still have our own group of "outcasts" who are shunned or whose beliefs are repeatedly attacked, with no attempt at understanding made, which I feel is doing a dis-service both to those people as well as to the ASD community as a whole through the perception anyone looking at (or hearing about) the site would gather regarding us. Surely we are (or can be) better than that.

Thank you for that...

The problem is that the prevailing attitude seems designed to alienate certain members of the ASD community, rather than, as I had believed the site was designed for, making everyone feel they were welcome.

I understand people will have differences of opinions (particularly in news\PPR), but surely it can't be that hard for people to at least try to accept others, regardless of their differences, not attack them because of the differences.