Faith Healing Discussion

[Sunday]

I like Julius's idea about using a more moderate color. They've actually done tests: red tends to inflame people psychologically (a red room also makes time seem slower, for some reason). And I like Martlet's idea about just stating the rule; obviously you're right, there would have to be other kinds of moderating involved, but maybe that could be the first one? It would solve the partiality problem. And it might even be helpful to keep repeating it if posters continue to ignore it, on the drip-of-water principle. The rules as I've seen them are quite sensible and seem based on a simple "no a**holes" policy. Which I endorse. I used to believe, when I was younger, that lashing out at what was wrong made things better. As time has gone on, I've come to view manners as the glue that makes any civilization possible at all, with people the diverse beings that we are. Manners are just a way of showing good will, imo. My two cents.

 

[Lily]

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jody. I can imagine how exhausting it must be today to respond to everyone. You are a superstar here, and there's no doubt about it.

Jody:

My concern is, if we are going to be preoccupied with what others are viewing on our forums, ... I think for those watching, the brawling that was going on (in my opinion) over Rachel's story is going to paint us as a community in a worse light than that someone feels they were healed. Again to clarify, I am not talking about all or even most of our members' postings. I am talking about a small number.

I don't think I'm preoccupied with what others are viewing on our forums, but it is a concern to me. I've mentioned it numerous times, and I briefly freaked out when I checked in and saw the unbelievable brawling. That WAS embarrassing! I thought of the many people I have invited here, and also what others must be thinking who were visiting for the first time. And I made a hasty post that I regret, but there are several others who should be much more embarrassed of themselves than I.

I was concerned over the faith healing issue because of what we have all gone through with this disease, however I thought if people were polite, and just wished her well, it would go away and as long as the thread was removed from the Alternative Treament forum no harm would be done. I cannot fault anyone for bringing up what the Wesseylans and others could do with the information. It's the reality and nature of the beast, much as I'd like it to go away.

Naive, I know. The dissention was to be expected, especially where people can speak rather anonymously (although that boggles my mind), however, I was ill-prepared for what I saw. But as you say there were only a few people who went off the deep end. I think there were more who were trying to bring things around. It makes me a bit ill to think about it. Ignore it? Nope, couldn't do it. So many totally missed what the real issue was/is. And in this particular instance the moderating seemed to fan the flames. None of us are ever going to be in total agreement in these situations but in my view...... well.......there is no point in further public critcizing. Everyone did the best they could, and sometimes things are meant to play out a certain way, even if it isn't pretty.

I wouldn't be put off of a forum because someone thought they were healed whether I believed it might be true or not. In a forums this size, there is so much to choose from. I'd go to the sections that appealed to me. But I would be put off by seeing members (again -- a few) venting hostility towards each other. That is the forums I would not join.

I agree wholeheartedly here.

You mentioned you don't see a way here for people to feel comfortable offering constructive criticism. What do you think it would take?

I will give this some thought and get back to you soon. Perhaps by now, you've even received some suggestions, I haven't kept up with the postings today.

I wish I was able to be of more help. This community means a lot to me. I know everything will be fine, but just worry about the strain on all of you. We are all sick and none of this is helping (I don't think).

Take care of yourselves everyone,
Lily

 

[cfs since 1998]

The types of posts I'm referring to were of a whole other ilk. I heard the word "gestapo" for instance referring to one of my mods...

If you take another look, you'll see that I didn't say the community was rude. I was referring to a small number of members who have been eating up a good deal of my mods' week this week.

Why do you keep trying to personalize posts that are not meant to be personal? You are taking criticism of the moderation style of the forum and turning into a personal attack of one of "your" mods. (Why are they "your" mods anyway?)

 

[Jody]

I don't understand either of your questions.

 

[cfs since 1998]

If I had you as a guest in my home, eating my food, enjoying my books and music and friends and family -- and you were to ask me Who makes sure I behave decently,

I'd ask you to leave.

The purpose of the forum is for members to discuss topics with each other.

The purpose of your house is not to have guests over while enjoying your food, books, and music.

If you keep making more rules and banning people there will be no forum.

If you kicked all your guests out of your house, there would still be a house.

 

[Jody]

Your opinion is noted.

