For clarification: Open letter to Moderators

[pqr]

I am writing this, not in any attempt to change the rules nor as an assault on any individual but rather in the search for clarification.

 

 

I understand that we may not discuss the impact that the Obama Administration may or may not have on our ability to HS. I further understand that if in a discussion of the economy a poster has the temerity to lay even a hint of blame on one political party the poster may expect to be banned. To continue; discussion of the UN and its policies is also to be prohibited.

 

This is being done in order that we may simply discuss the mechanics of HSing. I understand.

 

What I do not understand is why, when the above topics (that are at least tangentially related to HS) are deemed off limits because of their content, we can have discussion on:

 

-Carnal knowledge between women and apes ( http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84718 ),

-What "toys" posters keep to "pleasure themselves."

-If in stressful conditions posters are more or less likely to engage in...

 

 

 

We can also have politically charged avatars such as one showing baby seals being clubbed, links to anti-fur websites and signature lines that insult all women who have fur coats.

 

I am not trying to start a fight here honestly I am not, I am simply looking for clarification. Is anything other than politics off limits?

[Hillary in KS]

Welcome back, pqr! :lol:

[Julie in CA]

I am not trying to start a fight here honestly I am not, I am simply looking for clarification. Is anything other than politics off limits?

If you're honestly not seeking to inflame, a private email to the mods would probably have been a better method of gathering the information you're seeking.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I am not trying to start a fight here honestly I am not, I am simply looking for clarification.

 

I think it's because that's what makes us fight. I'm sure if talk of vibrators got us all up in arms and emailing moderators to complain, that would be banned.

[Wendi]

I was the one who posted the poll about stress. Given the openness of many on here to share personal struggles, I figured I'd be able to find out if my experience was typical, and maybe get some advice or encouragement. That's all. I'm a bit surprised you compared my poll to the discussions about chimpanzees and toys! My post was not a bit graphic or prurient, just wondering about a relationship issue that may come up in other marriages. Why did you bring it up as a post that you seem surprised was allowed?

 

Wendi

[bkpan]

If you're honestly not seeking to inflame, a private email to the mods would probably have been a better method of gathering the information you're seeking.

:iagree:

[pqr]

If you're honestly not seeking to inflame, a private email to the mods would probably have been a better method of gathering the information you're seeking.

 

 

That has been done. Not only did I send an email (on another topic that never merited a reply) but another poster who I know has done the same (on the topic of the ape and the woman), also without reply.

 

It is further an issue that we all deserve to hear the answer to.

 

I do not expect the moderators to be able to answer all emails, but I think it is reasonable to expect the poster (not me) who asked what carnal relations with an ape have to do with HSing to have some sort of reply.

Edited March 1, 2009 by pqr

[Debbie in OR]

That has been done. Not only did I send an email (on another topic that never merited a reply) but another poster who I know has done the same (on the topic of the ape and the woman), also without reply.

 

It is further an issue that we all deserve to hear the answer to.

 

Valid question and I think you've taken all appropriate avenues, pqr...

 

I'm rather curious myself about this.

[HollyinNNV]

That has been done. Not only did I send an email (on another topic that never merited a reply) but another poster who I know has done the same (on the topic of the ape and the woman), also without reply.

 

It is further an issue that we all deserve to hear the answer to.

 

I would like further clarification, too.

[Jennifer in NH]

I would like further clarification, too.

me too. It has been more than confusing as of late.

[plimsoll]

I would be interested in discussing these topics with other homeschoolers and sharing opinions.

 

However, I would not like to see it on this forum. Furthermore, I expect the number of posts on these topics would be quite large, so that when I click on "new posts", I would be inundated with material I am not particularly interested in seeing on this forum.

 

Might I suggest that you start a Yahoo group dedicated to political issues affecting homeschoolers? As far as I can tell, it is quite easy to do.

[kokotg]

I don't believe the reason for the politics ban has ever been stated as because "it's not about homeschooling." I think the mods and admins have always been very clear that it's because it causes too much nastiness and fighting and, in turn, too much work for the unpaid volunteers who keep the board running.

[Murphy101]

well ...

