Jump to content

Menu

Moderation Suggestions?


Recommended Posts

And here is the actual contributory portion of this post:  The WTM board owners will have to decide whether they want to permit full down and dirty debate style discourse on the boards or apply more limiting rules that permit some debate but ask members to observe current social standards of civility.  It is not that one is good and the other bad, but they are very different sets of standards.  And, as a PP mentioned, there are those who chafe at the idea of having to self-censor in order to maintain these civility standards.   Those individuals may very well rail against censorship or a restriction of their freedoms, but the reality is individually owned and maintained boards aren't democracies.  There is no over arching freedom of speech rule that applies to the situation and the choice is accept the rules set by the community owners or not. 

Yes - and whichever way they decide I hope that it's applied evenly across the board and not subject to who's friends with whom or who annoys the crap out of me so they'll get the smackdown.

 

Again, I'm not a reporter, and I do ignore, and I think more threads would stay civil if people did ignore the rude, especially the serially rude. 

I think that in general on the interwebz, this works.  I think here at the hive we've developed a closer community and I think being silent in the face or rude chips away at that community.  That may end up what happens but I vote for people speaking up instead of ignoring.  For the record, I'm not a reporter either but I don't like ignoring things that a simple comment may help correct.

 

 

I would be in favor of increasing the cap on likes! 

I feel like I "like" a lot of things but I've never run out.  So I am woefully ignorant of the "like" problem.

 

But so what? Some people find it funny, some people don't. It's usually a one-line, off the cuff, throwaway comment. Who is it hurting, really? There are humans behind the mod mask. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. No one is perfect.

I think the person being smacked-down is sometimes hurt.  Now, I'm not crying in a corner over this so don't take this as stronger than I mean it.  But some smackdowns do hurt & I think we should acknowledge that.

 

Oh, shoot.  Someone made a comment about the mods just needing to get their point across in a humourous way and I meant to quote it - because that's pretty much what anyone would say when using snark, no?  So how does one justify deleting snark while using it yourself?  It's either OK or it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 445
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Although...then we run into, "What is friendly chatter?" Are Duggar-related topics just friendly chatter? What's to stop them from spiraling down? Is asking for advice for a friend whose DH has left their religion and wants the wife to do so too friendly chatter, or is it debate-board-worthy? I mean, if we can ruin topics like crockpots and shopping carts (or buggies), where will the line of demarcation be?

I think if the OP wants the thread to remain friendly and free of spirited debate they would post it in the cafĂƒÂ©; if someone then wants to start a debate-oriented spinoff they would be expected to do so in the rumpus room. Likewise, someone who posts something hoping to get a juicy debate going should do so in the rumpus room, and if someone wants a mild chat related to the same topic they could do a spinoff in the cafe. Posting about "why I am horrified that the Duggars have adopted fifty rabbits" would be a rumpus room topic. Posting "isn't the new Duggar grandbaby adorable" could fit just fine in the cafĂƒÂ©.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the examples you have listed, if you have been on this board for even a year, are clearly ones that are known to be controversial. 

 

Yes, but the initial posts weren't made to stir up controversy. They were made by people asking everyday questions and looking for advice. They devolved into controversy after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I feel like I "like" a lot of things but I've never run out. So I am woefully ignorant of the "like" problem.

 

I think I most often run out of likes on days when I start a thread asking for ideas or suggestions, then I "like" everyone's responses because I appreciate them making the effort to respond with their ideas. There are also threads where I like almost all the posts just because I am enjoying the discussion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that in general on the interwebz, this works. I think here at the hive we've developed a closer community and I think being silent in the face or rude chips away at that community. That may end up what happens but I vote for people speaking up instead of ignoring. For the record, I'm not a reporter either but I don't like ignoring things that a simple comment may help correct.

LOL, I trimmed that post to edit out my personal angst about the matter and to eliminate the likelihood of another attempted gotcha! on my position on ignoring. :tongue_smilie: Here is what I cut, keeping in mind that I do have very mixed feelings on this, a strong sense of justice, and a lifelong habit of protecting perceived underdogs in a fight...

