Maybe it is just me...but

[flagger]

I know two well respected moms on here have been chosen by the Fields to be moderators of this and the Lounge. However, it is just my personal opinion on threads where they are involved in the controversy, it sets a very BAD precendent and bad feeling when they post something and then lock the thread.

Now I will agree that both of the recently locked topics probably should have been locked because it was no longer people arguing the post or the idea but the person as well, but it just rubs me the wrong way to see either of the two make a post and then lock it. It just comes across as "I get the last word and this discussion is ended."

JMNTBHO

[AngelaS]

You know Flagger, I had the same thought, that it seems like ONE of the mods is the one stirring up the pot. Way to have the um, courage, to mention that....

[Rachels]

Oh, come on, you can use my name. Do you think it sounds better if you say "one of the mods?" But I am NOT stirring up the pot. I posted something factual and neutral, with no personal attacks included, and I got my a$$ kicked for it. Beth did lock that first thread, and suggested the discussion needed to stop. And that was dealt with by somebody starting a SECOND thread where the same freaking think happened. So yes, I locked it, and yes, I responded before I did. I thought about the last word thing, too, and I wish I could have found a way around it. I'm not comfortable with that, either. But there was really no alternative. I could have called Beth and gotten her to lock it, or she could have locked it herself, but she had already said clearly to stop the personal attacks. There would have been no further commentary from either of us about why it was being locked. I think we'd all been shown pretty clearly that regardless of WHICH mod suggested an end to the personal attaks, they were going to continue. And now we have a third thread. It would be lovely if everyone would let this just die, especially if it bothers a few of you so very much.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Calmegja2]

But, but....the mod who locked clearly said that she locked it at the request of posters, and would review it with the other one. On the political threads, that is. On the BF threads, I believe it was the other mod who locked it.

On the political threads, she didn't make the unilateral decision. She locked them at the request of the originator of the threads in question, but clearly notated both her participation in the thread, and that she was taking it to the other moderator. If the moderators had come to the decision that it should remain open, a lock isn't permanent, It could have been unlocked.

Short of banning mods from participating from threads, I don't know how she could have handled it better.

There's a difference between stirring the pot, and being able to present your opinion. We're all adults, but sometimes it's hard to see past personal bias and realize that dissenting opinions are not always attacks, but it's the truth. ;-)

[flagger]

I think there is a fine line between posting in hot button threads as a moderator. Are you posting as a user or as a moderator. Maybe the solution would be to defer to the Fields when there is participation by both in those type of threads. They as the admin could just lock it without comment or to comment on why it is being locked. They usually are so busy that they rarely participate in the threads to begin with.

I do not blame either of them for locking the threads because of what they had become. I just saw Rachel's last post in one of the BF'ng/FF'ng threads before it was locked and I thought of the last word thing.

[momathome]

Just a clarification, but I thought you two were only supposed to be moderators in the lounge - does your power extend into other forums, too? Just curious!
-Lauren

[momathome]

Just noticed that you are in fact listed as moderators in the Bitching forum - hadn't realized that. I know you both have a difficult job to do but I kind of agree that when either one of you is involved in a heated thread, perhaps Alan and Denise should be the ones to determine if the thread should be locked. Just my 2 cents...
-Lauren

[Rachels]

FWIW, I've already contacted Alan & Denise. I locked that thread after it was simply a repeat of the thread that Beth had chosen to lock the day before. I did not lock the first thread even when it had clearly crossed the line of personal attacks, because I was the one being attacked and didn't think I should therefore moderate. But after Beth locked the first one and we talked at length, I felt okay locking a thread with exactly the same problems.

I have talked to Alan and Denise about the kinds of things I tend to post about and the fact that some of them have gotten heated from time to time. They certainly knew my style before they asked me to moderate, and they told me to post as usual. I've said this before, but I am ALWAYS posting as a user unless I clearly identify that I'm wearing my moderator hat. My opinions, research, and info are no more or less valid (or, according to the Fields) welcome here than anyone elses. My only job as a moderator is to help stop the personal attacks. In this case, following Beth's lead, I did that, even though I was the recipient of the attacks.

