Conflict

[Pooka1]

Condolences

I'm very sorry to hear about your father, Maxine.

Losing a parent is so hard.

Thinking of you and warm regards,
Sharon

[mariaf]

My sincere condolences on your loss, Maxine. My thoughts are with your family.

[Pooka1]

[...]and occasionally people contrast this forum with SSO where the focus is more on support.

Here's another "contrast" for you... although I haven't posted over on SSo other than to send a greeting to Mark after his surgery, I see they have now removed my PM function. So I lost the PMs I sent and received from friends on that group.

What could be the reason for doing that?

ETA: Not to mention that I was put on permanent moderation on SSo NOT for something I said on that group but for something I said on this group. If you can believe it. And what was the "horrible" thing I said here that triggered the permanent moderation on SSo? Was I trashing SSo? No. It was my stating I had voluntarily stopped posting over there. If you can believe it.

Beyond that, it is fair to say that on SSo, patent nonsense that is civilly stated will stand and factual material that is strongly worded will not.

I understand some call that support. I wonder how many here would.

[hdugger]

That's not factual. You were put on moderation over there for posting over there, mid-fight with Dingo, that you still had posting rights over there. It was a factual post, but not factual about anything that anyone not concerned with the inner dynamics between you and Dingo might be interested in. And it was jarringly unpleasant in the midst of what's supposed to be a support site.

Likewise, for the initial discussion that put you on moderation, noone ever asked you to stop posting facts. They asked you to stop wrapping your facts in very bitter personal back and forth. I think that's a reasonable request, if not for the unpleasantness of the personal back and forth than at least in respect to the caliber of the fact. Solid facts are in no way benefited by acrimonious personal exchange - it just obscures things.

[Pooka1]

None of that is correct.

I was NOT put on moderation on SSo for anything to do with Dingo.

I was NOT on any type of moderation when I posted on HERE that I voluntarily stopped posting over there.

I was put on permanent moderation on SSo IN DIRECT RESPONSE to posting that I stopped posting on SSo.

[Pooka1]

That's not factual. You were put on moderation over there for posting over there, mid-fight with Dingo, that you still had posting rights over there. It was a factual post, but not factual about anything that anyone not concerned with the inner dynamics between you and Dingo might be interested in. And it was jarringly unpleasant in the midst of what's supposed to be a support site.

That post was in the appropriate forum, civilly stated, and therefore violated no rule of SSo.

You are wrong.

[hdugger]

Yes, on point 2 and 3, and not in disagreement with anything I wrote. Additionally, point 3 misses my correction, which is that you said you were moderated for something you posted here and I corrected to state that you were moderated for something you posted over there.

An emphatic no on point 1. You were put on moderation because you carried a fight with Dingo over there.

Here's the thread in question:

http://www.scoliosis-support.org/sho...143#post144143

You:

" Post proving Dingo is WRONG that I can't post here
Please see subject.

Dingo does not believe I voluntarily stopped posting here (except for Mark's thread).

Dingo is wrong about more things than he is right about."

Titch:

"titch

Re: Post proving Dingo is WRONG that I can't post here
Oh for goodness sake.

STOP bringing external arguments across here. I will not tolerate it. I do not care who said what, or did what, or who stole whose toys or who threw their toys out of the pram. You may have been voluntarily not posting until now, but henceforth you will be moderated permanently so that only reaonable messages are allowed through, as I've had quite enough of this."

None of that is correct.

I was NOT put on moderation on SSo for anything to do with Dingo.

I was NOT on any type of moderation when I posted on HERE that I voluntarily stopped posting over there.

I was put on permanent moderation on SSo IN DIRECT RESPONSE to posting that I stopped posting on SSo.

[Pooka1]

Here's why the content of my SSo post is almost certainly not relevant (besides not violating any posting rules)...

If I had posted "test" over on SSo to make the point, the other posters there would assume I was testing my computer connection - no problem. But the moderator, because she read NSF, would know the actual purpose of that post.

I claim I still would have been put on permanent moderation for posting "test" despite any actual disruption of the peace over on SSo.

If that's the case then I would have been put on permanent moderation for what I wrote NOT on SSo but on another forum. Yes or no?

Also, there is no reason to remove my PMs unless they want to moderate those also.

[Pooka1]

And by the way, if showing that someone is wrong as I was doing with that post in uncivil then I claim we can all go home and science should be disbanded.

Just to be consistent.

[hdugger]

That's not a right or wrong question - civility is subjective. I found it jarring and unpleasant in the context of the tone which they set in their support forum, and apparently the moderators did as well.

