Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Krikkiter]

At www.mylittlepony.com we don't have in-boxes. Just pastel colors, rainbows and ponies. There's lots to see and do and no white male privilege.

 

[Stacko]

Well stated. I think it was inevitable that after they'd driven off or banned any who didn't harmonize with the right tones within the choir, they would be out of soft targets and begin marginalizing the experiential authority of those on the edge of the inner circle. If you go back just a few pages in the mods thread there was wind and julian, and before that another drama that resulted in the resignation of an admin. But as you say, they know the newspeak and thus given deference beyond the horizon of those who don't.

Below is a link to a thread I started there yesterday. I was suspended for a month last night by ceepolk, ostensibly for telling her I wouldn't be responding further to her abusive comments. Do check it out. I remained civil and didn't respond in kind to her insults. No warnings, just proclaiming me a troll and bye. I've seen her do this many times before, and it is quite obvious shes enjoying herself. Apparently any mod can ban a member there without any kind of review process. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3735

I would really like to read appalling's defense of ceepolk's comments and actions in that thread. And while you're there do check out my other posts. I joined last October, and I have to tell you things are going from bad to worse there rapidly. I know I won't be posting there again, but watching the melodrama unfold is intriguing. We're up to lives being at stake over deception now, with meltdowns a daily occurrence.

The unsolicited PM rule seems inexplicable to me. These are people who have access to the internet,set up an email account to have access to the A+ forum and their biggest fear is unsolicited PMs? You have an email account how often have people inquired about your penis size without your permission and you're worried about PMs from people you can report and have banned for lessor offenses!?

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Well it's inevitable in the "real " world, people will encounter "tinny" words, not just "woody" words.

 

[appalling]

First I would like to thank appalling for being willing to partake in a discussion here that could never take place a A+. It's a debate I've wanted to have for a long time with one of the cognoscenti there, and I look forward to seeing some things I missed evaluating the site gestalt.

Completely unfounded assumptions. I'm not part of A+. You had a much better claim to that. I was only evaluating your link.

Which of course is a rule you will not find on any other site that has a PM system. As they all offer a block option it's a non-problem everywhere else.

So what? It's their site. It looks like your suggestion was thoughtfully debated. You didn't seem to offer a way to implement your suggestion without ignoring their objection. You may think their objection trivial, but again, who cares? You're the one trying to change site implementation.

If asking for a link-you'll find this is standard procedure at JREF and most skeptic forums to support your claims-and then asking what terms Stephen had used in his google search constitutes asking them to do my research for me, than yes. Actually his response-site:atheist+-is easily the most useful info I ever attained there.

Disingenuous. You were asking someone to provide evidence to support your own claim (that people might be uncomfortable as you claimed to be). Someone provided your evidence and I characterize that as generous.

In any case you received value for money spent. I don't see anything scandalous here.

Clicking on block PM's is difficult? So what I'd like you to mansplain for me here is how getting a request in a PM which you can block altogether if you're super sensitive and never even know was there is somehow more threatening than a request made on a public forum? That is what nobody there could respond to without giggling.

I don't personally know how easy it is to block a PM on that site. Here I have them turned off altogether (except for mod PMs). That's my own preference. If they have people there that are "super sensitive" or even "super duper sensitive" it still seems like your approach was to ignore them rather than find a way to accommodate. I don't know if it's workable to accommodate but you can't act surprised that it would be part of the discussion.

I didn't see giggling; I don't know what evidence you're using to judge mirth.

There was one person-Sun Countess-who made that claim on a site with 2400+ members. And she herself admitted it was a moot point as she had wisely clicked the block option for PM's.

Well, there were at least two admissions in the discussion that they would be uncomfortable getting unsolicited PM's, and arguments about why it could cause harm to people, arguments that you admitted you didn't understand.

And by this silly standard, there was only a single person on a site with 2400+ members that seemed to agree with your suggestion as worded by you. It is silly to take the people you are discussing a change with as a sample, you surely agree, yet you argued it?

And even if there were a couple others we didn't hear from, I really want to read your argument that literally thousands should be denied the ability to PM others because a couple folks are really paranoid about receiving PM's but for some unfathomable reason don't want to simply block them like SC? And again, the point none dared touch, is just why requesting permission to PM them in private would be a bigger trigger than having the request made in public.

Yet again, who cares? PM's could be completely disabled and that's how they'd run their site. You were the one arguing for the change. And you had a forum of discussion for that change, whether you liked the outcome or not. You failed to convince them that people like themselves didn't exist or weren't important. You shouldn't have made it central to your argument. I don't see that I'm obligated to explain why they chose their own status quo for PM management. That was a burden you had to your own suggestion.