By all means, if Beth or the Fields feel that that thread should be reopened, I'll be happy to go along with that. But they've been reading, you know. I think if they thought it was appropriate for it to be unlocked, it would be. But FWIW, I would never have locked the thread if there hadn't been an IDENTICAL thread locked the day before by someone other than me, no matter how I felt about it. It wasn't a new thread at that point-- it was a continuation of the older, already-locked one.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[momathome]

Thanks for the clarification, Rachel! The threads that were locked definitely should have been locked and it is not always clear who is doing the locking. I think that may be why some, myself included, may have wondered if there was a conflict of interest. You are most definitely appreciated (at least by me!) for what you contribute to these boards. Thanks for taking the time to respond!
-Lauren

[Rachels]

I have been thinking, and I just want to add to this. There have been a zillion threads that happen in the feeding forum about various formulas or the choice to use formulas, from people seeking advice or sharing experiences. I can see where it would be out of line to jump into any of those threads to say, "You know, research shows formula to be less safe than breastfeeding." But I've never done that and never will. Yes, I am a breastfeeding advocate. This is the first time I've ever cited the specifics of the research, though, and I did it in response to a question about why a hospital would choose to stop distributing formula. That is very different from attacking any individual person for formula use, which remains something I have not and will not do.

If hearing about formula risks is difficult for anybody, though, you should know that there is quite a large public health campaign getting started in the spring, and exactly what I said is going to be all over televisions and print magazines. The people working on those campaigns are not out to personally attack, either. They're sharing information, as I was. Whether you believe it or care to integrate it or think it's total hooey is not up to them, and not up to me. But enough with shooting the messenger.

I understand where some of you feel that locking that thread was tantamount to my getting the last word. I apologize for that, although my intent was not to finish last but to stop the second wave of personal attacks. In deference to you, though, I will not lock another thread of which I am a part. But I will ask that you remember the user agreement you signed, which states that personal attacks are not permissible on these boards. If they didn't happen, there would be no need for any of us to lock threads at all, ever.


ETA: Oops, Lauren, you and I posted at the same time. This was not meant to follow your post. :) Thanks for your comments. Moderating is not a solo activity-- we're all in touch about it pretty regularly.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[starrynight]

I felt the same way.

[Imperia]

I don't see why "the two mods" aren't allowed to have their own opinions. And I hardly think the "stirring the pot" comment was fair either. Just because they are mods doesn't mean they aren't allowed to have or even share their opinions, and in any case to some degree, it wasn't even opinions being shared, but factual information.

It can be tough being a mod, you should cut them some slack. I mod a board somewhere else and to tell you the truth, it's impossible to please everyone all of the time.

It bothers me that so many folks seem to think it's somehow not okay to present the facts (or at the very least scientific information about a very important subject) because it might "upset" people, "scare them" or make them feel "guilty". If this had been a discussion on something like refusing to put your child in a carseat (for whatever reason) I am sure people would have stepped in and said that wasn't safe and given scientific info and studies which show how unsafe this is, and no one would have thrown a fit or said the original poster was being bullied or belittled. If you don't wish to or cannot BF your child that's fine and it's certainly your choice, but you shouldn't accuse people who are giving information of causing you distress. I think in soem cases it's a case of attatcking the messenger because you dislike the information they are sharing.

And I see this thread as just another attack on "the two mods". It's obviously not okay to make personal attacks (no matter who you are), but it doesn't need to escalate to that point does it? I fyou disagree with someone's ideas, that is fine, I assume it's even fine to say so as long as you don't start being rude or insulting.

Just my thoughts,

Imperia

[stillplayswithbarbies]

Quite frankly I would not like it if a thread got locked *without* a moderator stating why it was being locked.

I don't think that is getting "the last word". I think is is good moderation, to explain what is going on rather than to just arbitrarily lock something with no explanation.

