Open Disclosure Policy To Forum Members - Yes or No?

[anthony]

As members who have been upon this forum for some months would certainly know, I have an open disclosure policy surrounding actions I take upon this forum. Now this originally was not the case as I kept all forum admin matters quite private, nor did I explain myself to another if questioned about the matter, privately or publicly.

Members had voiced their opinions over the last couple of years bringing about why I was not accountable to explain my actions to all members as the members often become quite tight nit, friends, and what affects one often affects others. So I agreed with the majority and went to open disclosure, where I publicly outline events that occur with members in the chat general forum.

Now membership changes, people come and go, so I will put it back up for debate once again, where the majority decision will decide whether I stop open disclosure and all administrative matters will no longer be divulged to members publicly or privately.

Some believe public notification is responsible as people become good friends, some then think its not. The other side is some then think I may be hiding personal agenda's or the like, some don't care what I do with admin issues.

Either way, I respect the majority opinion of the forum, hence why here we are at a vote this time round, not just a thread. The majority decision will decide whether future policy is kept private or public. This poll will always be the deciding factor from here on out, so if the membership changes and wants open disclosure again, the poll would have to clearly outline this to one side or the other.

Measurement of Majority: Majority decision is a clear 10 vote swing one way or the other.

Once that vote is clear, if the vote becomes much closer at any time or has not yet met this minimum factor, the existing method stands. Example: if majority is "open disclosure" then "non-disclosure" will not occur until a minimum of a 20 point swing the other way has been met, being from +10 open disclosure to +10 non-disclosure.

[batgirl]

I think there should be open disclosure but that it should be discreet at the same time. I think there's probably some situations where revealing all the details of why a person is moderated or banned would be detrimental and would make matters worse. The privacy of members still needs to be respected in some situations.

[anthony]

Absolutely concur... a persons private affairs remain private unless they drag those affairs upon the forum.

[Lisa]

I vote yes but I think I agree with Evie's point of view.

It also reminds me of what not to do to see the rules in action. And it also reassures me when you explain specifically that you are not hard to please, as long as people obide by rules and this is provided by example by going public. I think reading that would make it easier for me should I ever do something wrong to simply face up to it... if that makes any sense? I agree it should be kept discreet and privacy should be respected, but it's good to see the matter of fact honest approach too. For me I think it makes it easier for people to see its simply about rules, and not 'picking on anyone'.

[anthony]

Absolutely Lisa....

[cactus_jack]

Anthony, you're the boss here. I ain't paying you for this fine service you provide, nor is very many people that I know of. So if you say it's public, then it's public. If you say it's private, then it's private. Asking our opinion on this is akin to asking us if it offends us that you enjoy eating fried mutton steaks in the privacy of your home. We're guests, simple.

And for the record I think that Anthony's doing a damn good job here.

[anthony]

Thanks mate, much appreciated to have your feedback.

[Lisa]

I just have something I'd like to add...I've thought about what I want as a member, but not about what the member being moderated may want. And so, the only thing I want to add is that I think there needs to be sensitivity towards this when it is done publicly, and maybe for each public post on this issue, there needs to be statement about what the person needs to do to get out of moderation if the decision is not permanent. And that individual cases do need to be considered on an individual basis as well.

For example, Bec's moderation issue wasn't posted publicly initially by you... I am assuming that was for a reason. Perhaps this should have been kept, and any members who had an issue around it PMd you privately? It's just that if something is going to be announced in public for people to comment on, then there is little point when only half the story can be posted. We could see Bec was moderated already and the full reasons for this were not open to the public, and I respected that. But a public discussion happened anyway which was pointless as nobody could understand the full reasons exactly. So I think that had no purpose really and just caused bad feeling, and perhaps in future if reasons are going to be kept private, there is no point in having a post open to discussion? That doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted as such... but maybe a locked thread for moderations that are not fully explained in public? It saves pointless discussions around it.

I also did feel that Bec's moderation post became quite personal towards her as a person, rather than simply stating what she had done wrong in her actions. I would rather, if matters are going to be brought into the public, it was kept to the point of what the member has done wrong in their actions, and how they have been instructed to rectify matters and redeem their priviladges.

