Take Care Online

[Mumble]

This letter appears in the current issue of the NAS magazine; I'd be interested to know what people here think:

 

I note that, in your last issue (Websearch, Communication, Winter 2008), you recommended an online support group for autistic people and their families. Indeed, such groups can be very helpful. However, it is important to remember that the people who run such groups are anonymous and unaccountable, and that they retain complete control (for instance, they can edit or alter anything you write on their site without your permission). No background checks are made on these people or their qualifications and they are not answerable to any independent authority. Unfortunately, relations between people involved with autism are not always friendly (as some polarised views in your last issue show!). From personal experience, I would urge caution with any privately-run web group. It would be wonderful if the NAS could run its own online chat group, as they can be a great resource, if properly regulated.

 

Don't shoot the messenger!!!!!! :lol:

 

I imagine that the admin/mods here may have a thing or two to say about this?

 

For me, if it weren't for online support (and in my case that pretty much equates to this site) I hate to think where I would be - there's very little support elsewhere And as I've said multiple times elsewhere, I choose to be here, no-one is forcing me (although there is something strangely addictive about this place )

 

It should be that admin (or mods chosen by them) can alter posts on their site because it is theirs... (or am I missing something here?)

 

Background checks? Qualifications? Answerable to independent authorities? As far as I'm aware the admin/mods here don't claim to have these and I wouldn't expect them to particularly when they're giving up their time for free to help others

 

But I guess the bit that annoyed me most - and it's not just in this letter but often written in communications on autism - is that relations between people involved with autism are not always friendly. Surely, it would be just as accurate to say: relations between people are not always friendly? People hold different opinions, some stronger than others, and invariably there will be clashes of opinion/personality, but these relate to everyone and being involved in autism, and speaking especially as an autistic person, doesn't in and of itself, make you more prone to disagreement and argument, does it?

 

Anyway, admin/mods, stop reading this and get back to studying for your A'Level in Forum Administration and Moderation (ASD specific). :lol:

 

[bid]

Mmmmmm...guess it depends which site!

 

Bid

[Mad cat lady]

I use another forum occasionally which is specifically for adults on the spectrum, and I have to say that the clashes on there can be quite spectacular. The only thing is that because we are all on the spectrum we kind of know that it is like that.

 

I don't agree with the Qualifications stuff though, I see no difference whether you are talking to people online or whether a group of people that don't know each other but all have something in common meet up for coffee. Should the person who arranges a meet up be qualified to do it. Ludicrous!

[Mad cat lady]

Mmmmmm...guess it depends which site!

 

Bid

 

 

[lorryw]

I had a horrible time on another site. I was left in tears and couldnt believe how cruel people could be just for holding a different opinion.

[hsmum]

Hello,

 

Just voicing my support for this forum. I have browsed here for two or three years (I think!) and there have been no personal spats or unsupported claims. For me the forum serves as a vital source of support and advice and a safe place for me to share experiences.

[westie]

any forum discussing any topic can have people posting who have great differences of opinion. I think that as long as moderators are aware and remove anything that flouts the rules of the forum,and posters bear in mind that others may not be of same opinion then what is the problem. Likewise with unqualified part, as long as owners/ moderators are not posing as experts or something/ someone that they are not again I can't see what issue is. I cant see why an NAS run forum would be so different.

 

Academics in the field have their difference of opinion on autism and other topics, so the fact that the forum "belonged" to the NAS would not really alter this......

 

just my opinion, feel free to disagree I won't hold it against you.....

 

 

 

 

[joanne1]

If I hadn't found this forum I don't think i would be as calm as i am at the moment. As said above there isn't much in the way of support out there. And we are in process of dx for my ds1. Which has already taken a year to get this far. We have been told about the spectrum and which i didnt know existed!! Like many I thought autism was 'rainman'. What i amm saying is that it takes so long with waiting lists to get dx and in the meantime you are left in limbo. If i hadn't found this site I would have gone crazy!!! Just to know that i am not alone and others have the same problems with their kids as i have has helped me massively. On this forum i have only found positive and sincere thoughts and advice from all who use it, and i have learnt an awful lot by using this forum. I don't know about other forums but on this one we seem to have a good bunch of people who are there for each other and thats what counts.