...Karen
Jacob Nathaniel Feb 91
Logan Elizabeth Mar 03

[JenCA]

Amen. Thanks for posting what many of us lack the cajones to. ;)

FWIW--I used to moderate two message boards, and yes, it's absolutely not easy to do. However--I (we) were specifically instructed NOT to post "the last word", so to speak, when a thread got out of hand, and particularly if I/we was/were the ones being attacked (and yes, I was personally attacked on several occasions that I can recall). In that instance, either the board owners--or a different mod altogether--would lock the thread with a simple sentence like, "personal attacks are strictly prohibited on this board, so this thread is being closed." That way, I wouldn't have to put my neck on the line by responding and then closing the thread. In this case, yes, it absolutely looked like Rachel "got the last word"--regardless of whether or not that's the case or was her intent. And I suspect it's bound to leave a bad taste in some folks' mouths, regardless of the subject of the thread (which in the case at hand was bound to get heated, anyway). Guess it's just a case of different boards, different rules.

[flagger]

>It can be tough being a mod, you should cut them some slack.
>I mod a board somewhere else and to tell you the truth, it's
>impossible to please everyone all of the time.
>
>It bothers me that so many folks seem to think it's somehow
>not okay to present the facts (or at the very least scientific
>information about a very important subject) because it might
>"upset" people, "scare them" or make them feel "guilty". I
think in soem cases it's a case of attatcking the messenger
because you dislike the information they are sharing.
>
>And I see this thread as just another attack on "the two
>mods". It's obviously not okay to make personal attacks (no
>matter who you are), but it doesn't need to escalate to that
>point does it? I fyou disagree with someone's ideas, that is
>fine, I assume it's even fine to say so as long as you don't
>start being rude or insulting.

I am not attacking any mods or any other person. Frankly I hadn't even read both the threads until last night and not even all of the responses. But what got me was in the I guess second BF/FF post, the 38th entry and very last post includes this statement:

Stop the histrionics, please. If you're comfortable with your decisions, I applaud that. If you're mourning the bf experience you hoped to have, you have my sympathy and understanding. I absolutely get how that can happen, and I certainly don't fault you. We all do the best we can.

But don't give me this crap about what a supportive community we all are when you're busy hurling insults. Not once have I made a personal statement about anyone, and I'm sick of being on the receving end. I did not intend to insult anyone by stating facts, and I'm sorry it happened. But I agree with whoever said that nobody can make you feel guilty without your permission. If you're really comfortable, there's no reason in the world for you to feel bad. Truly.

Then the thread was locked. I have no problem with someone presenting facts but THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE DEBATE ANYWAY. I just was merely stating my opinion that I think it is bad form to make a final word on the debate and then lock it. I never said people who have moderator powers should be prevented from having an opinion either. I just think frankly it looks very cowardly to post something that comes across to a casual observer as "This is all that needs to be said, here is my final response and this discussion is over."

[MartiesMom2B]

EDITED TO REMOVE THIS POST BECAUSE RACHEL HAS CONTACTED ME DIRECTLY ABOUT THIS AND I HAVE ADDRESSED MY CONCERNS WITH HER.


Sonia
Proud Mommy to Martie 4/6/03

[liya]

I have to say that i thought the mods would be a more on a more neutral ground...Honestly Rachel, i love you hun but i have to say i never thought that you would be a mod just because of all the fights that have occured between you and other members of the boards which disagree with some of your perspectives in parenting.

I do have to say i agree that the Fields shouldve been the ones to lock the thread and not you per say because it did give the sense that you were taking the last word on it and locked it so no one could rebutle you...(edited to say: i dont care if the mod's post their opinion its just locking it after they post their opinion that bothers me)

Being a MOD is not easy, i cant imaigine having the burden you guys have on your hands.

[Rachels]

In that instance,
>either the board owners--or a different mod altogether--would
>lock the thread with a simple sentence like, "personal attacks
>are strictly prohibited on this board, so this thread is being
>closed."