I'm sorry to bring all that up again. But I figured it was relevant to this, and is just my personal opinion!

I do second Cactus Jack... ultimately its your forum. if people d on't like how its run, they can leave. However, it is nice that we are being considered in your decisions. I do think you're doing an amazing job... I have realised one thing recently. I wouldn't want to be owner of a forum... it seems to be such hard work, and it is impossible to please everyone! Someone will always have a problem with something here. Though I do like the idea of majority voting over particular issues. But the final decision is yours and I respect that also.

[hodge]

I agree with Evie and Lisa - discretion, but open disclosure for purposes of communicating reasons for forum rules, etc.

[ruddy]

I didn't vote. I think both answers could be correct. I guess that's a vote for discretion.

[anthony]

Lisa, I agree. Veiled dragged the bec issue onto the forum, and that was the only reason I answered the limited aspects I did, as comes back to Evies post here regarding privacy, hence why members do not have an idea about the full scope, nor will from myself. Again, I only answered what I did due to my acknowledgement to members for open disclosure barring privacy issues.

No moderation is permanent, all members who get moderated can undo their own damage and its not by apologising or the like, its simply undoing what they did wrong in the first place. Prove otherwise, prove you can follow rules and work within the community and not against it as a whole.

A member won't go into moderation challenging me, arguing with me or telling me their two cents.... it all slides off me and I don't mind good healthy debate. What I do mind though is when an individual takes upon themselves to create or do their own thing outside of the forum general rules. This is why I minimised rules back to a bare basics level, so there are common rules that apply to us all, and outside of those go hard as I acknowledge what PTSD is and what it entails.

Very rarely would I ever ban someone, again, as mentioned in the bec thread I was the least likely person to do such, instead it was another who wanted to ban a person. Spammers get banned immediately, no issue with that one. A person who argues with me doesn't get banned or moderated. A person who comes on the forum as a troll, in other words, they try and disrupt the forum entirely towards all members, they will be moderated.

Members will typically not ever require to be moderated unless they break some basic rules, such as:
Posting here in anger constantly
Posting here when drunk or drugged constantly
Posting here where the posts are so hard to read they disrupt thread topics
Fail to comply with the basic rules of grammar, spelling, linking, etc.
Lie, cheat or be deceptive in nature to me or members surrounding issues (not trauma therapy obviously)No member need be an A+ speller, as you can use tools such as Firefox with a dictionary that will help you, thus negate the issue for the most part. I compensate for that, I provide links to the tools to help members who struggle in those areas, I have lessened rules to a bare minimum so the community as a whole is more relaxed and easy.

So in essence, very rare for a member to be moderated or banned, unless that member wants to be an individual and not follow simple community rules.

[Claire]

I voted yes and totally agree with Evie and Lisa. I too found the whole Bec thread a bit strange. I think we need openess to help with trust but not when it gets into a debate when no-one knows the all facts. Certainly not when it gets personal because its a waste of everyone's time and energy. I've felt this when others previously were banned or moderated. Ultimately though, it is your forum.

[Lisa]

Thank you for the clear post outlining everything Anthony... very much appreciated.

[anthony]

Well, I think we have our answer with a 20 point lead. If it swings the other way at any stage, then it will change, until then.... open disclosure continues.

[rt1967]

i think you do amazing job on this site ,i think whatever you doing you got reasons for that ,take me 20 years make decision sum up weigh up info and you can never ever please everyone i trusting you got peoples good intentions at heart and you know what works best whatever that vote is

[tude]

I view open-disclosure the same as honest, mutual communication. As such, I think open-disclosure can only enhance the credibilty and integrity of the forum as it does in individuals, relationships, and even professional organizations. That being said, I would hope to see this forum carry this out in a manner in which is neither attacking nor defensive. That's my opinion which I don't give very often. As the saying goes, "The older I get, the less I know."

