• Replies 77 replies
  • Subscribers 28 subscribers
  • Views 12601 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

AS people, please can you help me?

classic codger

I am trying, with great difficulty, to understand something. I could really use your help with this, it's literaly taken me over (you know the one) and I need the thinking of others. Call it an intervention!

Before I begin, please can I ask you to look over the following article?;

nymag.com/.../

I have seen many posts from NT parents about 'treatment' for AS.

The question I have asked myself is, 'if I could go back and be changed into an NT by 'treatment', would I choose it?'

My firm answer is 'No'. I am the sum total of a life spent as an AS person. I can't change my past, so my best option is to use the learning that is  'the sum of who I am' to help others if I can, and especially for the next generation. If any of you think that I can be helpful and supportive, understanding and insightful, fine. If you think the opposite, also fine and I am sorry that I wasn't helpful. I do what everyone does - the best I can.

I'm an egalitarian by instinct. I will state my thoughts and opinions, but they are mine alone. When I read other people's posts, I assume the right to agree or disagree, and simply expect the same fairness back.

Thank you for listening this far, and now I've come to my taxing absorption.

I read this post under the title Stem cell treatment for autism: 'Has anyone undergone stem cell treatment for autism?'

I responded with '

This is my personal opinion. I don't argue my personal opinions, just for them.

How about 'tretament' for being NT? Their capacity for being the most illogical, spiteful, self-destructive creature on this planet leaves me staggered. I pity the poor creatures and their lack of insight, but what can you do? No-one is researching 'treatment' for them, because they collectively agree that their unsanity is 'normal'.

The inmates are running the asylum.

Now, I thought that I was humourously disparaging the idea of 'treating' people just because they are different. It is my belief that most people will be able to see that I have reiterated the concepts of the same thing as the poster, with our roles reversed. Here's your mirror, as it were.
I just discovered that I got moderated for this post . Apparently, I should watch my language. A particular word picked out is asylum because it is derrogatory towards past attitudes to mental health (?).
I am totaly confused. I don't know why 'mental health' is being brought into it. Given the various current uses of the word 'asylum' I don't know how it becomes offensive, even in context, 'the inmates are running the asylum' is a common concept and has been the root idea behind several award winning books, plays and films, yet it appears that some ignoramus doesn't like it. And apparently, I'm supposed to know this and understand it in their particular case. Que?
Please, any insights will do. Sooner or later one of you will say something that will help me get a grip on this. You know the one where the more you try, the more you're shaking your head, you're laughing bleakly, you don't know whether to be angry, offended, confused, puch drunk, weakened, disempowered, desperate to understand, shocked, fed up with mods public messages yet again, privacy invaded, and a whole bunch more, and because you can't choose one, you have them all at once instead. That's where I am right now.
Phew! Bit of a maze. Ariadne, the thread!
Parents

  • After some consideration, I think it is unfair for the moderation staff to consider themselves the 'only' volunteers in the forums. Strictly, the moderation team is unable to voice an opinion or reply to topics (except where something is breaking the forum rules). Therefore, they are unable to reply in aid of conversation topics (i.e. give advice to those who consider themselves in need), and are also unable to generate forum content (i.e. maintain a forum community).

    The forum users, especially the 'regulars', are (rightly or wrongly, whatever the view of moderation staff) freely giving up their time to review and respond to those for who they feel they have relvent advice or a relevent response.

    Regarding overzelous moderation; my opninion here is that this is a fairly 'slow moving' forum, with topics generally taking place over the course of a day or more with relitively few, but in my opinion quite well though out and generally well meaning, responses. The problem with this, is that it is (in my view at least) relitively 'easy' to moderate, with (theoretically) a large amount of time to review each post before it is put to the community. In addition to this, it appears that there is a distinct lack of the usual internet post nomenclature (i.e. no smilies or other emoticons), potentially making it harder to recognise the 'feeling' behind a post. The combination of both of these factors could lead to well meaining, but ultimately unhelpful for the community at large, editing or deletion of posts.

    I suppose this raises the question: 'what is the intent of moderation of this forum?'. I am not sure on current practice, but I feel that a step in the right direction would be the 'moderation of moderation'. This would be where the deletion or edit of a post could not be finalised by a single moderator, but would require the group consultation of at least one other of the moderation team (this would also prevent the deletion of topics or responses by mistake). If it is not already the case, a report could be sent by email to the 'offender' detailing which post was deleted and why. Additionally, much like sites like 'facebook', would it be useful to have a 'report' button which could be used by forum users to identify particularly offensive posts?

    I think it is fully understandable that people could be upset through the deletion of their posts, especially if they are not informed why, and something like this may help.


    Personally, I quite enjoy reading 'Classic Codger's postings as they have a similar intonation and set of opinions as my grandparents. Additionally, in regards to topic response, in many cases, I feel that the optimal response has already been made, making further responses (at least by me) a little redundant. Is it helpful to respond with an 'I agree' to a topic?

Reply

  • After some consideration, I think it is unfair for the moderation staff to consider themselves the 'only' volunteers in the forums. Strictly, the moderation team is unable to voice an opinion or reply to topics (except where something is breaking the forum rules). Therefore, they are unable to reply in aid of conversation topics (i.e. give advice to those who consider themselves in need), and are also unable to generate forum content (i.e. maintain a forum community).

    The forum users, especially the 'regulars', are (rightly or wrongly, whatever the view of moderation staff) freely giving up their time to review and respond to those for who they feel they have relvent advice or a relevent response.

    Regarding overzelous moderation; my opninion here is that this is a fairly 'slow moving' forum, with topics generally taking place over the course of a day or more with relitively few, but in my opinion quite well though out and generally well meaning, responses. The problem with this, is that it is (in my view at least) relitively 'easy' to moderate, with (theoretically) a large amount of time to review each post before it is put to the community. In addition to this, it appears that there is a distinct lack of the usual internet post nomenclature (i.e. no smilies or other emoticons), potentially making it harder to recognise the 'feeling' behind a post. The combination of both of these factors could lead to well meaining, but ultimately unhelpful for the community at large, editing or deletion of posts.

    I suppose this raises the question: 'what is the intent of moderation of this forum?'. I am not sure on current practice, but I feel that a step in the right direction would be the 'moderation of moderation'. This would be where the deletion or edit of a post could not be finalised by a single moderator, but would require the group consultation of at least one other of the moderation team (this would also prevent the deletion of topics or responses by mistake). If it is not already the case, a report could be sent by email to the 'offender' detailing which post was deleted and why. Additionally, much like sites like 'facebook', would it be useful to have a 'report' button which could be used by forum users to identify particularly offensive posts?

    I think it is fully understandable that people could be upset through the deletion of their posts, especially if they are not informed why, and something like this may help.


    Personally, I quite enjoy reading 'Classic Codger's postings as they have a similar intonation and set of opinions as my grandparents. Additionally, in regards to topic response, in many cases, I feel that the optimal response has already been made, making further responses (at least by me) a little redundant. Is it helpful to respond with an 'I agree' to a topic?

Children
No Data