And have you pondered the logistics at all? I make the request on a thread and then what? Do they then have to let me know it's ok on the thread? Do they need to have my permission to PM a reply? And if I don't get one, how can I be sure the person saw it? None read everything, even in the pup-tents lol. Can I post the request in a thread again to be sure or start a new thread and risk cries of harassment you can bet would be made? Schrodinger's PM Stalker?

You really don't seem to like the PM management system they seem happy with. For someone who finds their concern for fringe cases risible, you seem worried about all kinds of temporary discomfort arising. By your standard from that thread, I could ask, can't you just easily overcome the challenges you present here? But I really think it's not my place to say, it's their thing.

Did you read what that mod-ceepolk-said to me before I made that last reply, and after she suspended me for a month? I couldn't even quote it here because of language/civility rules!

Yes, swearing is apparently allowed there. More evidence of....what? The mod did swear, but it looked like they were swearing at the argument, not the arguer. Am I supposed to be concerned about the fact that they don't disallow swearing? Is it offensive to you? Are you asking for them to change?

Yet I'm not allowed to break off responding to her abuse while protecting someone from getting a single PM is somehow a high priority? Sure looks to me like the sensitivities of a few are highly protected while others are suspended as trolls for daring to even question the logic of such a policy.

The sensitivities of some are more protected than others. They are very upfront about that. It is not some hidden agenda. You were framing it as mass convenience vs. isolated pain to an ignorable few. You might not agree, but it seems to be a call they are making publicly and transparently here.

I would tell them you don't like all of the swearing if it honestly triggers you. That's what you're saying, right? (I also don't think it's fair to say they were attempting to stop a single person from getting a single PM though. Surely, as policy, it could stop multiple unsolicited PM's to multiple people.)

But I'll let others decide for themselves. Here is a link to the second page of that thread that covers my final exchanges with ceepolk if you scroll down: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3735&start=25

In closing (phew) I invite you to also look at my previous posts on A+ and make the case I was a troll there as claimed by ceepolk, and that my snarky response to her abuse warranted a one month suspension. I would also point out that I never said I was leaving the site; just that discussion as it was clearly degenerating thanks her.

Sure.

 

[bedlin88]

I know it's moved past, but on the whole elevator thing, it's quite possible all the guy wanted was to have coffee with her and wasn't looking for sex at all. Everyone assumes he was trying to get in her pants, it also quite possible he was just a fan. he asked her for coffee only, not coffee and shag from my understanding.

 

[appalling]

Been locked out of the great comedy A+ has on offer hoping to figure out just wtf some very sane sounding people were doing there. But without the ability to PM it was a lost cause; to wit, that thread I started.

You were really wanting to cold call people with "Why are you on this site?"

 

[The Big Dog]

From the link it looks like you suggested that they consider changing the rule where someone has to publicly ask the first time they want to PM someone.

You were thanked for your suggestion and it was discussed. You got them to run around doing research for you, which they seem to have done. This seemed generous to me.

It came up that the rule was there to protect people from getting anxiety spikes form unsolicited and unexpected PM's. Specific people in that thread said it would make them uncomfortable. So it's also not completely abstract at that point.

Faced explicitly with the idea that actual people would be made uncomfortable and that some might have an even harder time of it, you asserted your original suggestion with the rationale that it would be just as easy because you couldn't see a reason why it wouldn't be.

This seems to be where you were challenged. Someone brought up an objection (that unsolicited PM's cause anxiety attacks and discomfort) and you hand-waved the objection. You continued hand-waving it till you flounced. You never offered a rationale that wasn't based on either the premise that the problem couldn't exist or that it was, surely, easily avoidable.

You didn't get up people's nose for "ostensibly for telling her I wouldn't be responding further to her abusive comments". You got on the wrong side of it by carefully, and with great consideration of your language and in measured cadence, explaining that you saw no problem with a single person being inconvenienced as long as there was a majority rule. This comes across as cynical when the inconveniences being discussed were more serious panic attacks.

But people continued responding, and your suggestion was still being discussed even after you flounced. Your last post is not as civil and careful and considered as your others. You tell them their rule is lame, and you announce your leaving with a snark at people who ask for any concern for their anxiety.

You were temporarily suspended as you were burning out your exit and you seem to be characterizing it as having a lot to do with more permanent bans, arbitrarily applied. It seems around here, that characterization would mostly be accepted without challenge. You weren't "temporarily suspended" until you snarked at a mod whilst leaving.

That is curious, you managed to discuss that thread without noting the ridiculously over the top bullying from the mods. Curious.

 

[appalling]

That is curious, you managed to discuss that thread without noting the ridiculously over the top bullying from the mods. Curious.

I said they swore at the argument, not the arguer.

Look, if people are going to outright dismiss the very possibility of people claiming PTSD, then it's hard to take them seriously when they act like delicate flowers when they get sworn at.