 

I've done some moderation for boards over the years elsewhere...

 

Although I agree the questions might have merit...

Although I agree I am at times baffled by what is and is not permitted on this and other boards.

 

For the most part WTM is far more open to discussion than most homeschooling boards and I tend to appreciate that.

 

Personally, most of the time I'd rather see individuals warned or banned than see entire subjects of discussion banned. However, this is a very large board and I can see how that would be an aggrivating use of their time that they'd rather not spend.

 

However, this is a free board created and funded and moderated by the generous donation of funds and time of others.

 

And thus the bottom line is that those others do not owe anyone an explaination of why or why not they do what they do with their generosity.

[Vida Winter]

I would like clarification too.

 

The tone of the GB has changed so much over the years that I sadly find it not worth the time to wade through. Actual homeschooling is rarely discussed. As a conservative, I am insulted by inflammatory comments which only seem to be fair game for liberals.

[Colleen]

However, this is a free board created and funded and moderated by the generous donation of funds and time of others.

 

And thus the bottom line is that those others do not owe anyone an explaination of why or why not they do what they do with their generosity.

 

This board does not exist merely out of the goodness of Susan's heart. It does benefit her.

[Colleen]

Many people have experienced the same dead end pqr ran into when attempting to privately converse with the moderators. They rarely have the courtesy to reply ~ and if and when they do so, their replies are robotic and provide no real clarification.

[kokotg]

 

This board does not exist merely out of the goodness of Susan's heart. It does benefit her.

 

But not the mods who do the bulk of the thread monitoring.

[kalanamak]

I don't believe the reason for the politics ban has ever been stated as because "it's not about homeschooling." I think the mods and admins have always been very clear that it's because it causes too much nastiness and fighting and, in turn, too much work for the unpaid volunteers who keep the board running.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Or, as my mother often said "whose bread you eat, his song you sing".

 

I think the set up is generous, and as fair as they can decently be without sifting through and hand-wringing over every post. Honestly, if you have tried to email them, gotten nowhere, and decided to "go public", it does not bode well for this thread. And for every "supporter" you might glean, you'll get two who wish you'd just take what you get (for free) and get on with something more enlightening. That, in my years of USENET, seems to be the very best way to improve a group.

[CLHCO]

:lurk5:

 

Almost a full hour and this thread is still here... I'm timing... :tongue_smilie:

 

(Staying home from church from a sore throat so nothing better to do. Oh, and :iagree:)

[Parrothead]

Yeah, I'm surprised that it is still here too.

[Julie in CA]

That has been done. Not only did I send an email (on another topic that never merited a reply) but another poster who I know has done the same (on the topic of the ape and the woman), also without reply.

 

It is further an issue that we all deserve to hear the answer to.

 

I do not expect the moderators to be able to answer all emails, but I think it is reasonable to expect the poster (not me) who asked what carnal relations with an ape have to do with HSing to have some sort of reply.

So you've emailed, and since you didn't receive the reply you wanted, you're trying to force the issue by bringing it into the open forum?

It's up to the owner/mods whether to answer you or not. Period.

Fwiw, all of the posts you referred to were easy to avoid. Don't open the posts that are labeled or titled in a way that makes it pretty clear the content may be....whatever it is. That's the beauty of this, imo, you have control over 1.) whether you spend time online. 2.) whether you spend your time online *here*. 3.) what posts you open. 4.) whether you continue to read after the first whiff of something you may find inappropriate. 5.) whether to engage yourself within a discussion that you find distasteful.

As for politics, it's quite clear that those posts and those subjects have been banned because it causes dissention on the board that overflows into extra work for the moderators.

 

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Your post was akin to going to an open house, then asking the owner of the home a pointed question (loaded with criticism) in front of all of the other guests simply because they didn't answer you in private the day before. It's not only rude, but designed to put them on the spot and make them uncomfortable. Was that really your intention?

[Colleen]

But not the mods who do the bulk of the thread monitoring.

 

No one strong arms into it. Moderating is work, period. If the mods can't do that work, they should step aside.

[Murphy101]

This board does not exist merely out of the goodness of Susan's heart. It does benefit her.

