Community rules and personal information

I second that. Even after we have already had some acknowledgement that previous moderations weren't wholly appropriate, here we are getting no notice paid to just how sensitive an issue this is for us, it seems to me.

An apology from a 'newbie' who hasn't been with us for 5 minutes and is told he has broken a rule?. Hasn't anyone heard that being AS means ALWAYS having to say you're sorry, even on those rare occasions when we DO understand why? Blimey Bob, I actually thought you were better than that. I feel slightly let down now, and It's made me sad so I'm going for a sleep. Hide under me duvet for a bit, anyway.

Another concern is that, for most people on the spectrum a primary everyday problem is in social communication.

Many people live with the day to day feeling that when they've tried to join in a conversation, or ask other people for help, there is a barrier or break-down and they don't feel they have connected. The difficulty seems to lie with visual information, both ways, such as facial expression.

OK it is different on-line, typing in messages. But for people who have everyday communication problems, encountering similar barriers in other forms of dialogue comes within the same sense of failure and frustration.

I therefore feel someone apologising when unbeknown to them they have broken (largely unwritten) rules, is just an extension of what it is like to be on the spectrum.

I just wish i could get this across. It isn't, for many people on the spectrum, such a simple matter as you portray,

The moderator made those comments at 1405 yesterday, more than four hours after I raised the query above.

The new member commented on an old thread and created the new thread on Monday. After editing of their message and being told about the rules, on Tuesday they messaged once about changing profile name, and again an apology as you quote above.

They've not posted again. Do you think they'll come back?

Hi Longman,

Firstly I hardly think even new members would interpret the moderators intervention as a "public reprimand". The moderator went out of their way to reassure the member, including the phrase "Please don't worry, you've done nothing wrong at all, I'm just trying to make sure that your privacy is protected (smiley)"

The member also did not seem to react as though being told off. “thank you so much, and sorry for breaking the rules I confess to not having read them before posting”

If done politely and with an explanation these interventions are commonly used on all forums. We only email when we feel a private conversation is called for or a reprimand.

The safety and privacy of members is a high priority and drawing the attention of a user to this, including the removal of possibly identifying text is a legitimate action and within our rules. In this case the content of the username along with geographic locations heightened this risk of identification.

I realise there are shortcomings in the technology we use. This is something we are hoping to address this year.

As ever I appreciate your commitment to the community and welcome your comments even if we do not always agree.

Best Regards Bob - Digital Services Manager

The trouble is, as I've lately been informed on the Community Development thread: they have to interpret "nuances" of the rules.

Except I think public telling off should be confined to clear breaches of the rules, not "nuances". And we are getting way too many obscure interpretations and peregrinations of the "rules" - making it quite difficult to write anything on here,

The reason I created this thread was because a new member of the forum had their first post peppered with "blankings out" and a public reprimand even over their profile name. And when they asked how to change their profile name the poster was ignored.

This hardly encourages people to post on here. Nor does the constant problem of the system double posting, but new members are being put off by over regulation.

If the Moderators spend time discussing interpretation of the rules for individual postings they can surely distinguish between innocuous naming of a town, and naming a town where there is a criticism of health services that then might be linked.

As a subscriber to NAS I'm seriously considering writing to the Director about what is going on.

I agree. I've been thinking about this (ooh, there's a surprise) and generaly I'm glad the Mods are there, we've had plenty of issues with surveys and adverts and strange people, so I appreciate what they do. Where we've got issues is illustrated by this thread, I thought that the information about places wasn't all that revealing.

And then I thought about times when we can be impulsively incautious, and I sometimes wonder, while I'm writing my posts, whether someone could trawl through them and find out who I am. Little pixels add up to big pictures. The thought horrifies me, mostly because on here, people understand me and I'm comfortable, and private. Goodness knows we talk about some very personal stuff, and I want to feel safe to do that.

Wouldn't it be nice, though, if just once in a while someone would explain both the policy, and the when and how it is used. I do think that some things should, as Longman pointed out at the time, have been done by private e-mail, as stated in the rules. I don't get the rationale, and I abhor an information vacuum. It would help me to see some anonymised examples, I guess.

One issue that may cause concern is that if you provide some vageuly identifiable details (e.g. going through diagnosis at the moment and other personal traits and issues) then someone working in the named authority or hospital may be able to identify an individual. This may lead to repercussions for the individual which may not to be their advantage. This has to be balanced against the advantages in being able to identify a badly performing authority if there are enough concerns expressed.

There isn't an obvious right answer to the question but I think, as I wrote on a recent thread, that the balance gives too much anonymity to authorities that perhaps need to be named and shamed.

I was thinking about this too. I can see very good reason not to identify vulnerable people, but I wonder how easy it would be to find someone if they say 'I live in London'.

If I mention that I've many many times driven through Hereford, how does that tell anyone where I started from, and what would be the danger of telling someone that I come from somewhere with 100,000 inhabitants? If I say that I come from, for instance, Llandrindod Wells, how does that enable anyone to track me down when I left there 47 years ago and live 150 miles away? There's 360 directions to choose from...

I'd rather see overzealous than under, but this policy saves anyone having to consider whether or not to enact it, and that isn't always appropriate, I think. This highlights the problems that we diagnosed adults have with using a service designed for parents of youngsters. Perhaps a separate website, still under the aegis of NAS but just for authorised adults? I've mentioned this before, but even when examples such as this come up, some people 'don't see the need'. Dur.