 

I am a bit torn on this ignoring thing, I will admit. Because if the rule is to be humble and civil and a poster isn't (just for fun, let's use a clear example here: "You couldn't be more wrong. You are so wrong it is pathetic. Anyone who is reasonable could see that..."), why should that person not be reminded and required to follow the same rule you followed when you took care to construct a well considered, politely worded post? Why should it be OK for the boards in general to take a nosedive into classlessness because some people can't express themselves with humility? Yeah, I'm torn! Part of me thinks if everyone started ignoring everyone who ever irritated them, this board would evolve into a series of soliloquies, and then where would we be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The only problem I have with the moderation so far is: sometimes tone of the comment from the moderator is a little crabby.

 

2. If you decide to have board members become moderators, I nominate Tibby!

! You were typing that while I was typing. Thank you, but I would not be a good fit for that position. This grammar kick I'm on this year would have me banning everybody who failed to state their position correctly. Signed, Red Pen Out of Control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARGGH.

 

OK, people, I'm really trying here, but this is not helping.

 

1) "PHP is not a secular company." A lot of definition is being assumed/unexpressed here. You all know that I am a minister's wife, and that I am personally a Christian. I run PHP. I also hope that you know that PHP has no desire to impose a Christian point of view on anyone. That's not our viewpoint, or our mission. I don't know how I can make that clearer.

 

2)"If they want these boards to have a Christian bias." We want these boards to be accessible to home educators. Kapish?

 

3) "That's their choice." It isn't. So much interpretation is being overlaid here onto individual moderation decisions, each of which probably had as a main goal "Please make multiple  members stop reporting this thread."

 

Is anyone beginning to understand why moderating these boards is a difficult job? We have relied on member consensus to edit/not edit threads. One report? No moderation. Multiple reports? A moderator goes to see and makes a decision.

 

Many of you have been very helpful in helping us rethink this strategy, which worked for a long time but is clearly no longer adequate for a board this size.

 

We'd appreciate rethinking, not blanket statements with massive assumptions about our motivations.

 

SWB

 

Okay, I'm up to yesterday's posts in reading this thread.  Gleanings (trying not to overly repeat anything I've already said):

 

 

 

On Moderation ("everything in moderation" keeps popping into my head -- sorry!) -- The root issues for users seem to be:

  1. no confidence that users know what the rules/guidelines are by which the moderators abide,
  2. having no idea who is doing the moderating, how it is driven, or how often it happens.

It seems a description of

  • how moderators are chosen and assigned,
  • whether they cover the whole forums website in shifts or are assigned specific forums or pieces of forums,
  • the standard guidelines to which they are instructed to adhere, and
  • if they are workers for hire (which would presume a dedication of so many hours per day or week to be devoted to the task) or volunteers working in what time they can spare

would be an aid to settling many of these sorts of concerns, provided there are no business or legal reasons why you could not post such a description.

 

Additionally, taking into consideration the issue you mentioned with unauthorized access to the shared moderator id, it might be handy to instead set up separate moderator ids for each individual performing that task (if the set-up allows).  When I worked a paycheck job I used both individual ids and shared ids to perform particular sets of tasks, so I do know that setting up individual moderator ids might not be as easy as people might assume.

 

If you could set up such individual moderator ids it might aid in limiting unauthorized access to things, especially if each id is only empowered to change a particular section, or during particular days/times.  I do not know the structural set-up of the forums or how to craft user accesses and restrictions, so if anything I suggest isn't feasible I certainly won't be offended to be informed otherwise or ignored entirely. 

 

 

It really seems that the big thing is users not knowing how the moderating gets done.  If we knew that I think there would be fewer complaints, more appreciation of the lot of the moderators, and perhaps more in the way of useful suggestions.  The best we can do right now is tell you we appreciate it, while failing to comprehend how massive a task it is.  We are very much like uneducated children in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't know ahead of time whether my topic will turn out to be serious debate (with actual logic required) or a cupcakeable rumpus. How could I possibly know that?

 

A good example of this is the current laptop/liquids thread, where the OP expected JAWM (though did not label it as such) and only a few posts in only a few posts people were gently suggesting that since she had put her laptop where there were liquids, some of the fault for the laptop's demise resides with her.  A kerfuffle has since ensued, though people are being civil about it.

