Hi Kimmio,

 

 

I expect it does have its implications.  Though as the report points out:

 

Can a similar outcome happen in the absence of a campaign (which appears deliberate)?

 

For example:  If I decide that I am going to be offensive I can expect that folk will start to avoid contact with me.  They may not co-ordinate their avoidance with others.  They may not set out to dimish my value and presence but certainly if they do not engage me I might find my value diminishes as does my presence.

 

More obviously, here at WonderCafe.ca we have had members labelled trolls.  The application of such a label might fit the understanding of ostracism.  Particularly if the label is not applied appropriately.  Calls not to feed the troll might also fit the premise of a campaign to dimish the value and presence of individuals so labelled.

 

And yet, trolls exist.

 

It should also be pointed out that when the do not feed the troll strategy is called for here at WonderCafe.ca it is not one that is overwhelmingly supported by the wider community.

 

Because of interaction I have had with some members I am more reluctant to engage them in conversation.  Some I actively ignore.  I have never suggested that anyone else do the same so that I feel supported.

 

I feel that I am within my rights as a member here at WonderCafe.ca to not engage any member to the same degree I might engage another.

 

In the Church that is a bit more difficult in that I cannot stand at the door shaking everyone's hand and snubbing someone else I am currently at odds with.  In an electronic discussion unless I am directly addressed by the person I am choosing to ignore there is no evidence that I actually am ignoring the other.

 

And if I am ignoring the other and it becomes obvious that is so is my reason for ignoring just as obvious?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Regarding social groups online...Who are 'trolls' whose intent is to purposely disturb and upset people and create discord in a community- and who are people sincerely expressing themselves and their point of view about something no matter if it deviates from the norm that could be taking a personal emotional risk to do so? Who are people seeking to be deliberately mean and/ or rude, and who are people whose ability to reign in their communication skills perhaps goes down the more emotional they become and socially isolated they get from the group? Who is finding pushing the buttons of the group enjoyable, and who is even more hurt by the enflamed response- sincerely has something to say but is being shut out or disregarded and hurt? They are different. How do you determine that? I think that needs to be determined, though. I suspect it involves listening and reaching out, rather than shutting out and turning away- even if there's something else we'd rather be doing. How would you go about determining the difference?

There comes a point, too, when someone takes steps to prove that bullying, whether overt or silent, has taken place- could find themselves further isolated by the group who has now identified with the aggressor.

Kimmio, to me, this comes down to people not agreeing with you because you make bad arguments and you often appeal only to emotion. People are not going to agree with you because you are emotional and insist you are right. Won't happen.
.
If we were to try to be hyper-accepting and hyper-inclusive, then we'd be forced to embrace Berserk and Stephen and others who were only here to lecture and disrupt. Yes, those are subjective calls, but we don't have the resources to put people on trial. We can't have a long list of rules that nobody reads, and we should not have moderators acting like forum police, looking for infractions.
.
There are times when rules are useful, but the best moderation is when the community lets a poster know they've gone too far. I think some things deserve strong rebukes, and I think a form of ostracism comes I handy in cases like Stephen's, when it's clear to most of us that he was just here to deliver amateur sermons and regurgitate scripture. If you take admin action like Aaron did, now he feels martyred for his faith by authority. If his audience tunes him out, that's more effective. To me, at least.

Any list of rules and ethics should be short and sweet. Let's keep this simple, and create a place where we want to spend time by our actions, not by heavy moderation and a laundry list of rules.

I never suggested a laundry list of rules. Just for an ethics and values statement. It's not enforceable, just something that the group identifies with and considers when making decisions and carrying out what they are there to do or be as a group.

You can throw out the 'bad arguments' tag line, if you say it like a broken record it gets into people's sub-conscious. Doesn't make it true, it just persuades people not to listen. That's actually bullying.

As for Stephen Booth, I got the sense several times that he was sincere, and he was troubled, but that he was unable to express himself very well and the more he was ignored, the more he reacted badly- maybe out of spite. Nevertheless, I think he was a hurt individual. I didn't get the sense that many in the community wanted to actually try to help him. It might have been worth a try.