That post was in the appropriate forum, civilly stated, and therefore violated no rule of SSo.

You are wrong.

[Pooka1]

That's not a right or wrong question - civility is subjective. I found it jarring and unpleasant in the context of the tone which they set in their support forum, and apparently the moderators did as well.

Okay I agree it isn't right or wrong. I was wrong in saying that.

I have some sense of the civility rules having previously been on a one week moderation on SSo and I still typed that post the way I did. I thought it was within the rules and was blindsided by the moderator's response.

There are several unmoderated fora on the interwebs. One of the longest-standing newsgroups is unmoderated, well-populated, and very productive most of the time. I am not then concluding that moderated fora are unnecessary. I am saying unmoderated ones can be productive and you can never assume moderation is necessary per se.

[hdugger]

You're reaching a conclusion based entirely on a string of conjecture and hypotheticals. That's not science or fact, and there's no way to discuss it as such.

As an ex-moderator, I can tell you that if that were the only post you had ever posted on my forum, and I knew nothing else about you or Dingo, I would have deleted the post and removed your account. That's fact, but maybe not very relevant. I'm just letting you know how moderators deal with posts which do nothing to further discussion and seem to be carrying over a personal dispute from somewhere else. If, instead, knowing everything that I do know, you had posted "test," I would have let that go.

I have no information at all about the PMs or how the software deals with such things

Here's why the content of my SSo post is almost certainly not relevant (besides not violating any posting rules)...

If I had posted "test" over on SSo to make the point, the other posters there would assume I was testing my computer connection - no problem. But the moderator, because she read NSF, would know the actual purpose of that post.

I claim I still would have been put on permanent moderation for posting "test" despite any actual disruption of the peace over on SSo.

If that's the case then I would have been put on permanent moderation for what I wrote NOT on SSo but on another forum. Yes or no?

Also, there is no reason to remove my PMs unless they want to moderate those also.

[Pooka1]

As an ex-moderator, I can tell you that if that were the only post you had ever posted on my forum,

But it wasn't. I had posted a few hundred at that point IIRC. One was moved to start a new thread as it was considered by the one of the moderators as being an important discussion.

I have always tried to contribute to that forum. Unfortunately my (many) contributions that pointed out counterfactual material were seemingly viewed as uncivil per se. These concerned bracing dogma and some folks (not the moderators) simply won't have bracing dogma questioned. It was like there was no correct way to point it out or that was my impression at least. That was going nowhere fast which is the reason I stopped posting there.

[hdugger]

And by the way, if showing that someone is wrong as I was doing with that post in uncivil then I claim we can all go home and science should be disbanded.

Just to be consistent.

No, this has nothing to with science. It has to do with gossip. Both are involved in "facts," but one has to do with facts which are generally relevant and interesting, and the other has to do with facts which are only relevant if you're deeply interested in the personal goings-on of someone. If you don't believe me, try to get your "Dingo is wrong" experiment published in a scientific journal. I conjecture they'll reject it, not because it's not factual, but because noone cares.

This goes to the heart of the problem I have with some discussions here. What was it, exactly, that we were talking about when that personal side discussion came up? I suspect, given the players, that it was torso rotation, but it could have been something else. In any case, the side discussion was intense but, not to be too harsh here, profoundly uninteresting. Not to say that I don't care about anything that happens to you, but I really, truly do not care about the minutia of your disputes with Dingo. And it's a huge distraction from the more interesting discussions, to which you're a valuable participant.

[hdugger]

Yes, you were a valuable participant there. That was stated again and again by both the moderators and the other participants.

I believe, though, that even on a support forum it would be possible to have a passionate (but not personal) dispute about bracing. You'd have to move it out of the main discussion area (for the reasons I stated here - you don't want research clouding up the support function of the forum), and you'd have to maintain a civil tone. Again, I disagree about the civility of your tone in the bracing discussion. I thought both sides were pretty uncivil. Again, it was jarring, given the general tone of the forum.

But it wasn't. I had posted a few hundred at that point IIRC. One was moved to start a new thread as it was considered by the one of the moderators as being an important discussion.

I have always tried to contribute to that forum. Unfortunately my (many) contributions that pointed out counterfactual material were seemingly viewed as uncivil per se. These concerned bracing dogma and some folks (not the moderators) simply won't have bracing dogma questioned. It was like there was no correct way to point it out or that was my impression at least. That was going nowhere fast which is the reason I stopped posting there.