My right of reply - and an explanation

Dear Online Community users,

The moderation team has decided to lock this thread as it is causing increasing distress and disagreement among users. After review, we believe it contains content that breaches Rule 7, which asks all users to remain respectful in discussions.

Please remember that comments can be misinterpreted, especially when people may be feeling distressed. As outlined in Rule 7, disagreements are allowed, but they must remain respectful and considerate. The Online Community welcomes a variety of posting styles, and while constructive criticism is acceptable, if it becomes targeted or mocking, it risks being interpreted as a personal attack.

We understand that several users have contacted us directly about this issue. The moderation team is working hard to respond to each message, but please note that we are currently operating with temporarily reduced capacity, so responses may take longer than usual. We appreciate your patience.

Thank you for helping us maintain a supportive space.

Sharon Mod

Number said:

placed in moderation

I did not say that your account had been placed in moderation (a phrase that has a specific, technical meaning).

I can support what I said, but this is not the time or place. I mentioned the nature of our history only for context, for the benefit of others.

For the sake of my well-being, I will not be engaging with you any further.

I do believe I am permitted the right of reply......and will exercise that here.....simply to correct the record.

I have never been placed in moderation for bullying you, nor anyone else.  As you have raised this, can you evidence the accusation please?

Moreover - I believe that I have been placed in moderation just once, during my MANY years of peaceable attendance and engagement here, long before your arrival here and even since your recent appearance in this place.....so I don't think that any attempt  to paint me as a bully is fair, reasonable nor born out by the record.

I do, however, readily acknowledge my own limitations and triggers as an autist and will unhappily confirm that this thread has triggered my profound objection to unfairness and public humiliation, as I perceive it.  Accordingly, I have simply commented upon what I have seen here, and expressed opinion on it.

I will continue to pass comment on matters that are of import to me, whether here, or elsewhere, as my conscience dictates.  

Number, some newer members here won't know that you have previously been the subject of moderation actions, due to repeatedly criticising my usual posting style (of providing information and links) and bullying me.

In your post below, you opened by taking yet another swipe at this. You then continued in a similar tone:

Number said:

Anodyne blooms of regimented AI generated “advice content” were a large part of what killed and drove away the comforting “autistic resonances” that I had become accustomed to in this COMMUNITY forum for ages.

I have previously explained the reasons for my usual posting approach (which has never before included using AI), all of which you acknowledged were reasonable. And yet you still continued to criticise me. To the best of my knowledge, the volunteer moderators here have also never used AI to post advice content or links.

It seems clear that, despite the passage of a long time between then and now, you still have a very large metaphorical axe to grind against me. I also feel that your grudge could be influencing your thinking and/or motivating you to stoke tensions and whip up sentiment against me. 

I did report your earlier post, but only to ensure that the moderators were aware of it, in case you continued in the same vein as previously. I didn't expect it to removed, but was glad to see evidence (in the form of it having briefly disappeared) that it had been seen by them, in case of further issues.

I didn't engage with you in respect of your previous reply because I find your presence in this thread triggering, and because your emotions seemed (and still seem) to be running very high. In which context, I didn't feel it would be constructive to try and engage with you.

I now ask you to desist from engaging further with this thread and from otherwise replying to me (which you have previously offered to do, although I didn't take up your offer at the time).

Number said:

post the following informative SOLELY based on a comment from the instigator of this "thread" that they made yesterday in another thread

In respect of your point 1: which perhaps refers to potentially calling me a hypocrite or similar:

I posted my comment in Roy's thread at around mid-afternoon yesterday.

I didn't subsequently notice this thread's reappearance until after business hours had ended yesterday, which was a Friday. Whilst I then drafted an email to the moderators straight away, I know from experience that, even if I had sent it immediately, it would not have been acted on until Monday morning.

So this thread would have stayed in place over this weekend regardless of whether I had or hadn't emailed them, at that time, to request its removal. 