I dunno, Kimmio. I think it is just like real life. We make up our minds about those we meet and act accordingly. When it comes to "trolls" or those I believe to be deliberate trouble-makers I just ignore them. 

 

There are some members whose posts interest me more than others and I pay more attention to them. 

Kimmio, you make a lot of bad arguments. When a lot of people disagree with you, we're bullying you, and when we walk away from an argument that is going nowhere, we're ostracizing you, which is bullying you. Are we supposed to lie and agree with you? Is that preferable?

There have been people I suspect are trolls, who pop in to deliberately upset, but they have gotten praise here. I've been stupid enough to engage them anyway, operating on the assumption that everyone's human underneath whatever protective shell they wear. I don't know either anymore.

First, try to put yourself in their shoes. Whichever 'side' they're on. Don't dismiss their feelings or joke about them to win favour from the group if you can tell they're hurt. If, by empathizing, you still don't agree, try to present your side in a caring manner. If you truly don't have an opinion based on any work or life experience and having bothered to read up on different perspectives, don't take sides with someone just because they come across as having more power. That's what I would suggest to you.

Kimmo, you make presumptions about sides when people disagree with you.

 

You also throw out accusations in a passive aggresive manner, such as this thread.

 

I can infer that you are referring to my and others lack of engagement with you on posts as ostracization and bullying.

 

I will tell you that I do not engage as the pattern of behaviour is predictable, just as this thread is.

 

In the values and ethics statement, I seem to recall that chansen suggested you start a thread on the topic or initiate a conversation starting with a sample one that people could respond to.  I don't recollect seeing it.

 

It is much easier to take potshots at people then it is to roll up your sleeves and start the work of investigation, then, proposal and consultation and consensus building.

 

So, for me, i tend to engage with folks who will dialogue back and will not take everything personal.

 

 

 

Example of ostracization which occurs is someone with very bad b/o.  They may be great to converse with but the odour gets in the way of the communication.  It isn't their fault, you can make suggestions, but at some point, people eventually just drift away.

I made my feelings known in a very straight up manner with examples and that didn't help any. I think you are passive aggressive yourself, Pinga. You make lots of innuendos about 'folks' when those 'folks' know who you are talking about but others might not clue in. You can be rude, in a dismissive sort of way. And I've never once seen you reach out to apologize. I am quite concerned about bullying happening on a new site. This thread wasn't passive aggressive. It was intended to illicit straight forward honest discussion about forms of bullying without coming on and deliberately starting a thread by calling out who I think has a tendency to bully. I am also aware that even bullies are human and have feelings and stresses of their own and I would like to find resolutions.

I'm wearing deodorant by the way. ;)

And Pinga...I started a thread called Framework for Universal Codes of Ethics.

Kimmio it is passive-aggressive.

 

Whose behaviour are you concerned about.  I  have a sense it is mine.  Are there others that you feel ostracize you?  Name them. let them deal with it straight up.

 

Can you give a specific example where your posts were ignored.  If you like, I am happy to address them one at a time as to why it wasn't the primary focus of the thread and I didn't respond.  I can also likely find a zillion other posts of people that I don't respond to focussing instead on the post in the response that tweaked my synapses and took the conversation further on.  

I am quite happy to have that dialogue on this thread or another if you so desire it.  Do the homework, bring your case forward.

 

I also have shared with you multiple times on line, that your constant editting, and reeditting is something that results in my not reading your posts.  That is a personal style which I get is important for you, but, like an irritating voice, causes me to ignore the posts.  I have been straight up about sharing that information with you.  Nothing passive aggressive about my behaviour.

You will find that I am blunt and direct.  I have found that to be the easiest way of dealing with folks who are driving discord, hinting about poor behaviour or ethics.  

 

I get that sometimes there is no positive outcome.  Ignore your posts you will say we are ignoring you.  Dismanting your argument will result in you saying we are bullying.  Questioning your logic, will result in another accusation.  