 

 

Joanne

[baddad]

You'd never please all of the peeps all of the time, and sometimes it feels like you can't please any of the peeps any of the time, but as an EX mod (so please don't think I'm talking on behalf of the current team or admin) I guess it's fairly straightforward - If a forum made edits to users posts to make it look like they'd said something they hadn't I guess that forum would have a tough time keeping members. If edits are made for good reason, in line with the guidelines/rules set down by the forum, that's for the benefit of the majority, who have signed up, presumably, because the guidelines rules reflect what they want from a forum. That may not sit well with the person being edited (in fact, it's usually those with the most extreme/polarised viewpoints who respond badly to being moderated, and as i've pointed out several times in the past being piggy in the middle in an exchange like that usually equates to a no-win situation where you cop the flak from both directions), but that doesn't make it 'wrong'.

 

As for a forum run by 'qualified' professionals

Anyone up for a panel of LEA department heads, SENCO's and Ed Psych's? I mean, don't get me wrong - some of them are fantastic, but in many cases it's interactions with those qulaified types that bring people here in the first place

 

L&P

 

BD

[cmuir]

Hi

 

I think whoever wrote that has some valid points to make and that it's right to advise caution to some degree. However, some so-called professionals who have lots of letters after their name, don't always get things right and can dish out a lot of nonsense! I think with any forum, one must accept that if they post, they may not get the response that they'd like to hear and that can be upsetting. However, you may receive an abundance of fantastic advice from other like-minded souls.

 

Caroline.

[Special_talent123]

This letter appears in the current issue of the NAS magazine; I'd be interested to know what people here think:

 

 

 

Don't shoot the messenger!!!!!! :lol:

 

I imagine that the admin/mods here may have a thing or two to say about this?

 

For me, if it weren't for online support (and in my case that pretty much equates to this site) I hate to think where I would be - there's very little support elsewhere And as I've said multiple times elsewhere, I choose to be here, no-one is forcing me (although there is something strangely addictive about this place )

 

It should be that admin (or mods chosen by them) can alter posts on their site because it is theirs... (or am I missing something here?)

 

Background checks? Qualifications? Answerable to independent authorities? As far as I'm aware the admin/mods here don't claim to have these and I wouldn't expect them to particularly when they're giving up their time for free to help others

 

But I guess the bit that annoyed me most - and it's not just in this letter but often written in communications on autism - is that relations between people involved with autism are not always friendly. Surely, it would be just as accurate to say: relations between people are not always friendly? People hold different opinions, some stronger than others, and invariably there will be clashes of opinion/personality, but these relate to everyone and being involved in autism, and speaking especially as an autistic person, doesn't in and of itself, make you more prone to disagreement and argument, does it?

 

Anyway, admin/mods, stop reading this and get back to studying for your A'Level in Forum Administration and Moderation (ASD specific). :lol:

 

 

if you are concerned around this area, why dont u raise this issues up with NAS then?

[Mumble]

if you are concerned around this area, why dont u raise this issues up with NAS then?

I'm not concerned . Amused perhaps. I think there's an individual responsibility to be careful online and that actually, if we say, this site is modded by professionals, we're trying to pass our responsibility to others. Plus, as Baddad says, many come here to escape the professionals! I did think it a little ironic that in the same issue that letter was printed in there was a page devoted to online autism sites/groups/blogs none of which are administrated/modded by professionals.

 

[Special_talent123]

I'm not concerned . Amused perhaps. I think there's an individual responsibility to be careful online and that actually, if we say, this site is modded by professionals, we're trying to pass our responsibility to others. Plus, as Baddad says, many come here to escape the professionals! I did think it a little ironic that in the same issue that letter was printed in there was a page devoted to online autism sites/groups/blogs none of which are administrated/modded by professionals.

 

ok but just why dont u make there clear to them? because i think if they came across and seen this then they may take it wrong way. certainly if its me and i was upset what i saw i would let them know so that they can change attitude at me. if u understand because certainly my social worker is nasty to me and throughts leaflets at me like saying here u go deal with it. its kinda same with my psychs and they ignore me after i was a victim and the case ended up closed due to lack of evidence thats when they stopped supporting me and i would make it clear if they dont change there actions i would go high above and i really mean it

[Mumble]

ok but just why dont u make there clear to them? because i think if they came across and seen this then they may take it wrong way. certainly if its me and i was upset what i saw i would let them know so that they can change attitude at me. if u understand because certainly my social worker is nasty to me and throughts leaflets at me like saying here u go deal with it. its kinda same with my psychs and they ignore me after i was a victim and the case ended up closed due to lack of evidence thats when they stopped supporting me and i would make it clear if they dont change there actions i would go high above and i really mean it

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Maybe you could explain it again then I could address the point you are making? As I've said previously, I'm not concerned and I'm not upset.