That gave me thinking time, as it will make no difference to the timing of this thread's removal if I delay submitting a request until, say, Sunday evening or first thing on Monday.

I therefore decided to delay sending it, and to take some time away from the forum over this weekend, in order to try and further process everything and to hopefully feel more confident in my final decision.

Your latest post has severely disrupted my mental processing and state of mind. If anything, it is counterproductive to your cause.

In the meantime, I have also received messages of moral support. So it seems reasonable to me to take however long I need to consider how I want to proceed, and to feel as comfortable as I can do with my decision.

At this precise moment, I am undecided. I was aiming to make a final decision, one way or the other, before business hours resume on Monday.

I if do decide to request this thread's removal, then it might yet happen no sooner than it could otherwise have done. If not, it will remain. In the absence of any further replies, it will then soon drop off the forum's home page (your post boosted it back to the top, and this reply to you will do the same).

In respect of your point 2: the moderation team's decision, in restoring this thread, is a factor that I am also considering further.

In respect of your point 3: as stated in my opening post, my original focus in starting this thread was not only to defend myself from false accusations, but also to further inform the person who had been using DARVO tactics in the hope of promoting a more constructive approach to future dialogues (I am not the only person to have been on the receiving end of this type of behaviour).

Since replying to Lotus, I have also been reflecting on the fact that, when people are aware of DARVO, it is harder for someone to use it against them. In that respect, this thread is helping to raise such awareness within a community of autistic people, who are legally recognised as being more vulnerable than many.

I will return to considering all of the above and more, but will first need to take a long further break in order to recover from having had to reply to you.

I post the following informative SOLELY based on a comment from the instigator of this "thread" that they made yesterday in another thread entitled "I've Decided to leave the forum" that read;

                        "I’m glad to see the thread [ie this one] has since been quarantined, and I hope it stays that way."

INFORMATIVE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INSTIGATOR OF THIS THREAD = Anyone who instigates a thread in this place can, at any time of their choosing, and for whatever reason they like, ask for it to be removed from the site and public view.

COMMENTARY

(1)  I have used a dictionary to investigate a few adjectives that helpfully describe someone who expresses a desire to achieve something that they have control over, but then does not act of that proclaimed desire.

(2)  It would appear that NAS Community Forum Management remain of the opinion that this thread was - and remains - suitable for public display based on the fact that it was temporarily removed from the site for a short period of time [presumably for review] and has now reappeared.

(3)  I wonder how new visitors to this site will perceive the "safety" of the environment here, if they see this OP.

OPINION = I remain incredulous of, and horrified by, the fact that this thread remains on view in this place.

Hey Bunny, I've sent you a message ... But I know how the notifications on this site can be sporadic!

You are correct that my goal was finding a peaceful solution.

I understand that you were upset, and there is no problem with using the AI to help you analyse the situation for your own peace of mind, but I feel that rather than posting that here you should have reported it to the mods to deal with.

As this thread has caused distress to some other community members, I don't feel it's useful to discuss this any further.

Please,  before my account gets deleted,  sometimes it's knowing when to let go. Sometimes it's knowing - when to be kind and allow others space. Including yourself. 

Regards, N_A_S

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-intentioned reply. 

It's clear you've spent a lot of time reading everything, and I feel that your goal of finding a peaceful solution is clear. However, I do also feel that there are some key misunderstandings in your interpretation, and I hope you'll allow me to clarify my perspective without it coming across as a personal attack on you (which it isn’t).

I only learned about DARVO after I joined this community and found myself on the receiving end of it several times. I researched whether it was a recognised pattern of behaviour, and quickly found that it was. 

This Guardian article explains more about DARVO. As the term's originator explains, “Normalising DARVO is colluding and harmful”, and I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen in this community. As she also explains, when someone knows about DARVO, it is harder for someone else to use it against them, because they know what to look for in the other person’s behaviour. 