 

So, if you want to discuss specific examples of ostracization, please bring it forward.

That's just it. I can't. I know it to be true but it is easily refutable because it's subtle - and I would have to go through several threads and I'm not going to. There may be specific examples I can give but but I'd rather not. I know what will happen, a tag team is what will happen. Rather than fight with me, maybe people can just think about this in general going forward? With or without me. For everyone's sake. And I'm not going to one by one start implicating other people who were persuaded to go along. I don't want to focus on the past, I want to try to salvage a way to move forward in understanding. One thread in particular I'm not going to revisit because the first time was traumatic enough and I know the tough attitude I will be met with- it might break me again. Read the article. The best I can do is address it in general by posting an article like the one in the OP.

Again, Kimmio, you need to take ownership of your own emotions and how you read them.

 

i saw that you in the ethics thread (which I just found), accussed Paradox of arguing with you. Gosh, that wasn't an argument, that was a dialogue.  Paradox is the least likely person that I have seen to be argumentative.  

 

So, when you feel those emotions come along of feeling ostracized, own them...look at them. see who is being engaged.  compare your posts.  Ask for assistance of someone who does post and get responses and listen to their wisdom.

Hi Kimmio,

 

 

Who indeed?  How long do we stand around getting slagged before we know which is which?

 

Why should I, in taking a step for my own personal comfort, have to worry about being accused of participating in the ostracism of somebody who has slagged me?

 

How much does the personal emotional risk of another trump my comfort and my own personal emotional risk?

 

 

Also a good question.  

 

Does being able to seperate the one from the other mean that I can oly be hurt by one?

 

I had a friend once throw a rock and hit me.  It was quite accidental.  I eventually forgave him.  It was a week before the swelling and bruising went down.  It was never repeated so forgiveness was never tested.  If the same thing happened the next day and the next I expect it wouldn't have been long before I referred to him as an ex-friend and just stayed away.

 

I have another friend who is quite clumsy and group projects with him involved are best when we are moving pillows rather than pianos.

 

And those are friends not potential friends.  It it is a new acquaintance dealing out pain and suffering that effectively shuts the doors to a deeper friendship.

 

 

Not sure I am following here.  The juxtaposition of how an individual is percieved seems slightly off.

 

Are you saying that the same person enjoys pushing buttons or, is hurt by the response of folk to those who enjoy pushing buttons?

 

 

Personally?

 

There are few that I have not attempted to engage here.  Where that engagement has gone badly I tend to limit engagement.  If I feel particularly abused in a certain thread I tend to point out that I have had my fill and will be stepping away from that discussion.

 

It the engagement with that poster goes sour in other threads then I start to wonder if any engagement with that poster is risky and what risks am I willing to take.

 

When it becomes evident that nothing I say is going to be heard.  I no longer have interest in continuing a conversation.  I have enough walls around here I can chat with.

 

 

I agree with you.  I just wonder how much listening and reaching out those on the recieving end of hurtful comments are going to do.  Most folk are pain aversive and when something hurts they stop doing it.

 

 

Engagement and observation.  There may be a fundamental difference in the motivations to the deliberate and the accidental troll.  There is not an appreciable difference between the pain that they inflict.  If someone hostile to me kicks me in the shins it hurts just as much as when somebody not hostile to me kicks me in the shins.

 

After several kicks to the shin odds are strong that there is hostile intent.  And if there isn't I'm still a fool if I sit there hurting and do nothing to stop it for fear that the one doing all the kicking might feel diminished in some way.

 

In fact, I feel rather diminished when the kicks keep coming in spite of my taking steps to stop getting kicked at all.

 

At some point I really don't consider what the other wants and how I might be able to provide it.  It just go where I won't be kicked.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

I apologized to her, didn't I? And perhaps you can understand that my defenses may have been up a little lately.

Here is that link:  http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/framework-universal-codes-ethics-link

From that thread: 

 

 

 

The thread started about ethics and became about your feelings of the site and behaviour in the site with references to gangs...