 

[Special_talent123]

i struggle to make myself clear.

 

it dont matter i hate explainging myself because i struggle to say what i want to say. i dont think u will understand again.

[Mumble]

i struggle to make myself clear.

 

it dont matter i hate explainging myself because i struggle to say what i want to say. i dont think u will understand again.

I'm sorry you feel like that. We're generally supportive here, try to understand each others' difficulties and try to help each other explain themselves.

[Special_talent123]

I'm sorry you feel like that. We're generally supportive here, try to understand each others' difficulties and try to help each other explain themselves.

 

ok thanks. sorry im probably not making sense cos i feel so low and depressed

[letterwriter]

Hi All,

 

I am the author of the letter quoted at the top of this thread. It was prompted by a very bad experience on another site, where, I happen to know, quite a few other people have also come to grief. I was naturally concerned when the NAS appeared to be endorsing that site.

 

The internet is not all good and I think there can be no harm in simply advising people (often very vulnerable people) to be careful and not to take everything at face value when checking out a site run by people they know nothing about. Sound advice surely? I suspect those who don't see a need for it are those who have not had their fingers burnt (which is a shame as they are the ones who could benefit!)

 

I should make it very clear that the word "professional" does not appear in my letter and I certainly never intended to imply that forums should be run by "qualified professionals". On the contrary, I think the members are what make a forum so valuable. Thats why I like to hear the advice and experience of all of them (as seems to happen here) and not just a few self-appointed gurus who can never resist the temptation to "pull rank". (Here's my tip: if the management of a website feels the need to frequently assure its members that they "are allowed to disagree", you should ask yourself why such an assurance should be needed!)

 

I really can't see anything in my letter which could be taken to suggest that I think people involved in autism are more than usually prone to disputes. Disputes can happen anywhere, but (as I learned the hard way) it's unwise to get into a dispute with someone who is holding all the cards. (I know there is at least one person here with very recent experience of falling into that trap!)

 

As you can see, I begin and end my letter by saying how valuable on-line forums can be if they are well run. I'm sure thats a sentiment everyone here can agree with.

 

Thanks for listening and good luck with your forum.

[Super Suzy]

Well you do get all sorts just turning up and I don't see why vulnerable autistics shouldn't get the same level of protection they'd get at a day centre or college.

 

If "letterwriter" was to have told the truth he would've written "Beware, because if you say the wrong thing on one of these forums, you could get systematically ripped to shreads in a gang attack, have you're posts deleted, modified or hidden from view, so you wouldn't even be able to prove what happened; the "all sorts" could include predators, abusers and proper bone-fide looney toons..."

 

And if any of you think differently than you're kidding yourselves.

 

Vulnerable autistic kids, adults and vulnerable parents deserve every bit as much protection they should get anywhere. I'm furious to think this point could even be debated.

[Tally]

The internet is not all good and I think there can be no harm in simply advising people (often very vulnerable people) to be careful and not to take everything at face value when checking out a site run by people they know nothing about. Sound advice surely?

 

Absolutely! It is very good advice.

 

I don't think anyone intended to put words in your mouth, but as is common, the discussion has wandered slightly from the topics covered in the first post.

[Mumble]

Hi Letterwriter,

 

I'm glad you've posted and I hope you didn't misunderstand my intention in this thread. I am concerned that people shouldn't be put off seeking support from such forums - for me, and I know for others on the spectrum, this forum (and others) have been a great source of support in a world where very little such support exists for us until we reach crisis, by when it is often too late. I have made a couple of really good friends via this forum - and for me that was easier than RL where I haven't made friends, but online friends have become RL friends.

 

You're right, the internet is not all good - but it's not all bad either - a bit like real life and I think so long as people appreciate that they can't go far wrong. I don't think admin/mods need qualifications or checks to run such a site - I can't see them sticking around and doing so if they didn't want to help. Different forums (fora? - not sure of the plural) have different feels and everyone will find their own 'home' where they feel happiest/safest. Surely, if you're (generic you) not happy somewhere you don't stay?

