Mod Problems

Anyone else see the problems they're having with mods?

I sure hope we can avoid those kinds of problems here. Being a member of a "safe space" was an exercise in avoiding landmines and walking on egg-shells never mind trying to be a mod there.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=716&start=950#p58775

Having very few rules will make it both hard for mods to screw up, and also hard for mods to abuse their powers. Mods on this site will be on their honour.

To be perfectly frank - I've seen a lot of problems on a lot of forums. I don't know if the admission was there when you posted this - but Flewellen seems to have admitted that the mods in question fucked up. Best possible response in the given circumstance.

If I'm following the chain of events correctly..

Maiforpeace said this about the CT murder:

Why isn't anyone speculating what kind of abuse this young man's mother may have put him through

Which very much angered/triggered Kassiane because ze thinks it stigmatizes abused children. So ze has somewhat of a meltdown.

But for some reason Mai already had Kassiane on "foe" so she doesn't see the meltdown.

Then the thread is locked and Kassiane moves it to the forum matters.

Then everyone picks sides.

Finally Mai resigns.

That place straight up baffles me.

This may legitimately be my privilege talking, but it's like one big overreaction party.

I've got family who are heavily involved in left wing politics. To me this all seems very familiar.

It's an example of the dissonance inherent in the A+ forum concept.

There are discussions to be had around ideas which some people find uncomfortable. You either ban the topics or expect people to take responsibility for what they read.

The A+ forum isn't really clear about which way it's going. It still hasn't made up its mind whether a discussion about whether being abused as a child is a factor in violent individuals is allowed or not on their forum.

It isn't about whether Person X should apologise to Person Y because reading the discussion 'hurt' them.

Until they decide which topics are not allowed in the "safe-space" these things will keep happening, and well-meaning individuals will take all this personally and agonise over it.

A bit more on this, because while the surrounding drama is not of any interest, the ramifications for forum management are.

Leaving aside the 'who put who on ignore' red herring. It seems to me there are a number of judgements (relating to forum policy) which could be made, and which some of the alternatives include:

1) X should not have mentioned the topic of childhood abuse being a factor in violence, because this discussion is inherently incompatible with a safe space and therefore not ever to be tolerated.

2) X should not have mentioned the topic, not because it's inherently bad as in (1) but because, although valid, she should have known that it would offend the feelings of a certain user Y, and that the primary objective of the forum is to provide material to read which doesn't offend anyone's feelings. (In this scenario, X would have been justified in mentioning the topic if Y was not a member of the forum, but it was her responsibility to know that Y would have been offended and to take account of her feelings)

3) X was justified in raising the topic, however, when Y stated that she was offended, X should have responded by engaging Y in an emotional/empathetic way and somehow sharing her pain or accepting Y's anger on the chin as it were. This may involve X personally apologising, not so much for the post, but for the way the world is, on behalf of the 'privileged'.

4) X was justified in raising the topic, and also justified in not apologising to Y's first objection. However, because 'the community' is the ultimate authority, when 'the community' decided that Y was owed an apology, then she should have complied whatever her true judgement on the matter was.

5) X was justified, both in the original post and also in not apologising to Y.


I would say that, if they wanted to avoid this happening again, there is an onus on the mods at A+ to clearly state what their model of acceptable conduct is, in terms similar to the above. My feeling is that the A+ board as it is probably approximates to option 3 above. I would say that this has huge problems with workability, but that's just me.

I'm a bit mystified by Null's earlier comment that the best solution is to admit that 'the mods fucked up'. I don't know in what way he thinks they erred. I would say that we can't make that judgement because we've got no idea what model of moderation they 'fucked up' in relation to. To blame it all on 'the mods' just encourages those broad shouldered individuals who are willing to take blame for the sake of the community to do just that and be martyrs and for everyone to ignore the real issue, which is the dissonance between safe-space and free discussion.

That forum is being held hostage to the most vocal and dysfunctional users. The moderators cannot succeed as long a "victim" can dictate the discussion. Mai's infraction was slight. And Kassiane has been an asshole from the beginning.

Safe-space is an idiotic idea for a social justice forum anyway. And absolutely untenable on an anonymous forum. Since they have successfully warded off the "trolls" for the most part they will turn inward and continue to devour their own.

piginthecity wrote:I'm a bit mystified by Null's earlier comment that the best solution is to admit that 'the mods fucked up'. I don't know in what way he thinks they erred. I would say that we can't make that judgement because we've got no idea what model of moderation they 'fucked up' in relation to. To blame it all on 'the mods' just encourages those broad shouldered individuals who are willing to take blame for the sake of the community to do just that and be martyrs and for everyone to ignore the real issue, which is the dissonance between safe-space and free discussion.

