LGBT People, Curious, Tourists, Gawkers, Trolls and Haters

Post Reply New Topic

All I can add to this is that WP does not presently use gender, race, age, religion, political viewpoint, ethnicity or sexual preference as criteria in choosing moderators. For better or for worse, Wrong Planet is not a representative democracy.

Why can I not make that assumption? I we start from the position that Alex is not going to ask an unqualified person to do the job, it is a pretty short step to the position that a moderator who shares experience with the issues under discussion is going to be more likely to have experience with the issues. Furthermore, such a person will not be seen as an outsider imposing authority from outside.



I disagree, for a couple of reasons.

First, different mods bring different skills and experience and will make different judgements in the same case. If there is an "all mods moderate everything," that offers up the opportunity to "mod shop" and for users to PM mods more likely to intervene when they want something shut down, or to PM mods more likely to allow stuff to happen if they want a mod to weigh in and bless proceedings. If there is a single mod with particular responsibility for a forum, then there is more likely to be consistency of approach within that forum.

Second, a simple check of "view posts since my last visit" will give you an impression of the workload that would fall on moderators if they actually did the job of reviewing material as it is posted. If each moderator has primary responsibility for a smaller chunk of the board, it is easier for each of them to keep an eye on what's going on within their particular areas of responsibility.

None of this stops a mod from responding to a request to intervene where the primary mod for a forum is unavailable--but it does tend to ensure a greater level of consistency, and a greater overall level of oversight.



Which would not necessarily be a bad thing, but for two critical failures:

1) Policy is made in a closed environment. Alex chooses the mods, and the mods discuss things in private. So far as I am aware, not one GLBT member was formally consulted on recent discussions about addressing homophobic posts. As one of the First Nations negotiators with whom I work recently said to one of our officials, "How dare you speak with other people about our issues without us being in the room?"

2) The website purports to provide Alex with public credibility. Google "Alex Plank" and you will will see the degree to which this site provides Alex with his position to speak. But it also exposes him to legal risk, and the tighter the personal control that Alex maintains over the site and the posting policy, the greater the degree to which a third party could view him as responsible for what is posted here.

Sometimes broader based authority is a good thing, because it enhances the credibility of the site, and diminishes the personal responsibility of its leadership.

I don't want to engage in this argument to any great extent, but I am just curious about one or two items and then I am going to respectfully leave this post alone. As a GLBT member, how would you have made the policy on homophobic posts any different? These things aren't written in stone



The issues that Wrong Planet are here to address are AS and ASD issues, and those are the issues that are discussed without everyone else in the room. I think it is useful that a separate forum was made to ease the discussion on GLBT issues as relates to autism, but it was never intended to become a sub-culture of its own with its own moderation staff and its own set of rules and guidelines. If that is what is desired then a specialized site should be created by an interested party.

If we take your argument to heart then we need to have every race, nationality, religion, political viewpoint and age group represented on the moderation staff. How dare we have a computers forum without a programmer as a moderator? How dare we have a Bipolar forum without a Bipolar moderator? How dare we have a College Life forum without a college student as a moderator?

I understand that you are upset because you feel that rules were put in place to protect your sub-group without your being consulted. But, to be really honest with you, protecting the gay community wasn't the sole reason those rules were clarified. We also wanted to protect the religious community from the same thing, as well as any other group that was feeling under the gun in this place that is supposed to be a source of support. If ever there was a decision being made that would only affect the homosexual community I could not imagine there not being an appropriate source of opinion consulted. As I sit here typing, I cannot think of an example.

Sounds pretty reasoned.
I think that there ought to be protection from bigots of all persuasions and a support site ought to be supportive as a default. That said there is always perspective, ambiguity and difference of opinion.
Why anyone would seek (as a 1 in 150 minority) to pick on a minority or be a bigot, I dunno. It makes no sense but it happens.
Ought this be a protected separate satellite forum or treated as such? Hell no.
This is a part of WP and the same rules apply. No better support or re-clarifications or rules for this forum.
If this subforum is worthy it is not on the basis of its difference in treatment but in its members making a go of it and supporting themselves and bringing value here.

Yes. Mods are already understood to be lenient in places like "Adult Autism Issues" or "PPR" while keeping a closer watch on "The Haven" or a forum such as this, but no special rules or mods are needed or even appropriate anywhere here on WP.

Well, since I was not privileged to be part of the discussion, I cannot say how that discussion might have been different with my presence (or, indeed, the presence of any other LGBT member). I cannot know what was on the table, or what alternatives I might have been able to propose in that context.

But even if the end product were to be the same, the ends do not justify the means. It is a trite statement in the law that "not only must justice be done, it must be seen to have been done."