 

There's quite a lot in your post I can't comment on as I don't understand quite a few of the phrases you have used (I'm assuming you are not actually suggesting I go and burn my fingers for instance... ) and I don't know (nor am I asking) who you are referring to. The trouble is, just because some people have problems with something doesn't mean it's bad for everyone.

 

Hi All,

 

I am the author of the letter quoted at the top of this thread. It was prompted by a very bad experience on another site, where, I happen to know, quite a few other people have also come to grief. I was naturally concerned when the NAS appeared to be endorsing that site.

 

The internet is not all good and I think there can be no harm in simply advising people (often very vulnerable people) to be careful and not to take everything at face value when checking out a site run by people they know nothing about. Sound advice surely? I suspect those who don't see a need for it are those who have not had their fingers burnt (which is a shame as they are the ones who could benefit!)

 

I should make it very clear that the word "professional" does not appear in my letter and I certainly never intended to imply that forums should be run by "qualified professionals". On the contrary, I think the members are what make a forum so valuable. Thats why I like to hear the advice and experience of all of them (as seems to happen here) and not just a few self-appointed gurus who can never resist the temptation to "pull rank". (Here's my tip: if the management of a website feels the need to frequently assure its members that they "are allowed to disagree", you should ask yourself why such an assurance should be needed!)

 

I really can't see anything in my letter which could be taken to suggest that I think people involved in autism are more than usually prone to disputes. Disputes can happen anywhere, but (as I learned the hard way) it's unwise to get into a dispute with someone who is holding all the cards. (I know there is at least one person here with very recent experience of falling into that trap!)

 

As you can see, I begin and end my letter by saying how valuable on-line forums can be if they are well run. I'm sure thats a sentiment everyone here can agree with.

 

Thanks for listening and good luck with your forum.

 

[Mad cat lady]

Hi All,

 

I am the author of the letter quoted at the top of this thread. It was prompted by a very bad experience on another site, where, I happen to know, quite a few other people have also come to grief. I was naturally concerned when the NAS appeared to be endorsing that site.

 

The internet is not all good and I think there can be no harm in simply advising people (often very vulnerable people) to be careful and not to take everything at face value when checking out a site run by people they know nothing about. Sound advice surely? I suspect those who don't see a need for it are those who have not had their fingers burnt (which is a shame as they are the ones who could benefit!)

 

I should make it very clear that the word "professional" does not appear in my letter and I certainly never intended to imply that forums should be run by "qualified professionals". On the contrary, I think the members are what make a forum so valuable. Thats why I like to hear the advice and experience of all of them (as seems to happen here) and not just a few self-appointed gurus who can never resist the temptation to "pull rank". (Here's my tip: if the management of a website feels the need to frequently assure its members that they "are allowed to disagree", you should ask yourself why such an assurance should be needed!)

 

I really can't see anything in my letter which could be taken to suggest that I think people involved in autism are more than usually prone to disputes. Disputes can happen anywhere, but (as I learned the hard way) it's unwise to get into a dispute with someone who is holding all the cards. (I know there is at least one person here with very recent experience of falling into that trap!)

 

As you can see, I begin and end my letter by saying how valuable on-line forums can be if they are well run. I'm sure thats a sentiment everyone here can agree with.

 

Thanks for listening and good luck with your forum.

 

Good of you to come here and clarify what had been put in the article. Your post makes a lot of sense.

[bid]

Hi Letterwriter

 

I have 'had my fingers burnt' on two other autism sites. With the first, I poked my nose back in after a couple of years to find that the whole atmosphere had changed for the better, and I found a lot of support and kindness there.

 

I completely agree with your comment about trying to disagree people who hold all the cards! Ouch...just found another pin!

 

I think one of the great strengths of our forum here is that the admin are committed but at the same time retain a 'professional detachment' (in the best sense of the phrase!). Our mod team balance fairness with compassion and humour. I think this is the best combination, as it avoids any cult of personality or the 'it's my ball!' attitude.

 

I guess I'm a bit of a veteran forum user now (nearly 5 years...how did that happen?? ) and I have to say I do think we are incredibly lucky with our forum here (minor grumbles allowed )

 

Bid

Edited February 22, 2009 by bid

[Mumble]

What do these mean, Bid?

 

I have 'had my fingers burnt'

 

trying to disagree people who hold all the cards!

 

Ouch...just found another pin!

 

it avoids any cult of personality or the 'it's my ball!' attitude.