 

Comments about how the spiller's refusal to replace the laptop indicates the downfall of moral society have largely been ignored by those who feel differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good example of this is the current laptop/liquids thread, where the OP expected JAWM (though did not label it as such) and only a few posts in only a few posts people were gently suggesting that since she had put her laptop where there were liquids, some of the fault for the laptop's demise resides with her.  A kerfuffle has since ensued, though people are being civil about it.

 

Comments about how the spiller's refusal to replace the laptop indicates the downfall of moral society have largely been ignored by those who feel differently.

 

I feel as if I'm misunderstanding something large here, so I will just retreat from the thread having asked my one question. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, somehow this thread triggered a bunny-trail in my brain that reminded me of the "protocol" song from The Slipper and the Rose (anybody remember that old Cinderella musical? It is still one of my favorites...") and now I am doomed to sing this song over and over in my head for the rest of the day. So I'm going to share it with all of you because really I think you folks are to blame :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't know ahead of time whether my topic will turn out to be serious debate (with actual logic required) or a cupcakeable rumpus. How could I possibly know that?

 

Sometimes you can't. But other members would be able to tell the OP's intention by where he/she chose to post a thread.

 

If a topic was started in the chat forum and issues were (gently) raised or even hinted at, then the original poster could either ask for everyone to not get contentious, or could ask for the thread to be moved to the debate forum.  The existence of the two forums would give the original posters a bit of control over the direction of their threads.

 

I've seen this type of set up work well on another forum.  I've seen debate forums with no moderation or minimal moderation.  Heavy-handed moderating defeats the purpose, of course.  On the forum I was on there was a clear warning on the debate forum page that it was much more hands off as far as moderating than the other forums.  Basically it was a polite warning to "enter at your own risk and don't come whining to us if your feelings get hurt."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, I trimmed that post to edit out my personal angst about the matter and to eliminate the likelihood of another attempted gotcha! on my position on ignoring. :tongue_smilie: Here is what I cut, keeping in mind that I do have very mixed feelings on this, a strong sense of justice, and a lifelong habit of protecting perceived underdogs in a fight...

 

I am a bit torn on this ignoring thing, I will admit. Because if the rule is to be humble and civil and a poster isn't (just for fun, let's use a clear example here: "You couldn't be more wrong. You are so wrong it is pathetic. Anyone who is reasonable could see that..."), why should that person not be reminded and required to follow the same rule you followed when you took care to construct a well considered, politely worded post? Why should it be OK for the boards in general to take a nosedive into classlessness because some people can't express themselves with humility? Yeah, I'm torn! Part of me thinks if everyone started ignoring everyone who ever irritated them, this board would evolve into a series of soliloquies, and then where would we be?

I hear you. Same page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't know ahead of time whether my topic will turn out to be serious debate (with actual logic required) or a cupcakeable rumpus. How could I possibly know that?

 

 

I feel as if I'm misunderstanding something large here, so I will just retreat from the thread having asked my one question. :)

I just meant that in the laptop/liquid thread the OP probably didn't expect her thread to go on for almost 150 posts, debating the finer details of the scenario; she most likely expected a largely JAWM thread.  Thus I'm agreeing that it is sometimes impossible to know when posting that a particular topic will be Rumpus Room material or genial chat over tea and cupcakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'm thinking that if the moderators moved a thread to the Rumpus Room, there would still be protests, like the ones we have now over post deletion...?

 

Well, there will probably always be someone who complains about something  :tongue_smilie:

 

But if the thread is still accessible to all, I don't see why anyone should really complain. If they don't want to follow it to the Rumpus Room, no one will force them. If they want to keep debating, then they follow it over. 

 

I was thinking that some people who are not debate-inclined might not be happy to have to find their thread in the moderation-free Rumpus Room. But I don't think you can please everyone, all the time. And I do like the idea that the OP can redirect debaters to start a spinoff in the RR, while the mods can keep the Cafe post tidied up if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Separate the Chat Room in two? Interesting! Say The PHP Cafe and The Rumpus Room? :tongue_smilie: Then an offended OP could simply declare to a poster, "Ma'am, this is not The Rumpus Room." :lol:

 

I really like this idea. I would suggest re-combining the K-8/Education boards, and then having a general "Cafe" where we can ask for washing machine suggestions, book a week threads, pet questions, recipe ideas, about house decor, etc. and then a "Rumpus" room for anything more controversial - rants, religion, and rumpusing!  This would require very clear rules up front, but I could see a dividing line and think it could be done. It would be easy enough to transfer a heated thread from the Cafe to the Rumpus board without deleting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'm thinking that if the moderators moved a thread to the Rumpus Room, there would still be protests, like the ones we have now over post deletion...?

