Should moderators be impartial?

[*Sapphire*]

Thank you for sharing your opinion boB I hope we can help to avoid those instances of 'here we go again' for you and other members who share your view in the future.

[*Sapphire*]

... I dont think some of them are personal attacks .. just defending corners and belifes ..

boB I hope you don't mind me asking but why in your opinion do you think some members might perceive them as personal attacks when you perceive they are not?

[iffybob]

Hi sapph ....

Views on religion and sexuality ..... seem the most common ...

.. I understand that some have "strong" religouse view ... that is there life .. , as far as I am concerned .. you may belive what ever you want .. dont try and beat me with it .. I would come out swinging on that ...

As for sexuality .. esp homosexuality .. that has trigger factors for some on here ... ( as well as some religiouse cross over ) , ... again I am of the opinion ... it is that persons own life ... concenting adults is a differnt situation to say, child abuse which is indefenceable ..


I would like to point out from my original post ... I wrote about twice as much (deleted it) .. the rest was about posting list of artical links and citations ... some of which are un-interperatable by most of use with out a great deal of , reading , research .. professional qualifications etc ... or just too much to have to read and absorb ... and take on the meaning ...

... When these are used to back up an opinion ... few have the time , perhaps not capable, or are inclined to follow it any further ... and thus stifeling the argumnet .... for many to follow ...

.. if those posters would like to write a condenced synopsis and post the link as well .. then that would be helpful ..

[*Sapphire*]

Okay boB. Correct me if I am wrong, are you saying that you think things would improve if members had a good awareness of others intellectual and perhaps language abilities when posting?

And that perhaps although they may have looked less in depth into something than another poster that, that does not mean their opinion is less valid?

I would like to point out from my original post ... I wrote about twice as much (deleted it) .. the rest was about posting list of artical links and citations ... some of which are un-interperatable by most of use with out a great deal of , reading , research .. professional qualifications etc ... or just too much to have to read and absorb ... and take on the meaning ...

... When these are used to back up an opinion ... few have the time , perhaps not capable, or are inclined to follow it any further ... and thus stifeling the argumnet .... for many to follow ...

Again I hope you don't mind me asking this but why do you think some members do this? How does it make you feel and how do you perceive it when this happens?

[bubbling under]

I stay away from deep discussions on here because reading some of them makes me feel thick and inferior.

I'm with bob on the 'live and let live'.....we are individuals with thoughts/feelings/problems of our own. I come here for friendship, understanding and support.

If anyone personally attacks another member there should be some form of penalty imo.

[quality factor]

I joined the forum in August 2008, it was, then, a friendly, welcoming place to be.
After a while, I decided, naively, to take part in a debate because I felt I had something to offer from my own experiences. I was accused by one member of offering...'straw man and flaming arguments'. I withdrew from joining in discussions/ debates and even posting my own threads for a good nine months at least. My confidence had been completely demolished by one member, who is lacking in respect and thinks only of his own ego.
Of late I decided to try and take a more proactive role in the forum, within weeks, once again, I was accused by the same member of 'innuendo and straw man arguments'.
Today I decided to post on the 'should moderators etc....' within seconds my post was 'pounced on' by the same member and my views queried.
I will not be made to feel in any way inferior, but that was what was happening. I don't feel it was 'bullying' as such, but it was demeaning of my integrity.
There is a strong sense of purpose on this forum from some of those who come from what is being recognised as the 'anti-psychiatry' protagonists. It has been noticeable to me since I joined, that the forum is being saturated with anti-psychiatry propaganda. Members who join these debates do so at their own peril for fear of being talked down, in fact, brow beaten into submission. One tends to give up ones right to 'freedom of speech', from what I define as professionals of debate dominating threads with little respect for other members' feelings.
As I have stated previously in another post, some members are contemptous in their view of moderaton if it is not in their favour.
I feel the stability of the forum is disintegrating and desperately needs to 'get back on track'. Whether this can be achieved by concensus is a matter for concern.
Members have certain loyalties that are gained through personal experiences, but I feel perhaps we need to re-define certain boundaries, which take into account respect for other people's feelings and emotions.
It is sad that this situation has arisen, but I do suggest that those who feel they are being 'bullied', should in turn think about whether it is in fact they who are doing the bullying by their pragmatic and insensitive approach.
Finally I would like to say that this forum should be for everybody to turn to whether it be for friendship, support,fun or dicussion/debate and that everybody should be made to feel welcome and not be undermined for their reason for joining the forum in the first place.

qf.

[SimonB]

I think several factors need to be considered in this conversation...

Mark you posted definitions of bullying etc. I actually think this is exactly what this discussion needs. Thank you Mark.

What is bullying?
What do members class as bullying?

I don't want personal attacks or specific cases to be aired here, but what do members consider as the difference between bullying or an attack, and freedom of speech and expression? Where is the line drawn?

What is considered debate, and what is considered an argument?

How do members think we should moderate those instances?

I am of the view that it might be worth having some form of debating protocol or code of conduct in the two pence worth forum. What do members think of this?