 

[call me jaded]

I'm now aching with curiosity to find out which site letterwriter has had a negative experience with, but naming and shaming is bad netiquette, so I'll just have to use my imagination.

 

I know of people on other forums who have entered into discussions with the forum owners and have been told to 'go away and leave us alone' which seems exceedingly undemocratic to me. I suppose because they are paying the bills and investing time they should be free to run the forum however they think, but it's not a scenario I'm comfortable with.

 

The idea of having a charity in charge appeals: they could even run it as a 'social enterprise' and generate income (fundraise) through the site. It would give reassurance about motives. I've never had doubts that mumsnet and netmums were there for profit at the end of the day and have no problem with that principle in general, but I'm personally not ready for a commercial autism site on the grounds of 'disability equality'. Not that I consider this site in any way a commercial enterprise, I hasten to add.

 

Maybe it's time for the internet to mature and set up proper 'not for profit' enterprises in the same way as RL.

[bid]

Sorry Mumble...too many silly phrases!

 

1. 'to get your fingers burnt' is an analogy from cooking, I think? In other words you tried something, in this case an autism site, but the experience was not a good one...a bit like touching a just cooked cake and getting burnt fingers.

 

2. an analogy with card games. Like trying to play poker when the other person has a brilliant hand and you've got a rubbish one. It doesn't matter what you do, you can't win. So when talking about sites, on some it's impossible to express some opinions because the mods/admin can always delete/take away user facilities/ultimately ban, and as with the card game, you just can't win.

 

3. it's a very silly reference to voodoo dolls...it's a silly in-joke with some friends and that's a bit rude of me to include it, sorry. I'll PM you

 

4. 'cult of personality' is when you get a very dominant, maybe charismatic individual, who can actually be very intimidating if others disagree with them. 'it's my ball'...the idea of hosts who, because it's their site and they pay for it, can have a sort of childish attitude as in 'right, you can't play with us anymore 'cos we don't liiike you!!'

 

Phew...any clearer?? need to lie down in a darkened room now!

 

Bidx

Edited February 22, 2009 by bid

[Mad cat lady]

I know of people on other forums who have entered into discussions with the forum owners and have been told to 'go away and leave us alone' which seems exceedingly undemocratic to me. I suppose because they are paying the bills and investing time they should be free to run the forum however they think, but it's not a scenario I'm comfortable with.

 

Now I always thought that the board owner made money on forums. I know it costs for the licence and running, but I was under the impression that the more people you had viewing/using a forum the more income you generated.

 

I could be completely wrong of course!

[bid]

Now I always thought that the board owner made money on forums. I know it costs for the licence and running, but I was under the impression that the more people you had viewing/using a forum the more income you generated.

 

I could be completely wrong of course!

 

I think that must be commercial sites?

 

I think that with sites like this, we are very lucky that the hosts pay an annual fee from the goodness of their own hearts (Kris, Lufty, Elefan )

 

Bid

 

[Mad cat lady]

I think that must be commercial sites?

 

I think that with sites like this, we are very lucky that the hosts pay an annual fee from the goodness of their own hearts (Kris, Lufty, Elefan )

 

Bid

 

Thanks for clearing that one up. I wasn't sure

 

MCL

[Mumble]

Sorry Mumble...too many silly phrases!

Thanks and that's OK, I guess I'm struggling a little at the mo and one of the first 'signs' for me is flipping at not understanding language used when either I'd normally be resourceful and look them all up and add them to my personal dictionary or just ignore them.

 

The idea of having a charity in charge appeals

I can see the appeal of this, but I suppose my concern is how the charity retains their neutrality particularly in say discussions we've had recently like those on pre-natal screening, criminals with AS etc. If things were to get too emotive at some point a mod may have to step in and say something at which point that could be interpreted as the position of the charity - does that make sense? Maybe I'm being naive thinking charities (OK, some charities ) are neutral!!

 

In addition, I think at times it's useful to have a distance between the group/charity representing a certain group/profession and a forum of personal opinion. Let me give an example - The TES (Times Educational Supplement) is the main newspaper (and now website) representing teachers and other school staff. They have a forum and I have to say that I find some of the comments on there really disturbing (particularly in terms of some teachers' attitudes towards SEN pupils for instance). Those comments become associated with a greater proportion of teachers (I think/hope they don't represent what most teachers think) because they're on the main teaching website, whereas if they were separate those erroneous links might not be made.