 

Really? A discussion of politics benefits her or any of her moderators how?

 

Her books seem fairly popular and I'm thinking they'd sell just fine if she followed the protocol of many curricula developers/publishers by restricting her message board to only discussion of her products and their use. And make no mistake, very few homeschooling boards would allow as much wide variety of topics as this one does and I can't think of any set up by a publisher of curriculum that does.

 

While I'm glad that she does not follow that pattern, I do not delude myself that my hundreds of questions about college prep in high school or my post about a pipe-dream trip to Sweden or many other posts I've made might have any benefit to SWB in some way.

[Plucky]

So you've emailed, and since you didn't receive the reply you wanted, you're trying to force the issue by bringing it into the open forum?

It's up to the owner/mods whether to answer you or not. Period.

Fwiw, all of the posts you referred to were easy to avoid. Don't open the posts that are labeled or titled in a way that makes it pretty clear the content may be....whatever it is. That's the beauty of this, imo, you have control over 1.) whether you spend time online. 2.) whether you spend your time online *here*. 3.) what posts you open. 4.) whether you continue to read after the first whiff of something you may find inappropriate. 5.) whether to engage yourself within a discussion that you find distasteful.

As for politics, it's quite clear that those posts and those subjects have been banned because it causes dissention on the board that overflows into extra work for the moderators.

 

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Your post was akin to going to an open house, then asking the owner of the home a pointed question (loaded with criticism) in front of all of the other guests simply because they didn't answer you in private the day before. It's not only rude, but designed to put them on the spot and make them uncomfortable. Was that really your intention?

 

Maybe people can back off and let the mods handle this as they may?

[nmoira]

This is being done in order that we may simply discuss the mechanics of HSing. I understand.

Is this why political discussion was banned? If so, it's news to me.

 

Is anything other than politics off limits?

I'd be willing to bet that any topics that become so polarizing that bad feeling generated by their "discussion" spilled over into unrelated threads and generated lingering bad feeling would also be banned. Same for illegal activities.

 

Is it censorship you are looking/hoping for? Does the mere existence of these other threads offend to the point that you can't bear the thought of coming here?

[Julie in CA]

Maybe people can back off and let the mods handle this as they may?

Maybe so.

[Murphy101]

No one strong arms into it. Moderating is work, period. If the mods can't do that work, they should step aside.

 

True.

One might pose the same for you.

If you don't like how the board is moderated, you have the option of not visiting it.

I imagine if you continue down this path with your posts, you'll end up banned anyway and you'll no longer have to wonder if your posts are allowed or not.

[kokotg]

 

No one strong arms into it. Moderating is work, period. If the mods can't do that work, they should step aside.

 

Or they can adjust the rules so that moderating does not become so burdensome that no one volunteers to do it. That's what's been done. I've seen too many boards fall apart precisely because moderators are overworked and overwhelmed not to think it's prudent for the admins to take steps to keep that from happening here.

[KathyJo]

So you've emailed, and since you didn't receive the reply you wanted, you're trying to force the issue by bringing it into the open forum?

It's up to the owner/mods whether to answer you or not. Period.

Fwiw, all of the posts you referred to were easy to avoid. Don't open the posts that are labeled or titled in a way that makes it pretty clear the content may be....whatever it is. That's the beauty of this, imo, you have control over 1.) whether you spend time online. 2.) whether you spend your time online *here*. 3.) what posts you open. 4.) whether you continue to read after the first whiff of something you may find inappropriate. 5.) whether to engage yourself within a discussion that you find distasteful.

As for politics, it's quite clear that those posts and those subjects have been banned because it causes dissention on the board that overflows into extra work for the moderators.

 

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Your post was akin to going to an open house, then asking the owner of the home a pointed question (loaded with criticism) in front of all of the other guests simply because they didn't answer you in private the day before. It's not only rude, but designed to put them on the spot and make them uncomfortable. Was that really your intention?

 

It seems pretty clear cut to me that when someone asks for further clarification of the rules, he deserves to receive it. Yes, people are free to decide where they want to spend their online time. And they are also quite free to attempt to obtain clarification to see if this should be one of those places. I do not understand your ire over a simple request for clarification. As you said in numbers 3-5, you had control over opening this post, continuing to read after you found the content inappropriate, and engaging yourself in the discussion.