Humbly, tude

[anthony]

I view open-disclosure the same as honest, mutual communication. As such, I think open-disclosure can only enhance the credibilty and integrity of the forum
That's pretty much how I view it also Tude.... though I leave the option to members, as it is a community and I try to keep it as one with as much community input as possible where required. Majority rules....

[Marlene]

This is not my playground...not my rules. If I play here I need to abide by the rules. If the rules get to be, what I consider, out of line...then I find another playground to play. Simple. At least to me.

Lisa

[Grama-Herc]

I voted for open disclosure and I believe that Marlene said it best.

[upstream]

I like the idea of open disclosure with discretion and sensitivity.

[Thornyrose]

Hi
Its hard to vote on this as I have only just registered and have not gained an understanding of the nature of the forums useage. I would like to think that my privacy will be respected and that if I should do something wrong, discrete guidance would be given. I hope that this forum will help me through some of the isolation, confusion and stigma of PTSD that I am experiencing, and would not like to upset/offend anyone... as PTSD can magnify my feelings of fear and vulnerability, I would not like to worry that my personal information/situation will be made public without my consent.
Lindz

[DIEGO]

I liked what Marlene said...I think if you dont want ur laundry out there then keep it in...we have talked alot about RULES how about PTSD...its really messing me up...how about u guys?

[Kathy]

Welcome to the forum Diego, lovely to have you!

[Portabella]

I agree Open for sure.....

[baileysemt]

Well I messed up.

I voted No. But I should have voted Yes.

I voted No in that I want moderation to be a bit less heavy-handed. I think the explanations provided for why someone is being moderated, are needlessly detailed and far too personal. The feeling I get from these posts is that this person is being publicly flogged and feathered. IMO this is particularly damaging to someone with depression, anxiety or PTSD. Many of us deal with enough judgment and abuse from our families and SO's, we don't need this kind of threat looming over us on a board that's supposed to be a safe place where we can heal.

I should have voted Yes, because I do believe that anyone who is moderated should have a fair shake with all members, as well as a chance to speak their piece about it. And perhaps if the moderation is too detailed and too personal, then members of the board can see that is the case for themselves and reach their own conclusions about it.

Yes, I do fully recognize that it's your board to do with as you please, Anthony. I understand what that means and how it works, as I have run several boards of my own in the past 11 years, and am running one right now. But that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with how all things are handled. I will follow the rules to the best of my ability, but my mere presence and continued contributions do not equate to my blanket stamp of approval. We are talking two separate things here. I am not pointing this out to be mean toward you Anthony, I just want to clarify the factual basis of where I stand on this issue.

As it is not "my" board, my scope of influence is very limited, so I try to participate in a way that I hope will offer the most benefit to others. I try to participate the best, most helpful way that I possibly can.

As I leave the board today, I am leaving feeling much better about myself, because I read others who are experiencing the exact same feelings that I've been struggling with. It has helped me to realize I am not alone, and I am not doing anything wrong to cause myself to feel that way. It was just what I needed, and I thank you all for helping me.

Just my humble 2¢ worth. :)

Bailey

[TDurden1937]

Friends -

Transparency if I may be so politically correct is most always a good thing in the long run.

Heck, most decisions here I'd bet are the right ones, so why not let the good news out.

I've always thought the real thing couldn't be any worse than our worst fantasy:)

Best regards, Doug

PS Sorry, I tend to type my login name TDurden1937. I forget we are on first name basis.

[Chissi]

Hi, I'm new and was not sure what issues were in question. I would agree with discretion in disclosure, for the good of the whole.

Chissi

[grace5555]

Bailey - thank you for your post so full of common sense and compassion. You helped me immensely in this debate.

Grace

[batgirl]

The bottom line for me is similar to what Marlene said earlier about it not being her playground or her rules. This is how I feel also. I don't own the forum, I don't pay for it, I chose to come here and I clicked "yes" to the terms and conditions when I registered. Honestly, having been on several other forums and having been a moderator on other forums as well, I know how hard it is to moderate and edit. Piles and piles of bullshit goes on behind the scenes that regular members know nothing about. It really isn't fair to judge moderators and editors for their decisions, given what limited knowledge we "regular" members have here. We never know the whole story. I just accept things, and if I didn't want to accept things, I would leave. It's as simple as that for me and I don't lose any sleep over it.