 

 

 

[JsMum]

 

 

I think the link you posted has to be great advice, you have to be very careful out there, the net is massive, so yes you do have to be causious, I really dont think the link is referring to this website, as I know far worse than here, ones that are bias and are operated by the insiders of the LEA so yes you do need to be careful who you talk to and if the advise is not honest enough because they have hidden adgendas then you dont get the right advise, some parents are still in this situation and its soo annoying because you know there not getting the right information and accessing their rights.

 

So yes you do have to be careful on certain forums.

 

JsMumxxxx

 

[call me jaded]

Now I always thought that the board owner made money on forums. I know it costs for the licence and running, but I was under the impression that the more people you had viewing/using a forum the more income you generated.

 

I could be completely wrong of course!

 

 

Only if you have advertising - the amazon affiliation scheme where you put a box at the top of the site is one of the most common ones. Purchases made by 'clicking through' earn commission for the host website.

[call me jaded]

I can see the appeal of this, but I suppose my concern is how the charity retains their neutrality particularly in say discussions we've had recently like those on pre-natal screening, criminals with AS etc. If things were to get too emotive at some point a mod may have to step in and say something at which point that could be interpreted as the position of the charity - does that make sense? Maybe I'm being naive thinking charities (OK, some charities ) are neutral!!

 

I think this is what prevents most charities from hosting.

 

In addition, I think at times it's useful to have a distance between the group/charity representing a certain group/profession and a forum of personal opinion. Let me give an example - The TES (Times Educational Supplement) is the main newspaper (and now website) representing teachers and other school staff. They have a forum and I have to say that I find some of the comments on there really disturbing (particularly in terms of some teachers' attitudes towards SEN pupils for instance). Those comments become associated with a greater proportion of teachers (I think/hope they don't represent what most teachers think) because they're on the main teaching website, whereas if they were separate those erroneous links might not be made.

 

 

As a former long time TES forum user (kazzam) and school governor I've found those opinions extremely useful. Shocking, sometimes, but useful. I've come to think that the views are quite representative of the teaching profession, though rarely phrased so candidly in RL. Been great for overcoming objections.

[Mad cat lady]

Only if you have advertising - the amazon affiliation scheme where you put a box at the top of the site is one of the most common ones. Purchases made by 'clicking through' earn commission for the host website.

 

 

Ok, thanks for putting me right.

I wasn't sure, now I know.

 

MCL

 

PS. to admin team, I think you do a great job here

 

 

 

[baddad]

I know of people on other forums who have entered into discussions with the forum owners and have been told to 'go away and leave us alone' which seems exceedingly undemocratic to me. I suppose because they are paying the bills and investing time they should be free to run the forum however they think, but it's not a scenario I'm comfortable with.

 

 

an analogy with card games. Like trying to play poker when the other person has a brilliant hand and you've got a rubbish one. It doesn't matter what you do, you can't win. So when talking about sites, on some it's impossible to express some opinions because the mods/admin can always delete/take away user facilities/ultimately ban, and as with the card game, you just can't win.

 

As an EX mod I feel free to speak about this - something i wasn't able to do as a mod. Of course, I don't know the circumstances being spoken about in these cases, but certainly we have had situations on this forum where the moderating team and/or administrators have been accused and attacked over these kinds of issues. When that happens it is actually they who are in a no-win situation, because they are 'judged' not by what is being openly said on the forum but by what is being circulated behind the scenes via PM's, e-mails, telephone calls between friends etc. As the moderators/administrators are not in that loop pretty much anything goes, and they are completely unable to defend themselves from the allegations or challenge the truth behind them. On this forum there have been instances in the past of organised 'campaigns' (for want of a better word) against the forum generally, and/or against individuals. At it's most extreme, it's not unheard of for the members who feel themselves aggrieved to actually draft in 'mercenary's' from other unconnected sites who join the site being attacked purely to cause further unrest. Quite often the moderators/admin will be aware that this is happening, but will be powerless to act against it because the information thay have been given has been given 'in confidence' and it would be impossible to act on the information without revealing the source.

When moderating such behaviour, the moderators/admin are again completely hog-tied, because whatever action is taken against the individuals concerned will be 'spun' behind the scenes in exactly the same way, and without the opportunity for comment/response.