 

[Lily]

Robin,

Thank you so much for chiming in here, especially since you are feeling so poorly. I'm so sorry that you're still having such a rough time. I hope things will get better for you soon. You're due for a break.

Please take care.

Lily

 

[Wayne]

Moderating

Lily,

Nice post.:Retro smile:

Thanks for writing it.

We do need to hear constructive criticism. Your post is a good example of this.
.......................................

You mentioned you don't see a way here for people to feel comfortable offering constructive criticism. What do you think it would take?

Hi Jody, Hi All,

Jody, I also thought Lily's post (critique?) was very positive. I thought many others have made some very useful contributions also, such as yourself, Shiso, Robin, Martlet, and more.

A thought on constructive criticism. Since you mentioned the need for even more moderators (I agree), I was thinking that I myself wouldn't want to moderate unless I had the "consent of the moderated".

How to get this consent? A thought I had (for those who may want to consider helping with moderating this forum) would be to start out on an interim basis; perhaps something like "part-time moderator in training".

Then perhaps after a period of time, say 3 months or so, put individual moderating styles before the forum and perhaps take a poll. Ask respondents to offer constructive advice and/or criticism (without an edge), and vote as to whether a given moderator is meeting a certain bar.

The possible benefits I see is that if people have a way to address what they consider inappropriate moderating, then offering constructive criticism may perhaps be done a little more graciously and remove some of the edge that Jody alluded to.

By reading this thread, I feel the weight moderating can take on those who volunteer to do so. And I commend all the moderators here who are giving it their best to do their part to make this a workable forum.

My brain just went kaput. I'll come back and finish if I realize there was more on mind mind before it short-circuited.

Thanks to all you positive people out there! :Retro wink:

Wayne

ETA Just wanted to add that I may be way off base with some of my thoughts; please feel free to say so if that's the case. I don't have the insights about moderating that you and others do, and I trust your diplomatic skills. :Retro smile:

 

[Knackered]

I'm really sorry Kim's not a moderator any more, she was the best one.

What's puzzling, it's evident there are many people who are unhappy with the way this forum's being moderated lately and the only moderator who sticks her neck out to share her opinions is removed for dissidence.

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at why people are concerned and work towards fixing it? It's been ignored, and to make it known that nothing's can or will be done about it a moderator's been removed. I think it shows little regard for the feelings of the people who frequent this board, and what's it for? For fear other moderators will leave if they disagree with how the forum should be ran.

 

[Jody]

Knackered,

I think there's some confusion here. Kim wasn't removed. She decided to leave the team. Nobody was trying to get her to do this.

Took us all by surprise.

And Kim wasn't a moderator. She was an administrator.

 

[Jody]

Hi Jody, Hi All,

Jody, I also thought Lily's post (critique?) was very positive. I thought many others have made some very useful contributions also, such as yourself, Shiso, Robin, Martlet, and more.

A thought on constructive criticism. Since you mentioned the need for even more moderators (I agree), I was thinking that I myself wouldn't want to moderate unless I had the "consent of the moderated".

How to get this consent? A thought I had (for those who may want to consider helping with moderating this forum) would be to start out on an interim basis; perhaps something like "part-time moderator in training".

Then perhaps after a period of time, say 3 months or so, put individual moderating styles before the forum and perhaps take a poll. Ask respondents to offer constructive advice and/or criticism (without an edge), and vote as to whether a given moderator is meeting a certain bar.

The possible benefits I see is that if people have a way to address what they consider inappropriate moderating, then offering constructive criticism may perhaps be done a little more graciously and remove some of the edge that Jody alluded to.

By reading this thread, I feel the weight moderating can take on those who volunteer to do so. And I commend all the moderators here who are giving it their best to do their part to make this a workable forum.

My brain just went kaput. I'll come back and finish if I realize there was more on mind mind before it short-circuited.

Thanks to all you positive people out there! :Retro wink:

Wayne

ETA Just wanted to add that I may be way off base with some of my thoughts; please feel free to say so if that's the case. I don't have the insights about moderating that you and others do, and I trust your diplomatic skills. :Retro smile:

Thanks for your post Wayne.

Your insights are always welcome. You are often a wonderful voice of calm and I appreciate it.

We'll be considering everything that people send our way.