Yep. That had already been done. In this case, the folks making attacks just moved it to a new thread. But I repeat:

"I understand where some of you feel that locking that thread was tantamount to my getting the last word. I apologize for that, although my intent was not to finish last but to stop the second wave of personal attacks. In deference to you, though, I will not lock another thread of which I am a part. But I will ask that you remember the user agreement you signed, which states that personal attacks are not permissible on these boards. If they didn't happen, there would be no need for any of us to lock threads at all, ever."

This is not just an issue of my participation, it's an issue of personal attcks. In locking the thread, following Beth's lead, I stopped the attacks that were aimed at me. Had they been aimed at any of the rest of you, I would have stopped them for the same reason.

As for my being a mod, it's something I work very hard at. I care deeply about these boards and spend a lot of time here and have for two years now. I'm not compensated in any way for my moderator time, and neither is Beth. Again, Alan and Denise were very familiar with my passions and my research bent before choosing me to moderate. They were explicit with me that I did not need to become "neutral" in my posts. I understand what a few of you were bothered by here and have learned from it. I will say now for the third time that I will not be the one to lock a thread in the future if I posted in it. But to suggest that only a neutral person (which, by the way, is a nonexistent entity-- I think you mean a quieter person, someone whose opinions aren't known to you) can recognize when a personal attack is occurring and when it isn't, that's a fallacy. My familiarity with BF research doesn't make me less able to read an attack than someone without that knowledge, KWIM? And as I said before, my job as a moderator is to SOLELY stop the attacks, which is why I was the SECOND person to lock a hostile thread, and why I posted to explain why I was doing that.


-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Torey]

Well, since we are all being so honest here . . .
I was more bothered by Rachel's user/moderator postings in the gay marriage thread than the BF/FF thread. Since you are so quick to use research and facts to support your position, I thought it was rude that you felt the need to point out that certain posters were "ultra-conservative" or that the links/research that they were using came from "ultra conservative opinions". And you discredited their research and said that it could be skewed by whoever was funding it.

I thought that it came across like you were pretending to be in your moderator mode when you questioned the sources that posters use. No one was pointing out that every link/source a liberal poster offered was obviously liberal. They were allowing people to view and judge them by themselves. So in the future please be considerate before you automatically label people. Other people do see the moderators as being in charge, and when you label someone and their views you could make other people label them as well (without giving them a chance and a fair hearing). Just my 2 cents.

[liya]

Maybe its my english or that im not explaining myself too well....LOL remember i have it all in my head in spanish when i register it in english it takes sometime...I deeply admire you for taking the role as a MOD no doubt about it..And you know FOR SURE that alot of my views coincide with yours...I just think what i meant as neutral was someone who hadnt constantly been a part of ALOT of the posts that have gotten nasty around here...IYKWIM..I know im totally not getting through like i would like so ill just leave it at that...

I totally thank you for understanding why it would bother some(why it bothered me atleast) that you locked the thread after your last word. The Fields have their reasons for the MOD's they chose no doubt about it. I think both are spectacular mom's with differing parenting styles, but for me that goes for every mom here...

[Rachels]

>Rachel, you have to admit that you have a very passionate in
>the methods that you choose to parent (which is not a bad
>thing and has benefitted many people). However these are not
>the only methods of child rearing.

Please, somebody show me where I have ever, ever said they were. It's insulting to assume that I don't know that or don't believe it. Show me where I have said that I don't respect other people's knowledge of their children. Show me where I've said that I don't trust other people's instincts.