 

I think when it comes to these situations people need to consider why mods/admin might have taken a particular line of action rather than just accepting that what circulates through the rumour mill is necessarily the whole story. If a member has individual concerns about a forum (or feel that there is a bias of some sort they do not like) then they have to make their minds up whether to stay or leave on that basis - that's not undemocratic; it's perfectly reasonable. If, on the other hand, they think the mod/admin team is generally fair/balanced, and there is no good reason or evidence to suspect their motives then giving them the benefit of the doubt would seem reasonable, rather than accpeting again the accuracy of what's being circulated behind the scenes...

With bid's analogy about cards - it's not necessarily the case that the person who 'can't win' is playing a straight game. They might have a personal axe to grind, and they might be garnering support behind the scenes from other individuals to help stack the cards in their favour. That's not very fair, is it? As another ex-mod, bid has found herself in that position several times in the past, so i'm sure she can confirm how horrible it feels to be targeted in that way.

 

Of course, none of that may apply in the situations being discussed here - I haven't a clue what forum is being talked about or the individual moderators/administrators involved. All I'm saying is that rumour can make a monster of anyone, and that someone who is angry at a forum or an individual on that forum isn't likely to have an unbiased view of the factors leading to that anger.

 

I would think (and hope) that any forum that regularly 'fiddled' with members posts, and deleted/altered threads to misrepresent the opinions being expressed or to stop them being expressed would be hard pushed to keep any sort of membership at all, but I guess member's that did stay there would stay there for their own reasons(?)

 

L&P

 

BD

[call me jaded]

Yes tinternet can be vicious. I'm talking in a general way, not specifically, from experience as an owner/moderator (not an ASD forum) elsewhere and a user.

 

As a forum user there is no appeal once your account has been closed that is what I mean by undemocratic and that the best interests of 'the forum' and not always the best interests 'the owner'. Owners do download hacks to read PMs and act on what they've read. As letterwriter pointed out, the control is completely in the hands of owners (to edit posts, close accounts, even sell the copyright on what you've written). It does no harm to point out that if an owner does choose to do those things a ) no-one will really know for sure, and b ) if you do have suspicions raising those with the forum host is a pointless exercise, best move on. Having an umbrella charity organisation looking after the best interests of 'the forum' has appeal from a users perspective.

[bid]

I think BD and Jaded have neatly summed up both sides of the equation...potential pitfalls for both members and admin/mods.

 

Nice then to see that, despite the odd tetch, this forum is an excellent example of good practice...so and to all of us!

 

Bid

[baddad]

I think BD and Jaded have neatly summed up both sides of the equation...potential pitfalls for both members and admin/mods.

 

Nice then to see that, despite the odd tetch, this forum is an excellent example of good practice...so and to all of us!

 

Bid

 

Absolutely! And I wasn't disagreeing with the sensible points made in the original post - just qualifying them/showing the flipside (there is always a flip side)

 

I was thinking of the charity umbrella angle, and the biggest downside i can see with that is that if anything 'nasty' does happen on a forum then the charity would be guilty by association, and possibly find itself hog tied in trying to qualify the difference between supporting/endorsing/providing etc. Another angle they'd have to think about is how they'd 'choose' 'cos in all liklihood every lobby group that wanted funding would start a support forum. i know that (i.e.) the NAS have been criticised in the past for making choices about groups they have not made contributions to/supported and been on the receiving end over some they have. I guess that's completely natural/understandable, but it must be a fine line to negotiate.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

[Kathryn]

I'm a bit late to this discussion, having been away the last couple of days.

 

I agree with the initial point made by letterwriter. There has to be a certain amount of trust in an online community or it couldn't operate, but exercising caution when interacting with a bunch of people you barely know, is sound common sense. Listing various forums in the official NAS magazine does imply some kind of endorsement by the NAS and I think it's good to point out that this is not the case. As far as I know the suggestions are just sent in by members.

 

The idea of an NAS (or any other charity) run site makes me a bit uncomfortable. A charity will surely want to protect and enhance its reputation in order to keep the funds rolling in and is likely to frown upon anything that might tarnish its profile. Might this not lead to a certain amount of censorship and less freedom than is normally allowed on privately run forums? Even if they did allow a wide range of views, would they perhaps discourage the kind of off topic mayhem and silliness which makes this forum (and others no doubt) a warm and friendly place to be? Just a thought.

 

 

K x

Edited February 23, 2009 by Kathryn