 

 

Sometiems people take a thread off topic or make it personal.  In this case, you took the thread off topic and made it personal.  You did make an attempt to bring it back on track, but, if you like, we can discuss why you might see avoidance of that thread based on where it went.

What I am saying, John, is a troll enjoys pushing buttons. They revel in it. Then there are those 'accidental trolls' as you put it (is that what you think of me?), maybe just hurt people, that are sincere but the way they communicate or what they communicate isn't well understood, and even in disagreement there is no attempt to empathize with how they feel and ask compassionately stated questions for clarity. Just a snub or a counter attack. Instead, the other party is triggered, and the rest of the group sides with them. Probably what results, unfortunately, is kicked shins on both sides.

Context, Pinga. You didn't include the comment I misinterpreted.

I apologized to p3 and brought the thread back on track- or she did. We both moved on with the discussion.

chemgal responded after the fact if I recall, and I responded to her question honestly. That the thread was 'derailed' is not how I percieve it because it speaks to reasons why I posted the suggestion for discussion in the first place. And real human conversations in a social context don't stick neatly to one topic at a time. Staff meetings do.

Do I have any personal reasons for why I like the idea of a group who can identify by an agreed upon set of universal ethical principles? Yes, I do. Are there reasons for me to be reluctant to join a group without that understanding? Yes, there is. Darn right, there is. There are, I mean.

And yeah. I got a little personal. I have feelings about what's happening. I said so. That's me.

As far as I can tell, I am owning my feelings. I put them out there. Big time. That is why I am having such an internal struggle with whether or not to move ahead with WC2. I'd almost as soon not go ahead than go through pain staking attempts to explain my struggle and be picked apart personally for it. I wonder if other people are owning their feelings and behaviours, and from what ethical place do they determine if they are or not? Putting up a thread about Universal Ethics and another about Bullying shouldn't be met with or encourage more back and forth attacks. I was hoping for contructive dialogue like I had with p3. At least she thought about it and responded respectfully. I had to apologize to her, because like I said, I guess my defenses are high these days.

Hi Kimmio,

 

 

I'm not sure where this is coming from.  

 

If this thread was about you specifically I missed that

 

 

Maybe not at the level of intent..  If a rock is thrown and we aren't really sure why will it hurt less than the rock thrown we know the intention for?  And if we are the injured party why do we bear more responsibility for sorting things out than the one who threw the rock?

 

 

Disagreement is disagreement.  Some handle it well others don't.

 

In any disagreement sides will be taken.

 

Of course, when folk are injured there will be others who take sides for different reasons.

 

I don't think that either phenomenon constitutes ostracism.  If folk are saying do not engage X because X does this then that possibly is the beginning of the campaign.  It lasts as long as folk agree to not engage.

 

Even if disagreement is continuous it fails to qualify as ostracism if the disagreement is respectful and there is no co-ordinated effort to diminish those disagreed with.

 

If I see two posters fighting with one another I don't have to take sides.  I don't have to participate at all.  Making that observation will inform my opinion about both posters.

 

 

It wouldn't be surprising.  The effect multiplies though as new conflicts are layered on.

 

For example:  I notice A and B kicking the stuffing out of each others shins.  I decide not to take a side.  Later on I get the stuffing kicked out of my shins by A.  Will B take my side?  Possibly.  What happens when G and D come to my rescue?  Does A decide that I am owed an apology or does A decide that G and D are now part of an effort to cause A pain?

 

And if after I get the stuffing kicked out of my shins by A I decide that I am staying the heck away from A how does that become me attacking A and undermining A's value?

 

By my recollection I have walked out of two threads since October.  I was clear about my motivations for doing so.  I owned my emotions and my responses.  How other people felt about that isn't my problem to solve.  

 

Grace and peace to you

John

Do you see these as attacks Kimmio? 

I was hoping to have dialogue about specific events and review them.

 

You see, I have a sense that if folks such as myself don't respond, they are ostracizing you, and if they do respond they are arguing with you.....unless they say "great post Kimmio, I 100% agree".  