Sucks about the cfs brain, eh?

 

[Knackered]

Knackered,

I think there's some confusion here. Kim wasn't removed. She decided to leave the team. Nobody was trying to get her to do this.

Took us all by surprise.

And Kim wasn't a moderator. She was an administrator.

Sorry then. I retract pretty much most of what I said above.

 

[Jody]

Sorry then. I retract pretty much most of what I said above.

No problem.:Retro smile:

 

[anne]

We need to examine what caused this to happen, how we can prevent problems like this in the future, and maybe if we are lucky what needs to happen for Kim to come back.

I just want to second Jody's appreciation of sarahg's statement here.

I think any chain of events that causes Kim to step down has reached a truly bad end, a sign that something has gone terribly wrong. I think Kim is an essential part of what makes the boards a friendly, accessible place, and she is also a reasoned, calm, kind presence here, and that "Administrator" after her name is simply good for the boards. I really hope this can all be examined and rectified.

I'm very sorry for the stress on everyone.

 

[Mark]

They also seem to share an IP address, and posted two very similar messages directed to the same person within a minute of each other. Pretty had to do, when two people are writing.

As an important point of information, it is in fact perfectly easy and possible and natural to do this whenever two people are sharing the same internet connection, ie. on the same network, such as when one is visiting the other in their home and both are using laptops on the wireless network.

Indeed it's rather easier to do with two separate people than with just one, because it's almost certainly impossible to be logged onto the forum as two separate users at the same time within the same browser. One would probably need two separate machines, side by side, each logged in as a different user, although you might feasibly be able to do it by running two different browsers on the same machine. Alternatively, you could log out as one user, log in as another, post, log out, log in as the other, etc. If somebody were doing this, it would of course show up clearly in the logs, but otherwise, there's just no way to tell, when an IP address is shared, whether there really are two people side by side and both logged on, or one person operating two accounts simultaneously.

Shared IP addresses on local networks, using static IP addresses, Network Address Translation (NAT), or through other means of internet connection sharing, are not uncommon, in the UK at least. It may well be less common in the US for all I know, and I don't know how often it would be the case in the UK, but as far as I understand it, it is the norm on all the wireless networks I've set up (which is quite a few) for the same IP address to be exposed to the internet by every machine that accesses the internet via the same wireless network. So it's important that you're aware, this is a perfectly feasible scenario.

 

[Jody]

Mark,

Thanks for this information.

 

[flybro]

How to get this consent? A thought I had (for those who may want to consider helping with moderating this forum) would be to start out on an interim basis; perhaps something like "part-time moderator in training".

Then perhaps after a period of time, say 3 months or so, put individual moderating styles before the forum and perhaps take a poll. Ask respondents to offer constructive advice and/or criticism (without an edge), and vote as to whether a given moderator is meeting a certain bar.

The possible benefits I see is that if people have a way to address what they consider inappropriate moderating, then offering constructive criticism may perhaps be done a little more graciously and remove some of the edge that Jody alluded to.

Brilliant idea

 

[Samuel]

Privacy

It is easier for two people who happen to share an IP -- which is very common -- to post within one minute of each other than for one person to fake being two people.

I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum value privacy. There are also security concerns. To me, IP addresses and who does or does not share them should remain private information in ALL cases. To me, privacy should be valued very highly on this server. I feel uncomfortable that it is not.

 

[Jody]

It is easier for two people who happen to share an IP -- which is very common -- to post within one minute of each other than for one person to fake being two people.

I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum value privacy. There are also security concerns. To me, IP addresses and who does or does not share them should remain private information in ALL cases. To me, privacy should be valued very highly on this server. I feel uncomfortable that it is not.

Samuel,

Thanks for sharing your concerns. They are valid and understandable.

Can you tell me a bit more about what in particular has made you uncomfortable?

 

[Jody]

Joyscobby,

I think it's very possible that there would have been no hew and cry about it if it had been a blog.

It's hard to say just what all the factors were -- I think there were quite a few of them actually -- in making this such a big bonfire.

There were a number of different perspectives heard from, many of them not connected to each other. So it wasn't even just a matter of pro- and ant-i here. There were those whose views were based on science, on politics, on medical, on religion, on appearances to the rest of the world ... man, and there were more than these ones.