Based on my previous experience and research, I believed that it was again being used against me in both threads, and I confirmed that via the AI's review. I didn’t use AI because I thought it was infallible and provided an ultimate, unbiased truth, but rather as a tool to identify specific communication patterns. I didn’t introduce any bias myself, and its output also helped me to articulate the dynamics of the situation, which I was struggling to put into words.

It was also very helpful to me personally, given that some other members here - yourself included - don’t seem to have recognised the use or impact of DARVO. 

But why would you, if you haven’t been subjected to it repeatedly, before then learning about it, and being better able to spot it happening? So this is not a criticism, just an observation about the value of a tool that is well-equipped to analyse conversations in this way.

To same time and energy, I won’t go over both threads here. I’ll instead try and keep it as brief as I can in explaining how Iain used DARVO in the dog thread and how he really was championing dominance theory the whole time.

I’ll call dominance theory DT, and positive reinforcement training PRT.

1. In his opening post, replying to pdaddio83, Iain’s post included these key elements, all of which relate to the core tenets of DT:

“IF you are giving of a fear response then the dog will treat you as a lesser pack member and try to assert dominance over you. This is how the pecking order is established in their world so it will help a lot if you can get over this.

The others are right about getting the dog trained, but I think you will need to be trained as well. For effective ownership of a dog you need to be consistent, exhibit alpha energy and behaviour (in order to be seen as an authority figure).”

2. I replied to pdaddio83 explaining that Iain’s thinking was flawed and outdated, supported by evidence. The whole affair could have ended right there. And I sincerely wish that it had done.

3. Instead, Iain replied to me. He claimed to understand the current thinking around dog psychology, but claimed that: “it still requires the owner to be an authority figure BUT with an understanding of both the dogs body language and their psychology to be an effective owner.”

With this reply, he seemed to acknowledge and understand PRT, but continued to focus on the need to be seen as an authority figure (debunked) and on his interpretation of their psychology (which is based on old, DT thinking, as becomes increasingly clear).

To support his claims, he quoted an excerpt from an article that referred to dogs in households establishing “loose situational hierarchies”.

He used this to claim that a dog owner needs to “understand” and “manipulate” the “hierarchies” and that, as the “authority figure”, you need to “correct the dog” in respect of undesirable behaviour.

PRT, by contrast, focuses on rewarding desired behaviours to encourage them being repeated, not punishing undesirable ones.

DT does not need to involve “cruelty”, which Iain does make clear he is not advocating. But he still reasserts that “the hierarchy is very real” and his suggestion of using applied psychology and practical steps is still in the context of being an authority figure (ie being the human equivalent of the alpha of the pack, per (debunked) DT).

4. I replied to Iain. I explained that he had misinterpreted the article’s excerpt and that it described relationships between dogs in multi-dog households, not those between dogs and their owners. 

The idea of a hierarchy between owner and dog is outdated thinking, based on (debunked) DT.  

I explained that the article he’d quoted actually argued the opposite of his view:

”Modern science has completely debunked the alpha dog and dominance hierarchy theories” and that “Building a relationship based on trust and clear communication is the goal, not establishing yourself as the “alpha.””

5. Iain’s response was to throw doubt on the credibility, as sources of reliable information, of sites that promote PRT - including the one that he’d misquoted to try and support a key element of his DT-based thinking.

In doing so, he referred to PRT as “woke dog training”, which made his real views on it very clear.

He then demonstrated confirmation bias by refocused back onto “the old way”, which “has proven very successful as it ties into the instincts of dogs”. And that “The appropriate application of psychology, boundaries and training used in conjunction with observation of the behaviour exhibited by the dog has been used by most dog trainers through history.”

He then sought to defend his position by reference to his personal experience of owing and training four dogs, and confirmed that he had used “the traditional techniques”.

All of this was very clearly a continued effort to assert that (debunked) DT is effective and reliable, including because he’d repeatedly used it himself.

6. In my reply, I provided Iain with overwhelming evidence that DT is outdated and that only PRT should now be used, including referring to messaging from a host of leading UK charities, the government, and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council. This left no realistic, viable basis on which he could continue promoting either his preferred DT or even any kind of hybrid PFT-DT model. 