 

The challenge is how to have a dialogue about something that is meaningful to you  and allow room for breathing and discord.  Can you  error on the side of presuming the person has good identions and is not personally attacking you.

 

As you know, in a post, I referred in the funeral thread for chansen to the probability that some folks would make inane comments to him.   You sent me a series of wondermail  over 30min where you accussed me of being cruel to you and demanding a retraction , then corrections to typos in the mail, then, an apology as you realized you misunderstood and my comment was about being attending the funeral, then a further comment stating you were over-emotional.  By the time I read the email, 4hrs had passed. My response was simply that you needed to take a break, get some sleep, work on perspective. You responded stating you were in agreement and supplied lots of private reasons for the emotions and listing challenges you were facing

 

I have tried to give you room, as I sense I am a magnet to your anxiety.  That seems to be driving you into feelings of ostracization.

 

So here is my question.

I am not sure how to proceed in a way that isn't flint to your kindling.  If I dont' respond to a thread, it is ostracization. If i put any post, it is subject to you thinking it is about you personally...(honestly, you do not take up space in my head). If I respond to a post of yours, then I am slagging you.

What would you like me to do?

 

 

 

 

John,

About the rock throwing friend of yours. I guess the difference between you and I there, is if a friend accidentally hit me with a rock there'd be nothing to forgive them for in my book (although I do have to wonder what the purpose is in throwing rocks- it's only fun until...). Apology not even necessary, but aknowledgement that it hurt and a hand with dressing the wound is still appreciated. However, if I accidentally hit a friend with a rock and their response is to throw another rock at me, that will take some forgiveness on my part and vice versa if I were the one who was deliberate. May even require a mediator.

Pinga. I aknowledged that soon after I said it- immediately after I realized, and apologized that I misread your comment. In a private communication. You just broke confidentiality about something and someone else may now get hurt unnecessarily and I look bad but it was actually at the time expressed because I care about chansen. There is a reason why I didn't get into specifics the first time you brought that up. publically. You should know better. It wasn't appropriate and could be hurtful to more than just me. And so can you see why my trust for you is on shakey ground?

Kimmio, I share it as it is a pattern of behaviour.  Putting it in wondermail does not mean it is confidential.  

An attack is an attack, putting it in wondermail does not mean that it isn't an attack.

 

So, what would you like me to do?  In any of the spots where you have felt emotionally ostracized (an example would be good), let me know how I or others could have altered our behaviour.  Specific examples would be good for review.

 

I see you attempted to give an answer to chansen.  Are you suggesting that chansen agrees with folks who he perceives have more power or takes sides with them?  Are you also stating that chansen has a habit of responding out of a place of emotion rather than experience or knowledge?  I haven't seen either of these things occur, so I am interested in examples.

No, Pinga. And why do you think, when I thought you were talking about me I sent you a private email? Because I wanted to address you person to person privately, not post it on a that thread in the middle of a very emotional circumstance. That's why. It wasn't an attack. It was addressing a concern- that turned out to be an over reaction. I was about as emotional as I've ever been here at that time. I aknowledge. And so you choose to drag that up of all things. Totally out of bounds. That is why I do not trust you. We live in different worlds.

Umm, Kimmio, would you like me to post it, so others can see the attack and pattern. You see, the wondermail can't be changed like your posts are.  

Chansen can think about it and respond himself if he wants to.

Again, do you have specific examples of what you perceive is ostracization or bullying.

Do you have specific protocols you would like us to follow with you which we can review for those threads or future conversations.

Ok, so if the response to Chansen cannot be discussed, nor can examples ofr Chansen be discussed by others, please provide specific examples in reference to me, so that I can learn what works with posting with you.

No it can't Pinga.

Nothing works if I feel that when I express something personal the person taking it in doesn't care about me. If this is a community. If this was the comment threads on CNN that's a different story.

Understood, if you are taking it personally and all responses you read as apersonal attack then there is little anyone can do.

 

So, what are your recommendations regarding engaging in threads which you start or are participating in.