[Colleen]

So you've emailed, and since you didn't receive the reply you wanted, you're trying to force the issue by bringing it into the open forum? It's up to the owner/mods whether to answer you or not. Period.

 

And it's up to members here to seek clarification, if they need it, as to the board rules and lack of consistent moderating. Period. Many, many people have become thoroughly confused about that inconsistent moderating. And yet, there's no avenue to gain better understanding. Attempts at private dialogue are met with silence; attempts at public discourse are shut down.

 

Fwiw, all of the posts you referred to were easy to avoid. Don't open the posts that are labeled or titled in a way that makes it pretty clear the content may be....whatever it is.

 

True. But you're missing pqr's point. People have at times been admonished to talk about homeschooling; Susan herself wrote that the other day in deleting a thread she deemed political in nature. It's notable, then, that sex toys, etc is an acceptable topic, when it's so wholly unrelated to homeschooling (one can assume).

 

Your post was akin to going to an open house, then asking the owner of the home a pointed question (loaded with criticism) in front of all of the other guests simply because they didn't answer you in private the day before. It's not only rude, but designed to put them on the spot and make them uncomfortable. Was that really your intention?

 

Perhaps it was. Using your analogy, would you invite guests in to your home and then cut off some conversations in front all the other guests while offering no explanation whatsoever? Would you then, if they attempted to gain understanding privately, ignore them altogether? Wouldn't that be rather rude on your part? Or, because it's your home, can you act however you want and not give a thought to others?

 

Actually, I don't even agree with the "we're guests at someone's home" analogy because, as I said, this board is ultimately part of a business.

[sassenach]

Her board, her rules. Period. I really don't understand the sense of entitlement that some people have. I have yet to see any of you political junkies go form your own board, why not? And I don't believe this board benefits Susan in such grand ways. Her books sold before the board, her books will sell long after the day she hears one too many tantrums and shuts this place down.

[Hillary in KS]

I think that pqr's post was politely worded and not inflammatory. I too wondered why it was done publicly, instead of a PM to the moderators.

 

When he posted that he has already attempted a PM, and was met with no response, I understood. What other option does one have at that point, except to post to the board and hope that the moderators will notice it?

 

I have not lived in KS in 9 months. My e-mails to the moderators asking for assistance in changing my posting name went unanswered. If I attempted to open a new membership I would be banned for duplicate accounts. What other option do I have? So here I sit, 9 months later, telling people I'm in KS when that is no longer the case. Had it occurred to me to write an "open post to the moderators," I would have done so.

 

If pqr's post bothers you, Julie, then don't read it. It is a post that is easy to avoid. You choose whether or not to open it. If his post contains the whiff of something that may be distasteful for you, then don't open it, and certainly don't continue to read subsequent posts and reply to them.

[CLHCO]

Ok, setting down the popcorn for a moment before this thread goes away...

 

What appears, at least to some of us, in the inconsistencies and confusion can become somewhat of a hindrance on knowing when and what we can post about a variety of topics.

 

What I mean is, the government has it's nose in almost every area of life anymore. When we built a room in our basement, our local ordinances has a different set of inches each support must be from one another from other areas in the county, and we ended up having to do a full section over again. It goes up from there. You have health care, you have education (yes, and politicians who have opinions against it that are, well, political figures), the economy is a very large aspect of the news and our lives but there is no getting around the politics of this. Even the rights of the child got deleted with an immediate ban.

 

I have the most boring blog on the planet because of the diversity of family I try to keep in touch with it. It makes me crazy sometimes even to try. I find myself posting very seldom around here because of the many areas politics reach but finding I probably can't say a word outside of the need for cream for my feet or a recipe. So, I get the frustration when you don't know where the line is drawn. Local politics okay? National news that includes a head of state okay? Or none of it regardless of whether or not your future to homeschool is involved?

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

If you're honestly not seeking to inflame, a private email to the mods would probably have been a better method of gathering the information you're seeking.