 

Yes, I think there would be. Moving a thread to a new location hasn't seemed to help much in the past.

 

 

I really like this idea. I would suggest re-combining the K-8/Education boards, and then having a general "Cafe" where we can ask for washing machine suggestions, book a week threads, pet questions, recipe ideas, about house decor, etc. and then a "Rumpus" room for anything more controversial - rants, religion, and rumpusing!  This would require very clear rules up front, but I could see a dividing line and think it could be done. It would be easy enough to transfer a heated thread from the Cafe to the Rumpus board without deleting it.

 

But isn't this how the Chat Room got started? And the social groups in general? Increasing the divisions of the board have not seemed to make much difference in the amount of difficulty people encounter when trying to discuss hot button issues. Creating yet another separate location to "put" these conversations will not decrease the amount of arguing or increase the amount of civility, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'm thinking that if the moderators moved a thread to the Rumpus Room, there would still be protests, like the ones we have now over post deletion...?

 

But fewer than when they disappear altogether. And depending on your comfort level with conflict, it would require less moderation. I hate to say free-for-all, but...

 

 

But isn't this how the Chat Room got started? And the social groups in general? Increasing the divisions of the board have not seemed to make much difference in the amount of difficulty people encounter when trying to discuss hot button issues. Creating yet another separate location to "put" these conversations will not decrease the amount of arguing or increase the amount of civility, imho.

 

If I recall correctly, the creation of the chat board wasn't about conflict but about those who are primarily here for homeschooling getting tired of wading through so many non-homeschooling specific threads. I thought the social groups were created for privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some people on the boards who really enjoy the more lively (and antagonistic) debates, and others who don't. I don't see the rumpus room idea as a punishment, just a way of making room for the more energetic debates while preserving a more calm and civil atmosphere for those who would rather interact that way. I think there should still be some basic rules--no profanity, no personal attacks, etc. but people would understand that this is a place where disparate opinions can be expressed and defended vigorously and thicker skin should be expected. I think in general spin-off threads would be preferable to moving an original thread; if the OP really just wanted polite discussion I don't think his/her thread should be moved because someone else came in and wanted a debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that this has to get so complicated. I think the breakdown of the forums works well. We need consistency and more transparency in moderation. I would like more rather than less but any increase in those things would be a significant improvement.

 

Beyond that I'd personally prefer not deleting threads whenever possible. Lots of good information is lost that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>  Almost every thread I read with JAWM in the title has at least one responder who has to ask what that means.

 

 

 

Yes, If WTM does decide to put together a user's manual for the forums the acronym list will likely be a full-time job in itself!  As it is, "jawm", "kwim", and others that can actually be pronounced as a word are rapidly becoming just that in my head as I read.  I'm just waiting for the day they start showing up in Webster's or The American Heritage Dictionary!

 

In the English language there are only 8 parts of speech, at least officially right now.  We may have to declare a ninth, to handle words that grow out of textspeak that don't fit into any other parts of speech.  Or would "jawm" and "kwim" count as interjections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, If WTM does decide to put together a user's manual for the forums the acronym list will likely be a full-time job in itself!  As it is, "jawm", "kwim", and others that can actually be pronounced as a word are rapidly becoming just that in my head as I read.  I'm just waiting for the day they start showing up in Webster's or The American Heritage Dictionary!

 

In the English language there are only 8 parts of speech, at least officially right now.  We may have to declare a ninth, to handle words that grow out of textspeak that don't fit into any other parts of speech.  Or would "jawm" and "kwim" count as interjections?

 

Hmm, I think jawm could become a verb...kwim too since they both have verbs as their base "agree" and "know" (really more "understand")...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not silly.

 

PRESCIENT. See, it's all about the WORD you use.   :drool:

 

SWB

 

Like!

 

Typed because there was no like button for your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But isn't this how the Chat Room got started? And the social groups in general? Increasing the divisions of the board have not seemed to make much difference in the amount of difficulty people encounter when trying to discuss hot button issues. Creating yet another separate location to "put" these conversations will not decrease the amount of arguing or increase the amount of civility, imho.

