Ad-hoc survey requests are banned for very good reasons. The debate about taking part or not is invalid. It's perfectly OK to piut your own safety and privacy ar risk, if you choose, but it is most definitley not OK to encourage others to do the same. The rule is 'no surveys' but with the caveat that valid requests can be made through the NAS. There isn't much point in having a rule if everyone isn't going to abide by it.
Longman was, in my opinion, vilified because he got so thoroughly wound-up by the slow reactions of moderators. Like me, he reported several of such occurences, and like me he got fed up with them being allowed to remain for periods of time, even though they are a clear breach of the rules. His information to such posters is always valid because when it comes to academia, it would be rude and insulting to suggest he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I thought that the moderators' unwarranted attack on him was going to cause harm, and it appears to have done so because he isn't posting. I cannot imagine how vicious someone would have to be to not care that he feels excluded from our community. I've been told by a moderator that 'they're in charge so I should shut up'.
Way to encourage free speech and inclusion, moderators. That's my view.
And all this starts because these know-nothing, alleged 'students' ignore a very important rule. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think that the diagnostic process is ever going to be informed by the desparately poor attempts of some struggling student to get their degree. Even less, given the quackery that surrounds 'aids and treatment' for autism, do I understand the tolerance for blatant marketing 'surveys'.
Those who say 'I don't see the harm' haven't 'got' the idea of 'phishing', have no way to verify that the poster is even genuine, and haven't bothered to read what the very experienced and knowledgable Longman says about these 'surveys'. I would suggest that if they did, then perhaps they would increase their understanding and be able to see their fundamental error in reasoning. For all others, if you want to know WHY the NAS made this rule, ask!
Electra also makes these points, very well, I thought, and so does 'socks. The point, surely, is that the NAS should be quicker to invalidate these posts when they are reported. Their delays just fuel the fire.
Ad-hoc survey requests are banned for very good reasons. The debate about taking part or not is invalid. It's perfectly OK to piut your own safety and privacy ar risk, if you choose, but it is most definitley not OK to encourage others to do the same. The rule is 'no surveys' but with the caveat that valid requests can be made through the NAS. There isn't much point in having a rule if everyone isn't going to abide by it.
Longman was, in my opinion, vilified because he got so thoroughly wound-up by the slow reactions of moderators. Like me, he reported several of such occurences, and like me he got fed up with them being allowed to remain for periods of time, even though they are a clear breach of the rules. His information to such posters is always valid because when it comes to academia, it would be rude and insulting to suggest he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I thought that the moderators' unwarranted attack on him was going to cause harm, and it appears to have done so because he isn't posting. I cannot imagine how vicious someone would have to be to not care that he feels excluded from our community. I've been told by a moderator that 'they're in charge so I should shut up'.
Way to encourage free speech and inclusion, moderators. That's my view.
And all this starts because these know-nothing, alleged 'students' ignore a very important rule. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think that the diagnostic process is ever going to be informed by the desparately poor attempts of some struggling student to get their degree. Even less, given the quackery that surrounds 'aids and treatment' for autism, do I understand the tolerance for blatant marketing 'surveys'.
Those who say 'I don't see the harm' haven't 'got' the idea of 'phishing', have no way to verify that the poster is even genuine, and haven't bothered to read what the very experienced and knowledgable Longman says about these 'surveys'. I would suggest that if they did, then perhaps they would increase their understanding and be able to see their fundamental error in reasoning. For all others, if you want to know WHY the NAS made this rule, ask!
Electra also makes these points, very well, I thought, and so does 'socks. The point, surely, is that the NAS should be quicker to invalidate these posts when they are reported. Their delays just fuel the fire.
