@KwanYingirl - I'm going to respond to some of the content here because, in my administrator capacity, it's my responsibility to do so. I consider diaries to be relatively protected space, but in this case, you've pulled it into a public space by tagging multiple people - hence, my need to respond.
I can't tolerate the thought that Anthony and the mods will be after me, but that is a deep fear. I have a right to express my opinions , but not here. If I could build a bubble to keep the bogie men out then maybe I could stay. Walking on egg shells is no way to live.
That thought really is under your control. I'm not saying this to 'blame' you; rather, to point out that no-one is coming after you. I'm here because I read all the threads, and there are a series of posts here speaking to a forum issue, not because I'm coming after you.
I've considered leaving too
@KwanYingirl . Two dear people have imo been forced off the forum.
@CrowFeather - it's important for me to say that no-one has been forced off the forum, ever. What happens is that members are given boundary lines by staff. When they choose to cross those lines repeatedly, and show no attempt to recognize the boundary, then there's very little to do except take action. Otherwise, there would be no structure within which we operate, at all. This site mimics a peer-led group support structure, and those set-ups cannot function without some boundaries. Does that mean that sometimes, people that we like and care about act out once too often, and still need to bear the consequence? Yes, unfortunately, it does.
And the fact is that that thread was randomly brutal in its regulations, which I am quite confused about.
@shimmerz - it was not random, and I'm not sure about 'brutal' either. It was incredibly clear, after about 20/25 fast-moving initial posts, that a thread that
@anthony started as a
stickied research thread - therefore, not just a personal post but a post as a creator on the site - was careening around, and that the discussion needed focus. I split off part of it, he split off another part. Anthony, again in his capacity as MyPTSD staff, was clear and blunt in his directive to members who were not showing a willingness to stay on the topic as presented. The bluntness was received as personal, abusive, unfair. But I see nothing more than a staff member being clear about their request, bluntly - which has always been allowed in the culture here.
I could not detect any inappropriate language in her posts.
What was inappropriate, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to spell this out, is this: there were repeated statements snarking at the moderated decision. Taking shots, really, and claiming to have been wronged. This was then spread over to other threads in other sub-forums, and despite clear requests to let it drop, it was not dropped.
There is a big difference between saying
- I don't agree with your decision, but I'll back down
- I don't understand your decision, and I would like to - please explain
- I don't agree with, like, or understand your decision, so I'm going to keep going.
It is the third that creates the problem, when boundaries have already been put down.
Anthony had it out for her and the way this forum is set up, its owner can say and do anything he feels like. Just because he's pissed off.
This is nonsense. Anthony had it out for no-one. And yes, he is the owner. He can say and do what he likes, but I can honestly tell you, he doesn't act capriciously. He has learned over time that clear warnings with consequences to follow are the most effective way to be as fair as possible to everyone. There's a commitment to transparency here that is admirable.
And so, much as I would like to look the other way, I can't do that with this issue.
I will ask you (all of you) once, here, to stop re-hashing what was a considered and justified decision by the MyPTSD leadership.
If you choose to continue, you will be given a temporary or permanent ban, depending on the scale of your actions.
This applies to anyone furthering this topic.
If there are questions my post has raised - for anyone reading this thread - you can ask them in the Help Desk, start a thread there.
I do mean
questions - not commentary. There has been enough said on the matter, the actions were justified, and no, this is not a dictatorship but it's also not a democracy. There are times to solicit the group opinion - when there is something to debate. There is nothing to debate here, it's merely standard practice.
I'm tagging
@Ms Spock,
@shimmerz ,
@CrowFeather ,
@Hope4Now ,
@JEKBreatheandBelieve ,
@seedling,
@Oasis,
@Justmehere @rainy_daze ,
@Saetva ,
@Cj77 ,
@Lionheart777 ,
@Anrish,
@Anarchy to the thread, because they were tagged earlier. Tagging
@Changeling, because of earlier involvement.
I'll leave you with a final thought: in this environment, where we are all behind the cover of a screen, things can sometimes get more raw. Conversely, there is no-one in an environment like this that has power over you,
if you choose not to give it. I don't mean the power to enforce rules - I mean the power to create fear, intimidation, anxiety, anger. I see people mix up enforcing rules with enforcing control, often. It's not punitive - there are no more ways I can possibly say that. I say it as a fact, with all the integrity I can muster. I'm a softer communicator than Anthony, but our understanding and enforcement of the policy is the same, as it is with all staff; when it's not, staff enforcement is rectified.
I've said a lot here, and it might be incendiary on first read. I encourage you (all of you) to read again, for clarity, before jumping to a response. And again: if you have
questions,
take them to the help desk.