I also took the opportunity to disengage, due to what I recognised as his DARVO behaviour, including his continuing refusal to acknowledge that his original suggestion had been ill advised. 

Included among these exchanges is the comment that I made about being (genuinely) glad that Iain had at least read about PRT and perhaps, initially at least, to be adapting his rigid views.

I did wonder, at the time, whether it might be taken the wrong way, and, clearly, it has been. But I can understand why, and I appreciate that I could and should have expressed that particular view in a different way. One small slip of stylistic judgement on my part in the face of an onslaught of disingenuous engagement from Iain is, I hope, understandable and forgivable. 

If we then fast-forward to this thread: 

In his response to Boika , Iain tried the only remaining option that might enable him to avoid taking accountability for having given bad advice: he tried to claim that he had never advocated anything to do with DT in the first place.

In support of this, he relied on trying to “sell” a gross misrepresentation of what he originally meant by alpha energy and behaviour. Remember, this is something that he originally recommended in the context of (debunked) pack theory, and the (debunked) need to establish dominance and authority over the dog - rather than allowing the dog to take the (debunked) dominant role. And he’d repeatedly championed DT in his subsequent replies to me.

Given all that had gone before - including his true views on PRT being revealed when his mask slipped momentarily (woke dog training) - this attempt to redefine what he meant by "alpha" is so brazen as, for me, to be almost beyond belief. As I’ve shown in this recap, it is demonstrably untrue. 

However for a DARVO user, it is a logical final throw of the dice.

By trying to twist the meaning and ignore the original context of his claims about the word “alpha”, Iain might still manage to persuade some people that he was right all along - and this is all just one big misunderstanding.

That would amount to a DARVO job very well done from Iain’s perspective, including successfully painting me as an unreasonable aggressor who has attacked and misunderstood him throughout. 

These two (now three) threads are far from the first time that Iain has tried to twist the facts and the narrative to enable himself to avoid taking responsibility for ill-advised things that he’s said.

As you can see, trying to debate with someone who uses these tactics can be exhausting and upsetting. And his repeated use of them against me is bullying.

I don't feel there should be any place for that kind of behaviour in this community.

When I first saw this thread 2 days ago, I replied to say I was sorry to hear that Bunny was thinking of leaving and hoped she would stay. I still think that, but having now had time to read and digest this thread fully and also the threads that caused it, I would like to add my thoughts.

The male menopause: My interpretation was that Iain's reference to "male menopause" was using it as a colloquial term to refer to the symptoms men may have at a similar age, including loss of libido (which is what the thread was originally about), while Bunny was pointing out the literal interpretation - that men do not have a menopause - while acknowledging that there may be something going on with men too which may need medical attention. I see no problem with either viewpoint.

Dog training: Iain gave advice to another poster about dog training, which included the words Alpha energy/behaviour. Bunny interpreted this as advising an outmoded type of training that highlights dominance over a dog in an unkind way. However I did not see anything in Iain's advice encouraging cruelty or using methods that would make a dog frightened, and alpha just means first or most important, meaning that the dog is fed after the owner and the owner takes control of when the dog is walked, etc. That approach can still be done with kindness and rewards. I just viewed this as a misunderstanding.

Iain did use the terms "old woman" and " woke" which I suggest would have been better to leave out.

However when he replied to Bunny about dog training methods, explaining his understanding of dog psychology and that he was not advocating cruelty, plus posting a link to a dog training website, Bunny replied that she was glad he had read up on the latest dog training advice, even if he hadn't changed his thinking. I felt that this sounded a little condescending. I did not see any DARVO tactics in either post.

I am also very surprised that the mods gave approval for a post containing a response from an AI. Having completed a short open university course on AI, my understanding is that they are not impartial - because they are programmed and trained by humans, they tend to pick up unconscious bias from their trainers. So in my view an analysis by an AI is no more valid than an analysis by any human.