[She Cat]

I too voted Yes for full discloser. I feel the same as a few others that if you don't like the rules, well then just leave.

There aren't too many rules here to begin with. I have been on other boards and you can't say ANYTHING!!!!!! I mean that... You have to skirt issues, you can't talk openly about your trauma, or what you did to cope with your symptoms. You had to be evasive in explaining. You could not know or ask any personal information, only peer support, no outside contact. No PM's, no chat, no off topic conversations.... nothing.

I also think that when you go from member status, to moderated then you apparently have crossed a line. You can either stay and try to redeem yourself, or hightail it out of here.

Just my 2 cents.

[KBar]

It is no one's business but their own.

[logan]

we need to know who we are freinds with or not we've got enough on our tables
let us not be fooled

[cestmarrant]

I like transparency with respect.

[jes]

Being new here, I am not sure about how things work. I do like descretion to be maintained..but enjoy honesty. I don't think my vote is very valid at this point..not knowing enough about the forum yet.

[northernpunch]

Good luck with the disclosure vote. Voting is fun isn't it. even when it's meaningless, which is at all times, right? Ooops, there is the dissociation and C-PTSD numbness nagging already, sorry folks. maybe I should slink away back to counting the seconds.

[cactus_jack]

NorthernPunch, no one's vote is "meaningless".

[spiritofnow]

That being said, I would hope to see this forum carry this out in a manner in which is neither attacking nor defensive. Humbly, tude

I agree with this statement in terms of open disclosure. As long as matters are dealt with in a standardized manner, I believe would negate any individual feeling 'got at'.

Perhaps discretion for both (open/closed) depending on what the breech was/is?

Spirit

[spiritofnow]

I guess Anthony is rather like a sheperd - ensuring the flock stay within the boundaries of safety set out for this forum. Which is why I feel it is important to have established guidelines. When I first joined I did not know how these domains worked - I did not realise there was one person who herded the flock (as it were). I made mistakes and reacted to some comments that were made about them ( i did not realise they were editorial). I guess I felt that the comments were accusatory, implying an agenda for why I did something.

I was defensive about that! I get it more now! I guess this is why I feel it would be usefull to have a standardized response to someones actions on here. That way it does not make it personal and ensures that people see their mistakes or otherwise as just that! Rather than pointing the finger, which I know is not what you are doing.

It must be hard for you Anthony to always remain objective (tough job)!

Could there be a way that people have to read the FAQ's or forum policies before they are able to comment on here? I guess I was blindsighted to them in my nervous rush to say hello and reach out.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks

Spirit

[anthony]

There is no real set way in which to make a person read them before signing up.... this is partly why moderation exists, to ensure members comply to editorial standards before being allowed out of moderation. The majority comply and have no further issues.

[meggymish]

Anthony, as a completely new member under the initial moderation, I'd like to see the admind decisions in the open so that I have a clear idea of what not to say. For instance, sometimes I want to talk about the events in detail to someone who won't look at me like I'm a freak who should be in a mental hospital. Is it obscene? What qualifies as obscene? What if something I post ends up being a trigger for someone else? How do I as a new member know these things without spending ages reading through the backlog of every post ever written? Seeing things in the open will help us newbies avoid making the same mistakes. I'm also really grateful I found this place.

[JustJane]

I have very limited knowledge of my recently diagnosed condition. I don't know enough about the site to know what I am even voting for or against. If it's ok, I don't want to vote at this time.

[hollywoodmarine]

discretion is the better part of valour

[KT229]

I have to agree with Cactus Jack on this one. I didn't vote either way. I'm a guest in your "home" if I do something to offend or break the rules and am asked to leave then it certainly is your choice on whether that matter is public or private.

I can't thank you enough for providing this service, you're doing an awesome job, and I trust your judgement. I searched for months trying to find info, help etc. but no site has what you've offered here, valuable information, support, fairness and respect of all members.