Personally I think the whole thing can't be cleared up - there's way too much disagreement as to how rules should be enacted. Edge cases to rules will always cause dissent. In this case Flew simply stated that a mod had fucked up, and this is something that mods will do from time to time because they are human. Acknowledging this and moving on will do more for their site than a protracted debate about who was at fault and why. Particularly since they are unlikely to reform the rule or reach agreement. If anything, the debate itself would alienate many and increase the hurt that certain people felt. So, draw a line under it and move on. It's a good tactic.

scott1328 wrote:Safe-space is an idiotic idea for a social justice forum anyway. And absolutely untenable on an anonymous forum. Since they have successfully warded off the "trolls" for the most part they will turn inward and continue to devour their own.

I dunno - that's a bit too 'crystal ball' for me. Say, is that a real poncho or a seers poncho?

scott1328 wrote:That forum is being held hostage to the most vocal and dysfunctional users. The moderators cannot succeed as long a "victim" can dictate the discussion. Mai's infraction was slight. And Kassiane has been an asshole from the beginning.

Safe-space is an idiotic idea for a social justice forum anyway. And absolutely untenable on an anonymous forum. Since they have successfully warded off the "trolls" for the most part they will turn inward and continue to devour their own.

This is a pm I sent to Cuduggan.

Atheist Dude Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:51 pm

After reading your conversation on the other forum today, It seems to me that the objectives of a "safe space"(defined below) and the objectives of a forum that's trying to promote dialogue and educate people, are inconsistent with one another.

I believe the concept of an "Atheism+ Safe Space" was ill conceived. While both an atheism+ forum and a safe space for marginalized people are admirable undertakings on their own, combined, I don't see how their incompatible goals can be resolved. The goals of one have to be compromised to achieve the goals of the other.

My two cents, for what it's worth.


"Safe space is a term for an area or forum where either a marginalised group are not supposed to face standard mainstream stereotypes and marginalisation, or in which a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate in the space. For example, a feminist safe space would not allow free expression of anti-feminist viewpoints, and would typically also prevent concern trolling and continual Feminism 101 discussions in favour of feminist discussion among feminists. Safe spaces may require trigger warnings and restrict content that might hurt people who have strong reactions to depictions of abuse or harm or mental illness triggers."

nullnvoid wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Safe-space is an idiotic idea for a social justice forum anyway. And absolutely untenable on an anonymous forum. Since they have successfully warded off the "trolls" for the most part they will turn inward and continue to devour their own.

I dunno - that's a bit too 'crystal ball' for me. Say, is that a real poncho or a seers poncho?

I don't understand what you mean

FWIW, my prediction is an induction based on recent history.

Sorry for the obscure Frank Zappa reference.

But in general I find inductive reasoning doesn't apply well to people. And inductive results can't provide certainties - so stating that something "will" happen without a qualifier like "most likely" or "probably" makes it seem more deductive.

I understand what you mean, and most people would be prepared to make such statements - but it's not my way to make a prediction with such certainty.

AD -

This is a pm I sent to Cuduggan.

Atheist Dude Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:51 pm

After reading your conversation on the other forum today, It seems to me that the objectives of a "safe space"(defined below) and the objectives of a forum that's trying to promote dialogue and educate people, are inconsistent with one another.

I believe the concept of an "Atheism+ Safe Space" was ill conceived. While both an atheism+ forum and a safe space for marginalized people are admirable undertakings on their own, combined, I don't see how their incompatible goals can be resolved. The goals of one have to be compromised to achieve the goals of the other.

My two cents, for what it's worth.


"Safe space is a term for an area or forum where either a marginalised group are not supposed to face standard mainstream stereotypes and marginalisation, or in which a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate in the space. For example, a feminist safe space would not allow free expression of anti-feminist viewpoints, and would typically also prevent concern trolling and continual Feminism 101 discussions in favour of feminist discussion among feminists. Safe spaces may require trigger warnings and restrict content that might hurt people who have strong reactions to depictions of abuse or harm or mental illness triggers.".
Atheist Dude

spot on. And it won't attract a broad enough base for effective activism.

Hey Null -

Not letting you off the hook with regard to our earlier discussion. It's weak to say "Well, Flewellyn says the mods fucked up so I guess it's better just to all agree with this vague judgement and just move on." The point is that the one mod we're talking about only erred if we agree either that the topic she raised (childhood abuse being a factor in violence) was either verboten itself or that she's allowed to raise it but only if she then apologises for raising it.

If this is the case, then, yes, she fucked up. Otherwise she did not. It's not a question of blaming this or that person, it's a question of what limits there are to speech on that particular forum.

piginthecity wrote:Hey Null -

Not letting you off the hook with regard to our earlier discussion. It's weak to say "Well, Flewellyn says the mods fucked up so I guess it's better just to all agree with this vague judgement and just move on." The point is that the one mod we're talking about only erred if we agree either that the topic she raised (childhood abuse being a factor in violence) was either verboten itself or that she's allowed to raise it but only if she then apologises for raising it.