I think it is essential when discussing subjects that are close to many peoples hearts and experiences that there is a mutual understanding that some members may feel attacked when it might or might not be the case. I also feel that for it to work members should feel safe enough to check with the poster or a Mod to see if it is meant as an attack.

As members have expressed that I am allowed to have an opinion, I hope you don't mind me sharing mine.

This is not aimed at anyone, and I mean this.
IMO I am sick to death of good debates being derailed by flaming or accusations of bullying/flaming. So many worthwhile threads have been closed/edited/deleted because of this. I see it as a great shame, because often these types of discussions are close to many peoples hearts, often are about topics that have effected the posters hugely negatively or positively and are topics that many people are afraid to share in RL and often lead to tremendous growth of sorts for the parties involved.

I believe it would be good for both members and mods for us to be able to agree and define the terms that are regularly banded around here so that we can all play our part in keeping with the forums aim....



....as well as staying within the forums guidelines without censorship.

Hi Sapphire,

From some of the 'debates' I've seen on here, different people take interests to different levels. I for example have an interest in improving the service, I may use specific examples to make my case, but, those arguments are only as good as the person who is responding in that they are able to follow them.

There is nothing wrong in putting forward an argument for or against something, what matters is how that is done and the langauge used.

Generally speaking, its not the arguments or debate if you like that are the problem, its the way how people construct the words to those arguments if you see what I mean.

Debate, should be open, everyone should have their say and it should stick to the points at hand and not drift into other related topics. Posing a question, a statement or an article is valid so long as it is central to ones argument.

I don't care very much for people who use their supposed knowledge to belittle, intimidate to 'force' an argument nor do I have time for people, whoever they are who play with words.

At the same time we also have to remember others frustrations, difference of opinion and beliefs [amongst others] that they hold and be mindful of how we tread with words.

[iffybob]

When I speek to an adult I speek to them as an adult .. when I speek to a child I speek to them as a child .. to make sure that I am understood ...

Correct me if I am wrong, are you saying that you think things would improve if members had a good awareness of others intellectual and perhaps language abilities when posting?

I think it would inprove the width of those who could join the debates if some wrote with the target audience of a "newbie" ( maybe a bit higher ) ... so it could be understood by as many people as possible ..

If they want to post an artical or link that is "technical" , ie a medical reseach ... then fine .. do as I have seen on occation .. post a short explaination that all can understand ... AS WELL as the link

I dont want to have to get a PHD on neuro-transmitters and the affects on depresion .. to read the blocking may or may not be a bad thing ... sorry but I have to eat at some point ...

I was just thinking maybe a new section to the whole forum "Research and Developments" ... where poeple can post technical issuse for those interested....

and it does put me off when I see a page and there are a whole load of posts with many lines of blue links ,

Again I hope you don't mind me asking this but why do you think some members do this? How does it make you feel and how do you perceive it when this happens?

I think that it is a "genuine" contribution, to be helpful , but presentation goes a long way ...

Neither psychologhy or psychitry are sciences ... niether are anywhere near that .. conversation can very quickly become technical and unless you specialise in that area .. you are easyly lost and those with valid insights not being able to follow the lanuage .. which is not always static ..


Its like the only instructions may as well be in Japanes ... you wont even know what you missed ..

[SimonB]

Bob...I couldn't have put it better!

[*Sapphire*]

If anyone personally attacks another member there should be some form of penalty imo.

Thank you for your sharing your opinion BU. What penalty do you think there should be BU?

I don't feel it was 'bullying' as such, but it was demeaning of my integrity.

Thank you for your reply QF.
Okay, that clarifys it more. Thank you.

There is a strong sense of purpose on this forum from some of those who come from what is being recognised as the 'anti-psychiatry' protagonists. It has been noticeable to me since I joined, that the forum is being saturated with anti-psychiatry propaganda. Members who join these debates do so at their own peril for fear of being talked down, in fact, brow beaten into submission. One tends to give up ones right to 'freedom of speech', from what I define as professionals of debate dominating threads with little respect for other members' feelings.

Okay that is interesting, in your opinion what do you feel is their 'strong sense of purpose'?

What do you think is the best way to moderate this? Should we moderate it?

It also raises a good question, what do members think IS the purpose of the two pence worth forum?

Finally I would like to say that this forum should be for everybody to turn to whether it be for friendship, support,fun or dicussion/debate and that everybody should be made to feel welcome and not be undermined for their reason for joining the forum in the first place.

I heartily agree.

There is nothing wrong in putting forward an argument for or against something, what matters is how that is done and the langauge used.

Hi Simon thank you for replying. Can you be a little more specific?

Generally speaking, its not the arguments or debate if you like that are the problem, its the way how people construct the words to those arguments if you see what I mean.

Okay so you see it more as how we choose to say it rather than what we say?
So are you saying that some words/styles used exclude others from entering the debate?

Do you think it is possible for all members to alter this given the fact that this forum is global and likely to have such differing and varying backgrounds, education and experiences? Should they alter it?

If so, how?

Debate, should be open, everyone should have their say and it should stick to the points at hand and not drift into other related topics. Posing a question, a statement or an article is valid so long as it is central to ones argument.

Once again I heartily agree with this