I do not intend this to be critical of either party, or taking sides - I believe it was just misunderstandings and differences of opinion which caused this situation. I value both Bunny and Iain as members of this community and I hope they both stay.

Seeing as how we are now apparently adopting the style of American political campaigns these days......I thought it might be appropriate to mention as follows;

Note: I was reported for the above being allegedly abusive.....but sought and received moderation approval in advance for this post.

Hi and thank you Boika 

And please accept my apologies for not having replied sooner. I needed to step away for a while after posting this thread.

Iain said:

1 - in both threads i posted what I characterised as facts then was attacked by Bunny..

In each case, in a proactive effort to avoid any conflict with you, I first replied to the person you’d addressed, not to you.

I politely explained that the claims you’d made were debunked within the very articles that you’d linked to in support of them.

The only “attacks” came from you towards me, as part of your DARVO tactics - as supported by the analysis.

Iain said:

2 - I remain sure in my convictions that the facts are still pertinant. Both times the responses were not in direct relation to my facts but to a facet or imagined aspect of them.

This is a continuation of denial and attempted manipulation - which is also evident in your replies below to Boika .

Each time, my responses were in direct relation to the core elements of your claims as you'd presented them. 

I provided you with ample evidence (including in the articles that you yourself had linked to) refuting each of them, including explaining that they have been debunked based on scientific progress in those fields.

By contrast, your responses included gaslighting and unfounded accusations of bias (including sexism), not to mention dismissing positive reinforcement dog training as “woke”. 

Iain said:

3 - I am autistic and my communication style is very direct. I make no apologies for this.

I’m also autistic, and can tend towards using a direct communication style that can be perceived as blunt. But, without intending any offence, so what? As I’ve said here before, I have no issue with your communication style, or with anyone else’s. 

An example of someone actually attacking someone else for their blunt, autistic, communication style is your reply to a newer community member here. They had been excluded from a service due to their struggles with it, but you didn’t want to be associated with their behaviour:

Iain said:

Using your autism as an excuse here is giving us other autists a bad reputation I'm afraid.

This gives the impression that only your own particular style of autistic bluntness is acceptable to you. (It's also ableist, by the way).

Iain said:

I do admit the style of argument is not a popular one which I will strive to improve.

I’m glad to hear this, but I hope you will also come to understand that DARVO isn’t a communication or debating style. Rather, it’s a form of coercive control and gaslighting that aims to manipulate people, and is a common strategy - for example - of psychological abusers.

When used over time against an individual - as you have done to me - it’s also bullying. It is the cumulative effect of your responses - including the physically and mentally-draining impact of trying to communicate with you when you use it - that has led me feel like leaving.

You might also find Graham's hierarchy helpful (click / tap to enlarge):

Iain said:

I won't be responding further to this or the other threads mentioned above.

As you already know, I disengaged from you 8 days ago in one of the threads and 16 days ago in the other, but thank you for confirming; it gives me some peace of mind.

Iain said:

I rarely have heated discussions on here but mostly it is the same poster that comes after me

I have certainly held you to account sometimes. For example, I flagged the value - when offering help to others - of drawing a clearer distinction between when we’re just expressing personal opinions and when we’re sharing established facts. You agreed that was helpful advice, which you later “paid forward” to O&U.

Whenever I’ve held you to account, I’ve done so respectfully and constructively - which I feel is by far the healthiest and best kind of dialogue for this community or any other. 

I have wondered, sometimes, why others don’t tend to challenge you in a similar way. Perhaps they don’t wish to be subjected to how you can tend to react.

Personally, I’d feel complicit in the provision of misleading information if I didn’t speak up. In the case of the dog training thread, for example, I engaged because I had the best interests of the puppy in mind.

However, whilst I’m not afraid to address such things, I am mindful of the very real and significant negative impacts that your DARVO tactics have been having on me.

If I stay and it happens again, then it’s something that I will address via the moderation team.