We excoriate Autism Speaks for pretending to know what is best for us without having us at the table to participate. How is WP behaving any differently in this regard?



Which is a rather patronizing way of saying, "we will tolerate diversity only to the extent that it does not upset our power structure." Like it or not, LGBT members are a subculture (actually, several subcultures, but there's another nuance you are likely to miss), because we self-identify as such. Our experience with AS and ASD is different from straight people on the spectrum, because sexuality is so intrinsic to human psychology and such an immutable characteristic.

So what's wrong with moderation from within? I am not suggesting that the group should have the power of appointment, after all. And what is wrong with distinct guildelines? I am not suggesting that Alex should not have ultimate authority over his site. But we have different approaches for different fora already. We have them for The Haven and PPR. Given that Alex is prepared to have a kids forum, then it seems to me that he is willing to put some secure fences around that board (and if he's not, he should be, for his own sake). So where would moderation from within for LGBT, teens and yes, even college life, be treading new ground?



Well, since we can't achieve perfection, let's not do anything at all. Okay, so you can't have every perspective--that's a flaw inherent in any decision making body. But you can take reasonable steps to ensure that the decision makers are as diverse as possible in the circumstances, and you can make sure that there is a visible and meaningful attempt to consult before decisions are made, not after the fact.

And who said this needed to be the mods? I believe that that some forums need to be moderated from within--but that does not mean that the moderators need to be the body that is advising Alex on site policy. Lawmakers and police do not have to be one and the same. Indeed it is often better when they are not.



Well that's not what you produced, is it? And it's not what you pretended to produce either. You produced policy on homophobic postings--not on anti-religious postings or anti-group-feeling-under-the-gun postings. You might perceive the homophobia policy as illustrative for those areas, and that's all well and good. But that was not your starting point, and this answer smacks of making it up as you go along.



Can you not see that this is precisely what occurred? Homophobia is our issue. We are the ones who face violence, discrimination, bullying, harassment and hate speech. Now I don't pretend that these are exclusive to us. Women face violence, aspies face bullying, muslims face hate speech. But our experiences differ. By way of example, I have been the subject of anti-gay violence, but I do not believe that this gives me any insight into the threat of violence faced by women. I would never claim to be able to discuss how to write policy around discussing the consequences of sexual assault without hearing from women about that issue, first.

At the end of the day, I think this is all about diversity. Mere acknowledgement of the presence of diversity communities is not an appropriate approach. Diversity communities must be empowered, and in that empowerment, the larger community becomes stronger and more resiliant.

Alex is a busy man, who is not much in evidence around here, and if he is going to exercise absolute control (as is his right), then there is all the more reason that he needs a broader set of perspectives with whom to consult when he is making policy.

I understand that Alex is conservative and risk averse. But it seems to me that Alex is heightening rather than managing his risk with his current approach. By keeping decision making close and control rigid, it means that Alex is the one and only person potentially liable if something goes sideways in here (and a very quick google search will reveal how that has already occurred).

I am not trying to be a rabble rouser here--I am trying to present constructive proposals. But each is met with defensiveness from the mods and silence from the owner rather than any spirit of engagement and dialogue? Why is change perceived as a threat rather than an opportunity? Why do we defend what we have done rather than inquire into its possible shortcomings?

Is it any wonder that I am frustrated?

There is simply no comparison there. Alex welcomes people to come here and interact amongst each other in a "room" (or collection of "rooms") within his own "home" ... and he owes no one an explanation for anything he does here.


Yes, and even reasonable ones, yet Alex "rules" within his own home and we are his guests and neither begging subjects nor personal counsel.

In agreement topic

I agree with visagrunt's post.

As a minority within a minority within a minority (AS, female, asexual) I understand his frustration.

I belong to another site for asexuality. It is totally different from WP, and lacks AS presence.

I have no idea if there is a LGBT Aspie site. From what I have googled, there does not appear to be.

There are no AS asexual sites either. So I wander back and forth from AVEN to WP.

If Alex does read this, I hope he reconsiders his position, and I hope visagrunt's proposals are eventually adopted.

... then he will do as he pleases even if other people might believe ...


How much additional time and effort might you believe Alex should have spent in making his decision to retire me as a moderator? In reality, and if Alex were expected to in any way answer to any of us, I would be the one with the complaint ...

... yet I make none and agree with him completely.


Alex is actually but highly self-restrained ("conservative") in taking any action against anyone for anything, and he avoids risk of aversion in precisely that manner.


... and that is simply how things must be and remain unless/until any kind of contract between any two parties might ever come into play here.