If this is the case, then, yes, she fucked up. Otherwise she did not. It's not a question of blaming this or that person, it's a question of what limits there are to speech on that particular forum.

It does seem to be an unspoken rule over there that "abused people can go on to become abusers" is not allowed.

Kassaine seems to think that acknowledged the fact "About 30% of abused and neglected children will later abuse their own children, continuing the horrible cycle of abuse.(1)" will further alienate autistic people.

(1) http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics

Kassiane and others, seems to operate on the notion that if you ignore's certain realities, others are obligated to do the same!

piginthecity wrote:Hey Null -

Not letting you off the hook with regard to our earlier discussion. It's weak to say "Well, Flewellyn says the mods fucked up so I guess it's better just to all agree with this vague judgement and just move on." The point is that the one mod we're talking about only erred if we agree either that the topic she raised (childhood abuse being a factor in violence) was either verboten itself or that she's allowed to raise it but only if she then apologises for raising it.

If this is the case, then, yes, she fucked up. Otherwise she did not. It's not a question of blaming this or that person, it's a question of what limits there are to speech on that particular forum.

Well, that's a simple enough question - the limits on speech are wherever the mods determine them to be. They acknowledged the problem themselves when they stated that they had no process in place to deal with a situation where the mods disagree. From the perspective of any forum - this is basically what usually happens. Rules have to be interpreted and applied. In this case there seems to have been a noisy non moderator criticising a mod and the mod stepped down to avoid the issue from reflecting badly on the site.

At that point, the other mods have decided to avoid drawing out the discussion. In light of the rules not making much sense in the first place...that's basically the best thing they could do.

OK Null -

So, do you think that the mods over at A+ have decided that a discussion about childhood abuse being a factor in violence is not allowed at the site ? And, if they have, on what basis they have done so ? And have they communicated this decision clearly to the members ?

I just don't see it. I'm completely in the dark !

You see, "the mods fucked up" could mean that the mod who was a poster fucked up by raising the upsetting topic, or equally, it could mean the opposite judgement, that the other mods fucked up by not making it clear to the upset member that, while she is entitled to express her opinion about it, or to not join in the discussion at all, the discussion, being a common one out there 'in the world', is not one that's going to be censored on the forum.

Leaving this aside, I must say there's some cold-hearted shit going on with the way they are treating that particular ex-mod and anyone who has a kind word to say about her. Especially given the time and energy she's spent and how invested she is, and particularly as she fell on her sword with much better grace than I would have done.

I may be a privileged white cis-gendered neuro-typical blah blah blah - but there's no way I'd treat anybody with such contempt as they have her, even if i disagreed with them or they annoyed me. Everyone is entitled to at least a minimal level of humanity in the way they're treated, and to let loyalty to some 'cause', or worse still internet forum to corrupt their sense of fellow-feeling to that extent is actually sad to see and quite shocking.

It's like the aftermath of the French Revolution over there !

piginthecity wrote:OK Null -

So, do you think that the mods over at A+ have decided that a discussion about childhood abuse being a factor in violence is not allowed at the site ? And, if they have, on what basis they have done so ? And have they communicated this decision clearly to the members ?

I just don't see it. I'm completely in the dark !

Fair enough, I hear they keep the best mushrooms there.

No, they haven't communicated the decision clearly to the population. But any decision here would offend some portion of the users. In instances like that, not taking a position on an issue is sometimes the best option. We're not privy to the discussions going on in private.

piginthecity wrote:You see, "the mods fucked up" could mean that the mod who was a poster fucked up by raising the upsetting topic, or equally, it could mean the opposite judgement, that the other mods fucked up by not making it clear to the upset member that, while she is entitled to express her opinion about it, or to not join in the discussion at all, the discussion, being a common one out there 'in the world', is not one that's going to be censored on the forum.

Leaving this aside, I must say there's some cold-hearted shit going on with the way they are treating that particular ex-mod and anyone who has a kind word to say about her. Especially given the time and energy she's spent and how invested she is, and particularly as she fell on her sword with much better grace than I would have done.

I may be a privileged white cis-gendered neuro-typical blah blah blah - but there's no way I'd treat anybody with such contempt as they have her, even if i disagreed with them or they annoyed me. Everyone is entitled to at least a minimal level of humanity in the way they're treated, and to let loyalty to some 'cause', or worse still internet forum to corrupt their sense of fellow-feeling to that extent is actually sad to see and quite shocking.

It's like the aftermath of the French Revolution over there !

It's certainly a very political position. I actually ran into a spot of bother on that site, when I quoted something else that Mai had said. I was told off by a mod and I had to point out that I was quoting another mod, not actually making the offensive statement myself. So perhaps this had been brewing for a while.