 

Well, when I have complained about threads/posts I have received no response from the moderators so a private email doesn't necessarily result in any response either in writing or action.

 

I think it's because that's what makes us fight. I'm sure if talk of vibrators got us all up in arms and emailing moderators to complain, that would be banned.

 

I'm sure conversations like this have resulted in complaints to the moderators. I, for one, have complained about some of the threads here that really are offensive and have no bearing on homeschooling and have received no response at all. Just because some board members are able to utilize their personal censor on some topics should not presuppose that the topics are not controversial or offensive. Politics just seems to bring out more open and vocal activity.

 

So you've emailed, and since you didn't receive the reply you wanted, you're trying to force the issue by bringing it into the open forum?

It's up to the owner/mods whether to answer you or not. Period.

Fwiw, all of the posts you referred to were easy to avoid. Don't open the posts that are labeled or titled in a way that makes it pretty clear the content may be....whatever it is. That's the beauty of this, imo, you have control over 1.) whether you spend time online. 2.) whether you spend your time online *here*. 3.) what posts you open. 4.) whether you continue to read after the first whiff of something you may find inappropriate. 5.) whether to engage yourself within a discussion that you find distasteful.

As for politics, it's quite clear that those posts and those subjects have been banned because it causes dissention on the board that overflows into extra work for the moderators.

 

At the risk of repeating myself-there are plenty of folks who would like to see a response to this issue. There are plenty of threads/posts causing dissension-some open and some private. Plenty of people seem to find politics offensive but aren't able to stop reading or stop complaining after that "first whiff." Why are politics banned rather than using the methods outlined above yet other clearly objectionable topics are allowed to continue? Where is the line? I'm pretty sure more board members beyond just pqr would like an answer.

 

So I will wait :lurk5: with the other inquiring minds.

Edited March 1, 2009 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[Hillary in KS]

I also want to add that I think it will be terribly difficult for SWB or the moderators to post a clear-cut list of rules for appropriate posts. There are too many nuances and vagueries. No list of rules will be able to address them all.

[KathyJo]

What appears, at least to some of us, in the inconsistencies and confusion can become somewhat of a hindrance on knowing when and what we can post about a variety of topics.

 

At the risk of repeating myself-there are plenty of folks who would like to see a response to this issue. There are plenty of threads/posts causing dissension-some open and some private. Plenty of people seem to find politics offensive but aren't able to stop reading or stop complaining after that "first whiff." Why are politics banned rather than using the methods outlined above yet other clearly objectionable topics are allowed to continue? Where is the line? I'm pretty sure more board members beyond just pqr would like an answer.

 

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

It takes some time to get a personal reply for an email to the mods. You probably did not wait long enough.

 

I was surprised about the ape thread as well, but most other threads that you have a problem with do not bother me... though one did have some links that should probably be removed.

[SonshineLearner]

Probably if we had a "post unto others as you would have them post unto you" frame of thinking, we wouldn't have any rules, right?

If this is a true "what are the rules post" then maybe this is a beneficial thread and we should have a link to go and look at the rules again. I saw spam the other day on here and thought, "Wonder who's suppose to turn this into the moderators?" I didn't do anything, because I didn't know:-)

I appreciate this board and want to stay on the right side of the line, so I don't get a "time-out".

Happy Sunday:-)

Carrie:-)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

May I just add that you know the direction things are headed when one board member had in their thread title "Warning-Homeschooling Content."

 

Maybe that is why more than one individual is confused these days.

[Tap]

SWB has said many times...it is not the topic of conversation, it is the rapid spiral downward by the participants into name calling and rude remarks that leads to threads being deleted, people being banned, and topics being shut down. If any topic degrades to the point name calling and rude remarks...I would expect it to be shut down too. No matter what the topic was.

 

Not every thread started here has anything to do with homeschooling...that is why it is the general board. SWB has again said (on the old board) such conversations are fine, because she recognizes that this board is more to some people than just homeschooling advice, it is a community.

 

This year she did try to allow political discussion. It didn't work.

 

 

 

I think the rules are pretty clear on why some posts are allowed to stay and others are deleted. It is the behavior of people within the post, not necessarily the topic, that is moderated. Political discussions is one topic that is just going to get nasty, it has been proven here and word wide, time and again.