Your statements do not distinguish the issue. If anything, they seek to defend the unreasonable.

When Alex presents himself to the media as the owner and founder of this site, and then relies on its 40,000+ members for credibility, he is using our efforts to enhance his profile. Let's not pretend that this private site exists outside of public visibility.

I do not personally concern myself with any of Alex' personal motives, actions, ambitions, private life or anything else, but I can certainly see how some people could feel or perceive things exactly as you have described ...

... and again, of course, not one of us here is in any way contracted or expected or even but merely asked or invited to in any way fulfill any such kind of thing on anyone's behalf.
=============

Another thought came to me just a few moments ago ...

Note to all: The following is only a hypothetical presented for illustrative purpose.

Imagine for just a moment that Alex let you and me have complete control of this site. That is certainly not ever going to happen, of course, but just imagine that for a moment ...

... and now consider ...

Question: If you and I ran this site, who then would be held culpable if something here might ever in any way bring shame or reproach upon Alex?

... and with that in mind, now ask yourself: What would you now do if you were him?

Personally, and if I were Alex (which of course I am not), I would retain absolute control.

Note to all: The above was only a hypothetical presented for illustrative purpose.

Edit: And as a final thought: Moderators here are each and all clearly told nothing is ever "expected" of them in the sense of any stated or assumed obligation to do anything at all for Alex. I personally served with him also in mind, of course, but moderators here are nevertheless and simply a few autonomous volunteers working together for us (and with Alex in mind, I would assume) -- for us WP members who happen to enjoy Alex' welcome.

leejosepho

You come nicely to the point. Alex is the owner of a site with over 40,000 members, and something in the vicinity of 1,000,000 or more posts. He cannot be all places at once and he cannot be everywhere, but he is ultimately left holding the bag if something that happens on his site goes sideways.

So where's the evidence of a risk management strategy?

Suppose someone comes into The Haven posting about an intent to commit suicide, and some helpful imp tells that person to, "just do it, already." And suppose the original poster reads that before it comes to a moderator's attention? Now, I don't suppose for a moment that a moderator would hold off deleting the offending post the second that it came to the moderator's attention--but with so few on the ground, what's the potential delay?

There are very real legal risks to providing a publicly visible board on the internet, and those risks should be managed, not ignored.

In the way I believe you mean that here, the "strategy" is to leave things exactly as they are: contract-free. Neither Alex nor any member (including any mod) has even the slightest bit of obligation to the other.


Sallamandrina might be the one to best answer that, but it is my understanding that the above covers all of that.


Agreed ... and if I were Alex, and I certainly am not, I would "manage them" exactly as Alex seems to me to already be doing.

Note: Even fee-paid members of private clubs cannot successfully sue those private clubs for any personal harm that might befall them as a result of said members' voluntary participation there.

There might be no obligation under contract (although consideration might flow, nonetheless through the user's agreement to the terms of service)--but almost all of the liability that concerns me arises not from contract but through tort, and more specifically, negligence and libel. And in this field, Alex cannot maintain that he is insulated from obligation.

Does Alex's conduct meet the standard of care required of a publisher? I think the answer to that question could well have 67 different answers in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom alone--not counting the other jurisdictions in which WP is read.

And what of the WP supporters? I will be honest here and say that the only thing that has held me back from donating money to Alex is the concern that if I were to make a financial contribution to the site and the site were to become liable for something that occurred here, I could well be attached. Any sensible litigator would try it on for size, since at the end of the day you want as many deep pockets as possible in the event that you get a favourable judgement, and, perhaps more importantly, who would be inclined to settle for nuisance value.



I sugguest that this is where the danger could lie. Within the legal standards of foreseeability and standard of care, it is incumbent on all of us to take all reasonable steps to mitigate risk. That does not mean we have to prevent all risk, but we have to be able to point to a clear consideration of risk, a reasonably prudent assessment of that risk, and a reasonably prudent decision about mitigation.

I could be wrong, but I don't see that the current approach to managing the postings on WP will pass those tests.



I would be hestitant to make so cut and dried a statement--in point of fact, I think you are quite wrong, at least in some of the jurisdictions in which WP is read. There is plenty of "good-host" litigation that is imposing liability not just on private clubs, but on private homeowners. We are in a different field, to be sure, but the willingness of courts to spread liability should not be underestimated.

Understood. My personal experience there is limited to only two situations known to me within one jurisdiction.

Returning to the matter WP:

1) People may freely choose whether or not to voluntarily contribute toward Alex' WP expenses;
2) Voluntarily contributing toward Alex' WP expenses places no direct obligation on either party.

Beyond that ... well, there really is nothing beyond that other than for us members to share our very best here.