I've certainly seen implied swearing here.

 

[RandFan]

I said they swore at the argument, not the arguer.

Look, if people are going to outright dismiss the very possibility of people claiming PTSD, then it's hard to take them seriously when they act like delicate flowers when they get sworn at.

I've certainly seen implied swearing here.

Swearing my ***.

 

[The Big Dog]

I said they swore at the argument, not the arguer.

Look, if people are going to outright dismiss the very possibility of people claiming PTSD, then it's hard to take them seriously when they act like delicate flowers when they get sworn at.

I've certainly seen implied swearing here.

There was nothing "implied" about it, it was wildly over the top bullying by a couple of sociopaths. Look, feel free to rationalize their conduct, I find that entire site to be utterly hilarious.

 

[Foolmewunz]

One point I'll concede:.... (snip)

Today, for instance, in the perpetual Are The Mods thread (pages 67-69 with default page formatting), Qunotir has been tearing through the in-group's usual bogus rationalizations for dogpiling, bullying, and deceit... in a manner reminiscent of Godzilla through Tokyo.

Respectfully,
Myriad

A point of order, then, might be in order. Qunotir got xirself a one week vacation for said activity. One does not call a mod who's admitted to lying, a liar. (Well, 'cuz he's a mod and we all know him and we all know why he lied (by omission as he put it) so you can't call him a liar, okay. Yer outta here!)

I know how to cure the Sooper Sekret Support Forum problem in a second. All they need to do is call it what it is.... "Closed Area For Privileged Posters". The hypocrisy of A+ knows no boundaries. They've got a rule in place that could well have one of their members in front of their pile-on/kangaroo court for actually saying things in this thread that sound critical of the moderation or membership) because in the revised* version of the rule, an A+ member has to post "in good faith" (whatever that means) on any board discussing A+. Yet, in-board, they have a secret area where those of PRIVILEGE evidently discuss other members with no fear of being called out like ordinary members would for posting any such stuff elsewhere.

The treatment of Wind was shoddy and abyssmal. And as one poster has pointed out, not a single member of the PRIVILEGED SET has seen to step forward and disagree with the group behavior, not one mod or admin has offered that maybe this isn't such a great idea and in fact, their entire justification of the Sub-Forum of Privilege ironically confirms Qunotir's concern - it isn't a "safe space" if the uber-sensitive privileged members need an even safer place walled off from the hoi polloi. I was once going through a rather rough period and mentioned it in a thread here to explain why I was late in doing something. From two members, who I know but who weren't really friends, I got private emails and an invitation to take it private (email, not PM) if I needed an ear. Hint to A+ members: You've got a board full of people who are anonymous by design. Just because some of them indicate similar neuroses to your own, you decide to trust a bunch of pixels on a screen with potentially "life-threatening" (yes, someone has used that expression in discussing the worries about what harm Wind** could have done) information about yourselves? Are you farkin' nuts? Half the members there are admittedly completely dysfunctional, others are in the care of therapists. Mind, I've known numbers of such people and still know them, so I'm not slamming people with mental disorders. I'm just saying that I wouldn't give them the combination to my emotional safe!

*The original rule proposal said nothing about "in good faith". All it said was Thous Shalt Not Dis A+ On Other Forums.

**IMHO, the Wind episode was allowed to go on so long only because she had 'em by the short and curlies and they let it drag on so they could find out who the mole was. Kudos to Wind for not dropping a dime on the poster. And as I cited above, there's at least one post in their Whinging About Moderation thread that mentions something like "the damage Wind did".

In closing, please note that their posts are up by about 30% over the period of this brouhaha. Maybe Rebecca's taken more interest in the forum after all and is teaching them that controversy is a good thing?

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I've certainly seen implied swearing here.

So what? just because you've seen them doesn't mean they are allowed. Mods sometimes miss things, you can report them. Swearing and even disguised swearwords are against the rules here, at least in certain parts of the forum.

Typical exchange on other certain forums and blog comment sections.

New Poster makes polite point.
Polite point is met with sarcasm and abuse.
New poster complains about abuse.
New poster is told they are "tone trolling" etc.

It's all very depressing.

 

[devnull]

Reading the past few pages, though, it seems the biggest objection to A+ is still the damn elevator thing? Jeez.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Latest "drama" here. I love how even a mod comes in to take parting shots at me after I am booted.

I ignored every insult thrown my way and deal specifically with facts, but still I was insulted and kicked out.

The "giving advice" accusation was the most hilarious part because a mod after replying to one of my posts gives the OP paragraphs of advice!

Of course, I have no way of pointing out that their accusations are off base. They get to spew more hate about me and I don't think I have any way of saying "You're accusations are really all wrong. Like, entirely wrong."