[Julie in CA]

If pqr's post bothers you, Julie, then don't read it. It is a post that is easy to avoid. You choose whether or not to open it. If his post contains the whiff of something that may be distasteful for you, then don't open it, and certainly don't continue to read subsequent posts and reply to them.

But that's the difference, I guess. I disagree with pqr, but it doesn't bother me. I thought it was an open discussion, and that another perspective on the issue wouldn't be unwelcome. I misunderstood....:leaving: and I'll bow out of further discussion since it's clearly aggravating the situation.

[nmoira]

 

I saw spam the other day on here and thought, "Wonder who's suppose to turn this into the moderators?" I didn't do anything, because I didn't know

There's a red and white triangle at the upper right corner of each post to be used for reporting spam, etc. You need only click it, write "Spam," and submit.

[nmoira]

May I just add that you know the direction things are headed when one board member had in their thread title "Warning-Homeschooling Content."

 

Maybe that is why more than one individual is confused these days.

I don't have that problem on the curriculum board. :)

[Ria]

SWB has said many times...it is not the topic of conversation, it is the rapid spiral downward by the participants into name calling and rude remarks that leads to threads being deleted, people being banned, and topics being shut down. If any topic degrades to the point name calling and rude remarks...I would expect it to be shut down too. No matter what the topic was.

 

Not every thread started here has anything to do with homeschooling...that is why it is the general board. SWB has again said (on the old board) such conversations are fine, because she recognizes that this board is more to some people than just homeschooling advice, it is a community.

 

This year she did try to allow political discussion. It didn't work.

 

 

 

I think the rules are pretty clear on why some posts are allowed to stay and others are deleted. It is the behavior of people within the post, not necessarily the topic, that is moderated. Political discussions is one topic that is just going to get nasty, it has been proven here and word wide, time and again.

 

Well said.

 

Ria

[Julie in CA]

Thanks Colleen!

I'm home from church with two sick girls. Man, they sound terrible! Fevers and disgusting wet-sounding coughs. I'm praying that this one will bypass me (and ds) since we're on the countdown to our departure date. Only 12 more days to go!

[CLHCO]

SWB has said many times...it is not the topic of conversation, it is the rapid spiral downward by the participants into name calling and rude remarks that leads to threads being deleted, people being banned, and topics being shut down.

 

 

I have seen a few post shut down almost immediately because the content was political. At the top it does say politics are not welcome, not that politics are fine if they don't spiral downward.

 

P.S. I kind of like certain avatar bans. I admit prior to the election I couldn't look at some posts because of the talking head. I kept thinking that head was doing the talking and I had an unreasonable emotional response. :P

[SonshineLearner]

There's a red and white triangle at the upper right corner of each post to be used for reporting spam, etc. You need only click it, write "Spam," and submit.

 

Spam button is:-) I never even noticed:-) I wondered how everyone turns it in...

 

Carrie:-)

[nmoira]

 

At the top it does say politics are not welcome, not that politics are fine if they don't spiral downward.

The latter was tried. The rule is in place because the majority of political discussions do indeed spiral downward.

[Debbie in OR]

I really don't understand the sense of entitlement that some people have.

 

Not sure how asking for clarification = entitlement :confused::confused:? It's just a request for clarity. (I would clarify what I think entitlement means but it would be polical and get us way off-topic.:D)

[mazakaal]

I have seen a few post shut down almost immediately because the content was political. At the top it does say politics are not welcome, not that politics are fine if they don't spiral downward.

 

P.S. I kind of like certain avatar bans. I admit prior to the election I couldn't look at some posts because of the talking head. I kept thinking that head was doing the talking and I had an unreasonable emotional response. :P

 

But that's because of all the problems that they've had with political discussions in the past year.

 

Political discussions were allowed for a long time, and only the ones that spiraled downward got deleted. Eventually there were so many spiraling downward and needing to be deleted, that they had to stop all political discussions.

 

I'm sure if the chimp discussion got heated, it would be deleted. Then, if over the next month, every chimp related discussion got heated, they would be banned as conversation topics as well.