 

I honestly don't remember how/why the Chat Room was started. I've been here since 2008 (and it looks like you have been, too, or longer as I know there was a big board changeover about that time) and I only vaguely remember my first post on the Chat Board, so I think it's been around since I've been here? I have a terrible memory and could be wrong, though. I thought the Social Groups were simply a new feature when there was a board change and designed to cultivate common interests and am not really aware of what they have morphed into. I guess the appeal of two separate chat boards *to me* is that one could host hot button topics and the other would remain fairly moderate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one embarrassed that it is even an issue that adults, especially on a board meant for encouraging a high level of education, can't converse, even heatedly, without acting like catty middle school girls and thus requiring babysitters to keep them in line?  I truly find it so bizarre that moderating is even necessary and that adults can't play nice or simply walk away when their feelings get hurt.   

 

My apologies for the incredibly unhelpful two cents.  Carry on.   :tongue_smilie:   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see the cafĂƒÂ©/rumpus room idea working is similar to what happens after thanksgiving dinner when folks are sitting around enjoying their pumpkin pie and a bunch of the kids want to get up a game of tag. There's nothing wrong with tag, but the dining room isn't the place to do it--the tag game needs to move outside. Similarly, if I go to the park for a picnic and choose to spread my blanket in the middle of the soccer field, I shouldn't be surprised to find people trampling and kicking a ball through my picnic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I was here *before* the Veg Source meltdown - when people flocked here and said "steak" because they could.

 

 

Joanne, please start another thread and tell us newer-bies about this!  It sounds like a great story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't know ahead of time whether my topic will turn out to be serious debate (with actual logic required) or a cupcakeable rumpus. How could I possibly know that?

 

 

You might not, but if it is not your intention and the thread takes a turn, you can redirect by requesting a spinoff.

 

And there is always the option of simply starting off in the chat room and then anyone who is feeling like a more spirited discussion starting a spinoff in the rumpus room.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in general spin-off threads would be preferable to moving an original thread; if the OP really just wanted polite discussion I don't think his/her thread should be moved because someone else came in and wanted a debate.

 

I think this is a logical plan, and sounds like it could be quite effective as well. It would take more moderation time, so SWB might think about tapping those posters she knows and trusts to take on that extra responsibility if they'd like (it's how other forums I'm accustomed to work, anyway).

 

IMO, what is happening on this thread is a mirror of the overhanging problem.  Someone opened the door to discussion by selecting and sharing limited facts designed to support a specific premise.  When those facts were then rebutted with additional information, a cry of foul went up.  Thus an attempt was made to maintain the original claim of persecution by shutting down any further sharing of facts by claiming those adding further information are guilty of wrongdoing and should stop.

 

This is, in my opinion, a good example of why maize's idea is a good one. These things don't generally start off to incite debate, but people who feel certain ideals are important are likely to chime in the "great conversation" (who said that upthread? such a nice turn of phrase).

 

And therein lies the second problem, having declared the opposition to be "delusional", "ignorant," "crazy" or whatever the catchphrase of the week is, I think it is just very frustrating for some folks to find out that they will be countered when they attempt to bypass fact to maintain their own narrative.

 

Such interesting topics to discuss.   :drool5: 

 

Suffice it to say, not everyone agrees with what it means to "debate dirty." That doesn't even make sense to me.  

 

Yeah, I'm sorry I introduced the idea of a polite but oft reported poster into the conversation :(

 

Please don't worry. Your comments were offered as a concrete example while still maintaining a sense of generality for the sake of clarifying the issue this thread was created to explore. I think your words were very kind, and I want to thank you. I also happen to think they were helpful to the conversation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks,

 

This thread has been very helpful, but it's starting to get long and unwieldy, and we're starting to revisit the same topics more than once. Sometime this evening, I'll close the thread and ask you to give us a couple of weeks to figure out how to proceed. And I'll be asking for more feedback later, so please don't feel that this will be your only chance to express your thoughts.

 

SWB

Thank you for including us in the evolution of the board. I think that is so very important for giving us some skin in the game thereby assuring better buy-in from most posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully some sort of warning will come about for those who constantly report things they just don't like, rather than actual rule violations.