Hi Kimmio,

 

 

Interesting.  I used the phrase "eventually forgave" and somehow I'm different.

 

I didn't mention anything about the time span between getting hit and forgiving.  I also didn't mention anything aobut the forgiveness being difficult.

 

More clarity then.

 

I'm building something out of sand suddenly my left calf feels like it has been kicked by a horse (and yeah I'm speaking from experience) and I am writhing in the sand wondering what the hell just happened.  That is when I notice the rock.

 

My friend is right there and the apologies are flowing so fast I can't make out what he is even saying.

 

I'm also in shock from the injury.

 

After a while the pain in my calf subsides and I start to clue in as to what happened.  It was a simple miscalculation.  I was near the water a big rock would make a big splash and soak me.

 

No warnings though come on.

 

Why would I warn you if I was trying to soak you?

 

Couldn't you tell that you weren't going to hit the water?

 

By the time I figured it out there was no time to warn you.

 

You could have killed me.

 

His face was white enough to communicate the fact that the idea had crossed his mind.

 

You're a spaz (apologies I understand the entymology now but not then).

 

There was never a moment when our friendship wavered.  Never a moment when forgiveness was in doubt.

 

Still, his sense of shame and his repentence were deserving of a response and forgiveness was the best I could give.  Had the plan gone as he envisioned it there would have been nothing but laughter.

 

He miscalculated.  That miscalculation caused me tremendous pain.  Once the pain was out of the way and I could concentrate on what was important (for him it was a definite need to be forgiven) I gave it.

 

I don't as a rule demand apologies.

 

Once someobdy genuinely offers one I accept it.

 

 

I'm curious.  If forgiveness is not necessary on behalf of you who is hit.  What is your response if the one who threw the rock has no remorse?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Kimmio - I wade in here with trepidation ... dubious about how you will interpret my words. 

 

In various threads in wondercafe, over various periods of time, I have read your posts that indicate you feel maltreated by others - sometimes it is a situation here online, other times something you relate from a real life situation.  Feeling misunderstood seems to appear as a recurrent theme.  

 

 Often you write about your dismay and proclamation about how others "should" behave and in your perception they do not.  

 

At times I do read a definite argumentative tone in your words, whether or not that is what you intend, I do not know and cannot judge.   Debate, discussion and argumentativeness are quite different to me, mainly in regard to the level of respect conferred, and willingness to learn.  

 

 I also read in your words assumptions of motive of others - and this is something that would have to be conjecture. None of us can know why other speak or write as they do - I can only know that of myself. 

 

None of these are one-off incidents; they are patterns I have observed, and I own them as my own observations.  I offer them for your reflection only, and won't argue them.   You are free to consider them, or reject them at will.  They may have merit, they may not.  My hope is that you might pause, reflect, consider and learn. 

Okay. John, I might as well let you know that in a recent thread I felt hurt by your response. Doubly hurt. Hurt because I have also had real experiences and real concerns from real life that I felt were being dismissed, and because you took my comments personally *** Edit: which I did not intend. They were my overall point of view not directed at you***and I was hurting because you were hurting and I didn't know how to make it better.

I like the scenario about the rock, but, i am curious if the analogy shifts to a baseball.

pitcher throws decent  pitch .  You can hit the ball or not.

 

you crowd the plate, you are in the  pitchers zone.  if you get hit, is it their fault or yours?

pitcher throws a ptich that gets a bit wild and is in line with your body, you can step away from the ball, do nothing and get hit or intentionally move to get hit worse....you make the call, the control is in your hands...how badly do you want the walk

 

pitcher throws a pitch that is intentionally meant to injure...hopefully you can side step the hit, but can you side step your emotional reaction and the team's awareness..there will be consequences of the pitcher and the batter and the game in general.

 

 

Most pitches which hit are not intentional..and sometimes they are.  You always have a choice in how you respond.