I see that Socialism is starting to spread on the forum, but at this point I feel that correcting misunderstandings I see about it would only get me the same treatment.

Yes, I'm complaining here 'cause there is nowhere else to .

 

[appalling]

So what? just because you've seen them doesn't mean they are allowed. Mods sometimes miss things, you can report them. Swearing and even disguised swearwords are against the rules here, at least in certain parts of the forum.

Typical exchange on other certain forums and blog comment sections.

New Poster makes polite point.
Polite point is met with sarcasm and abuse.
New poster complains about abuse.
New poster is told they are "tone trolling" etc.

It's all very depressing.

I don't care about swearing. Even when it's a mod doing it. I'm not going to report something that doesn't actually offend me. Mods here can swear away as long as they're taking care of discourse.

I just think it's two codes of conduct and they both have points and there are depressing things about both.

 

[RandFan]

Latest "drama" here. I love how even a mod comes in to take parting shots at me after I am booted.

I ignored every insult thrown my way and deal specifically with facts, but still I was insulted and kicked out.

The "giving advice" accusation was the most hilarious part because a mod after replying to one of my posts gives the OP paragraphs of advice!

Of course, I have no way of pointing out that their accusations are off base. They get to spew more hate about me and I don't think I have any way of saying "You're accusations are really all wrong. Like, entirely wrong."

I see that Socialism is starting to spread on the forum, but at this point I feel that correcting misunderstandings I see about it would only get me the same treatment.

Yes, I'm complaining here 'cause there is nowhere else to .

We're here for you.

 

[devnull]

anxiety spikes?

 

[Ronja]

Epileptics really can seizure from seeing certain color or light patterns

...BTW I couldn't use that smiley at A+ as TPTB have ordained some of the epileptic are triggered by the color red. Swear to Bokonon, I only wish I could make this kind of stuff up!

Err... you do not need to make stuff up about some epileptics having vision-related seizure risks on the Internet (and with TV, movies and other light-based displays). Brain researchers and doctors have known for a few decades already that certain combinations of light and color, especially (but not only) if the light blinks, can trigger an epileptic seizure, also a Grand Mal.
http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=565468#qundefined
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strobe_light#Strobe_lights_and_epilepsy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_epilepsy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_mal

As I have found that only observing a seizure is quite distressing for me, I cannot even imagine what it could be like to experience them, especially repeatedly. I most certainly would want to do what I can, including limiting my use of smileys, if I knew there was even one person with photosensitive epilepsy on a forum I frequent.

Some personal anecdotes (i.e. not data):

A few years back I found a middle-aged man on all fours on the sidewalk, shaking and drooling and unable to move or communicate. Called an ambulance and stayed with him until the paramedics could take over. He did not have an epileptic's wrist band, so it may have been something else, too, but it sure did look like a Grand Mal, what I remember from nursing school. Lucky he had gone down on the sidewalk and not while crossing the street; lucky it was early autumn and a sunny, calm day. He did not appear to be having any fun at all.

A young man we know from our neighborhood has diagnosed epilepsy, and his calm and detailed description of how his family found him one morning (also on all fours, but that's a coincidence AFAIK) was scary to listen to. Mostly because it was so clear that he had been quite scared himself, but had worked through that to be able to inform people, so also neighbors would know what to do if his medication failed him and he had a breakthrough seizure. I understand he is doing better now, but the balancing of medication was quite challenging while he was growing the fastest in his early teens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_seizure

Also, my migraine can and does get triggered by stroboscope-like light. So I need to be careful in movies, concerts and if I go see a light show. For example, I never go alone to any of those, and I always take my medication and sunglasses with me. Thankfully, for me just closing my eyes quickly and waiting for that kind of lighting to pass is enough to prevent an attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migraine#Triggers

For some epileptics, even a very brief exposure to strobe light or the exposure that gets through the eyelids is enough. And some cannot stay under ordinary fluorescent light without special protective glasses. The good news is that for some epileptics, cross-polarized (blue) glasses can replace (some of) their medication, which can lessen the chemical load on the body and ease side-effects.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-9580.2004.07004.x/full

/derail

 

[appalling]

Latest "drama" here. I love how even a mod comes in to take parting shots at me after I am booted.

I ignored every insult thrown my way and deal specifically with facts, but still I was insulted and kicked out.

What is the point of trolling them? Didn't they kick you out of a similar thread yesterday? It looks like they were still letting you post. Where's yesterday's outrage that they "kicked you out"?

 

[devnull]

What is the point of trolling them? Didn't they kick you out of a similar thread yesterday? It looks like they were still letting you post. Where's yesterday's outrage that they "kicked you out"?

Sounds like you're forumsplainin to me.