 

Yeah, like having to fill in a captcha thingi where one must read an example and enter the name of the logical flaw being employed.

 

That'd be nice for a classical ed board, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on a board once that had a Rumpus Room type area. It was password protected so that only those who really wanted to venture in did. The password was available to anyone who asked for it. It just added another layer of "oops, how'd I get in here" protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lol, and I'm also apparently a tag-player in the dining room

Actually, right now I think part of the challenge is that we don't have either a clearly defined soccer field or a dining room. We have some people who think they are in a dining room and are upset that the tag and soccer players are being to rowdy and competitive, and some who think they are on a soccer field who are upset that the pie eaters and picnickers keep telling them to sit down and chat nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some posts that are obviously for the pie eaters and some for the soccer players, but I think there are a huge range of threads in the middle that might fit in either place depending on the perspective of the participants. I'd be disappointed to start a post in the dining room and get a good discussion going only to be sent outside to talk to the soccer players because some felt the post wasn't nice enough. I don't really want to play soccer, but I don't need picnics all the time either.

 

There seems to be a lot of room for interpretation on what is a discussion and what is a debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'm thinking that if the moderators moved a thread to the Rumpus Room, there would still be protests, like the ones we have now over post deletion...?

We have such a forum on another board I am on. More debate, less rules ( although direct personal attacks aren't allowed).....it works well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. No reporting for feeling slighted as a group by someone's comment was tolerated (ie: no reporting for a homosexuality discussion or christian bashing in general). To be reportable there pretty much had to be someone's name inserted with below the belt, undeserved vitriol attached.

Wouldn't it solve the problem on the chat board if that was the only thing, besides spam, that was reported?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see private groups as a big PM. And, yes, I can tell you that I have gotten PMs from members, who do not share my worldview, and told me how they feel about me and how they feel my children will turn out as adults under my influence. Such is their opinion. I simply delete and move on with my life. That is worse than anything possibly said about me in a private group I cannot read. 

 

Don't get so wrapped up in others opinions or comments. 

 

Back to moderating: public reporting, clear guidelines, reason stated for deletion or locking. 

 

WHAT?!!  That is just unbelievable and totally wrong.  I'm shocked someone would have the temerity to do such a thing.  You've demonstrated a graciousness in your response to them that they will never be able to understand or appreciate.

 

I've been reading this thread with interest, as I've had some of my posts locked when they became heated.  When I see one of my posts become contentious, I just stop posting and leave the thread.  I have no way to stop posts I initiate from becoming nasty and getting derailed.  Trying to further explain my position only seems to inflame things. Therefore, I stop participating and hope that by bowing out it will die down.

 

I like to read certain types of articles and websites, and I get very excited when I read about new scientific findings that support my beliefs and/or apologetics.  Therefore, I'm eager to share them with like-minded individuals on this board so they can incorporate them into their lesson plans if they wish, as I do.  I usually preface these threads with "CC" and additionally state in the thread itself that it's for respectful conversation only and if someone doesn't endorse those particular beliefs or can't engage without denigrating those beliefs, to please refrain from posting .  Unfortunately it usually doesn't work, and the discussion goes downhill rather quickly and my thread gets locked.  I've been accused of actually inciting disagreements when that has not been my intention at all.  (I've seen posts on other threads about me doing this). Therefore, I've stopped posting such things, which is unfortunate (maybe only to me).  Now I just share free curricula I find that may be beneficial to others and mostly lurk through threads to avoid accusations and misunderstandings.  It's a shame because I really enjoy digging deeply into a discussion.

 

It's a disappointing people can't share their interests without inciting a brawl within the threads. I've thought about leaving this forum a few times myself because of this.  However, I really love the resources and information I glean from this forum.  I so appreciate all the effort SWB and so many of you put into this site to benefit homeschoolers by sharing experiences, resources, opinions about curricula, and just life in general.  I just wish everyone would practice that political buzz word that's so bandied about these days yet so misused -- tolerance.  It's not a word that means "my way or you're wrong and need to be shamed, called names, and bullied into agreeing with me".  It actually means a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think any kind of moderation can stop human nature, but that's just a rare moment of pessimism cropping up.

 

Thank you, SWB, for all you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...