 

**EDITTED to add more white space.

 

So, basically, I can't defend your charaterizations of the situation then carolla. So you leave me high and dry- or like a kid in a time out. That's the sort of thing I would hope you would be willing to discuss in private as a concerned person talking adult to adult. I'm not one of your patients. That's how I interpret your words. Not as a 'friend' or acquaintance in a community, not someone who may have legitimate reasons for how she feels in life, but a subject of your observation that you've never let your guard down and talked to me about human to human- equals- so I feel snubbed or power tripped. It may not be your intention but that's how I feel about it.

I mean, when I express a real life experience, several, and I don't feel any empathy coming from the responder.

Kimmio, we are all experienced folks with different levels of experience both professionally and personally.  

 It is good to see that you are owning your emotions on this one,

 

So, how do you wish people to respond to you?

 

 

 

Kimmio, your lack of feeling empathy does not mean that empathy does not exist.  Then again, if I am opening a discussion on a topic of personal loss then I would expect empathy, room for all is about empathy.  A discussion on religion / politicis / ethics does not require empathy, it requies dialogue.  It is debate and argument, consensus and disagreement. It is flippant, sometimes funny, but, empathy is not the overarching emotion requeted or expected.

[quote=Pinga]

Kimmio, I share it as it is a pattern of behaviour.  Putting it in wondermail does not mean it is confidential.  

hi guys,
I am not sure what's happening here between the two of you, but if there is one rule for the new site that I would insist on, that would be exactly that:
Wondermails are private unless both parties agree to publish them.

It actually scares me a bit that Pinga as one of the possible moderators said above statement.

I feel all discussions require some degree of empathy. All of human interaction. I guess that's where the ethical principles discussion comes in. If it is not a priority principle in a community- then it's not a community appropriate for sensitive people.

Yes - I understand that is how you feel.  Defense is uncalled for.  These actually ARE things I would say to a friend, to someone I care about ... with the same hope that they may listen and reflect.   If I cared not, I would simply not bother to post in the first place. 

Hi Kimmio,

 

 

Okay.  You felt hurt.  How did you deal with that.

 

Now is the first time I'm hearing about it.  I'm not sure which thread you reference so I'm at a loss as to the injury I am apparently responsible for.

 

 

Are you referring to the "Prayers are a sign of mental illness thread"?

 

I believe I was clear on what I thought about that thread and why I would no longer participate in it.

 

Yes there was an exchange between the two of us.  A day after I responded to your post on my misconceptions I came to the conclusion that I was too close to the topic and I left.  That is me taking responsibility for my stuff.

 

I don't need you or anyone else to take responsibility for my stuff.

 

And when I walk out of a thread.  I walk out of a thread.  I don't nurse grudges and wait to use them as ammunition somewhere else.  That simply is unfair.  If I have a problem with something posted in a specific thread that is where I deal with it.

 

I'm not black-balling anybody in that thread.

 

I'm not keeping score.

 

I said I had enough and I was going to find another discussion that I could be happy with.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

#1.  I am currently functioning as an admin, not a moderator, two different roles.

 

#2.  Here is why wondermail is always open to public disclosure.

 

Anyone can send anything to wondermail.

They can bully them, they can beat them up. they can sexually harass them. They can send racist or homophobic remarks to them.

Anything you send to me in wondermail or email is in the public domain unless you and I have an agreement to not disclose.

I would never agree to a non-disclosure agreement on something as wide open as "anything sent by wondermail".  

That just is asking for issues..both legally and relationally.

If you have an issue with that, dont' send me things via wondermail

Now, if you are curious about what I would sign as a non-disclosure.

As a person, I would not share something publicly that someone had stated needed to be private  as long as the disclosure dint' cross a legal boundary. ie, if you said you needed to share something privately with me about your relationship and then you told me you murdered someone, i would disclose. My personal account would be different from my elevated account of admin.  that is best practice...for lots and lots of reasons.

 

In the role of admin, it would follow common standards of practice for an admin role based on technology capabilities. I build those kind of rules all the time regarding financial and privileged access.  Access to third party require higher level intervention and approval.It is why you isolate moderators and admin generally.