However, I hope that won’t be necessary. As I explained above, part of my reason for posting this thread at all (rather than just leaving) was that:

“I also hope - with genuine and kind intent - that the person who made those accusations will find the conclusions informative and helpful in guiding how they respond to posts (whether from me or others) in the future.”

That remains my sincere hope.

Amen, brother!

I nearly got trapped like this a few times, but I learned a long time ago to let it go. It is normally not that important, even if it seems otherwise at the time.

Thanks mate.

For all intents and purposes.....I'm already "out of here" compared to the old days......but like I say, I do "check-in" purely to see if things are changing.

Sometimes (albeit rarely) I feel some joy = like when I saw Frozen Heart back in here, when I notice Mrs Snooks being happy and connected and when I see the consistency and simplicity of 3 Good Things being naturally and safely maintained.........but then I see this type of thread.....and I remember why I decided it wasn't safe or pleasant for an autist like me, with opinions and compassion, to safely communicate here any more! [in my opinion, obs]

I hope your life is proving EXCELLENT at the moment, and rest assured, I may be tempted back one day.  tbh....my guilt at not being able to offer "people like me" the type of advice that "people like me", gave me, when I first landed in this place......is the strongest pull back here these days, because the VAST majority of "people like me" have chosen (or been pushed) to leave here.

Never say never.

Best regards

Number.

we are all autists and that is like herding cats to have an agreement because we tend have black and white thinking and can be entrenched. I do not take anything someone writes so badly to make me want to leave but I can understand if that may make some people leave.

We have to be able to tolerate or disengage when something like that happens.

I for one hope you stay and participate. I may not always agree with your points but I appreciate the dialogue of the past.

Since this is a "right to reply" thread where I am the un-named villan I would like to point out 3 things that are particularly relevant.

1 - in both threads i posted what I characterised as facts then was attacked by Bunny..

2 - I remain sure in my convictions that the facts are still pertinant. Both times the responses were not in direct relation to my facts but to a facet or imagined aspect of them.

3 - I am autistic and my communication style is very direct. I make no apologies for this.

In light of the above I will not be apologising to Bunny for the discussions although I do admit the style of argument is not a popular one which I will strive to improve.

I rarely have heated discussions on here but mostly it is the same poster that comes after me so I suspect it will be best if we make a concious effort not to engage further.

Number  is correct - enough ie enough - I won't be responding further to this or the other threads mentioned above.

Enough is enough.

 Anodyne blooms of regimented AI generated “advice content” were a large part of what killed and drove away the comforting “autistic resonances” that I had become accustomed to in this COMMUNITY forum for ages.

 The healthy ebb and flow of discussion seemed to become overwhelmed by diktat and an unreasonable demand for “rightness” and “group-think” compliance with whatever vogue was smotheringly applied as the “flavour of the day.” I believe that, by definition, that is not how a healthy and supportive community of autists can hope to co-exist and maintain itself?

 These days, I just “check back-in” here occasionally, to see “what’s occurring” and this evening TO MY HORROR I now see that a partisan AI generated “self-justification” has made an appearance, with faultless, glowing attributes reported on one side, and a character assassination applied to the other?!

 I just can’t fathom it?   Really? And I mean WHAT, REALLY?! I wonder if xxxxx has RSD and anxiety too? “Reasonable allowances” anyone?!

 I do hope that my decision to post here, at this time, will be safely viewed as a “consistent challenge to ideas, rather than individuals” despite my personal preference to not seek pre-justification for my personal communication style and opinions, whether using AI nor by other means.

My post here is governed solely by my own moral compass and 50+ years of dealing with adroit entities who seem unable to entertain tolerance for other ways of understanding the world, and those around them.

 I am a quite lonely feeling human autist who no longer feels this is a safe space for tolerant and passive “just be here for the company” types, like me.

 The OP above certainly helps this reader (me) understand the nature of exchanges more clearly = it's getting MUCH worse, hence my opening 3 words.