Over and over, I have said some version of, "This is what I chose to do and why, but here are the ways I support those who have made a different choice." There are a few folks here who have decided that I am their enemy regardless, so it's futile, I guess, to try. But I can't help it: once more, with more than a little frustration, I'll say it-- I post the research I know well and hope that others will do the same, and I don't fault anyone their choices. We all do the best we can.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Rachels]

NO, I was NOT in a moderator role when I questioned that research. I've stated a bunch of times that the only time I'm acting as a moderator is in stopping personal attacks. I questioned that research as somebody with seven graduate-level courses in statistics. Those same courses are why I post research when I do. I know how to read research and understand statistics, and I question and throw out a bunch of it, too. As for whether those were conservative publications, no need to take my word for it. Any google search on any of them will find page after page after page of commentary saying the same thing. Torey, I never argued with your (or anyone's) right to post an opinion. I didn't even argue the opinions specifically. I certainly never referred to any individual poster as "ultra-conservative." What I argued was the citation of research that isn't solidly statistically based. If I ever cite research with a bad basis, I hope some of you will do the same. Studies are only as good as their designs. If the design is flawed, the study is flawed. That's true no matter what it says.


-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Rachels]

I do understand. The last word thing was not my intention, but I do understand how it looked that way. To help clear this up, I've unlocked the thread and hope that folks can bring themselves to continue it if need be without personal attacks. If you discover that the thread is locked again, it will be because one of the other mods has locked it.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[egoldber]

People, what is the deal? I am truly trying my level best to remain calm but it is getting VERY VERY hard!

For what its worth, Rachel and I consult before taking almost ANY action, EXCEPT when the attack is either so egregious (e.g., expletives directed at a member) OR a total repeat of a previously hostile discussion (which seems to be happening A LOT lately).

But I think it is completely unreasonable to expect that as mods we can't do anything without consulting each other. Case in point, I am going on vacation next week and Rachel will be your only mod then. And to expect the Fields to be involved in every decision is completely unreasonable as well. The board is too big for them to manage alone at this point, hence having two mods. But they are not always readily accessible. They have kids. They go on vacation. They have jobs. It sometimes takes them days to answer my e-mails, so they ARE not able to provide the same level of service that a hands on mod can. It is just simply NOT appropriate to have some of those threads go on for days without an action being taken.

I am also curious as to what folks would have liked to have seen done differently in the last week or so. Suppose Rachel was NOT a mod. Then the discussions would have continued as they did until they became unruly and they would have been locked. Which is EXACTLY what happened!!! How did either one of us being a mod effect what happened in those threads?

[Torey]

There is NO need to point out what the political leaning of ANY publications are. I think people here are educated enough to figure it out without you doing it for them.

[Rachels]

Oh, Torey. I wasn't doing it to educate anyone. I was doing it because I am a user on this board, and I was participating in a discussion among users. If it was okay for someone to post those sources, it was also okay for me to post questioning those sources. But I don't think it's worth us continuing this discussion. That thread was shut down because it got personal and hostile-- and this is headed the same way.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[lisams]

>Rachel, you have to admit that you have a very passionate in
>the methods that you choose to parent (which is not a bad
>thing and has benefitted many people). However these are not
>the only methods of child rearing.

Of course not, and neither are:

rearfacing your carseat
using cloth diapers
using organic babyfood
holding off on starting solids

The members who have posted the benefits of these things (or the harm of not doing) have never been attacked or told they were making others feel guilty. So Rachel explained why hospitals would see promoting formula by giving handouts is a health issue..

I think we are *ALL* passionate about our choices we make as parents. It's the nature of the job :)

Lisa

[flagger]

>I am also curious as to what folks would have liked to have
>seen done differently in the last week or so. Suppose Rachel
>was NOT a mod. Then the discussions would have continued as
>they did until they became unruly and they would have been
>locked. Which is EXACTLY what happened!!! How did either one
>of us being a mod effect what happened in those threads?

Ok Beth you asked. And I did clarify that personally I felt that locking the threads in question was the right thing to do. I have no problem with the fact that they were locked. However, what I saw as a last word even appeared in your locking of the first one.

Frankly, I am very surprised at the hostility of many folks in this thread. No one was directly attacked by Rachel's post and yet several folks felt the need to attack her directly. That is not acceptable behavior on this board. With a heavy heart, I am locking this thread.

And for the record, I supplemented with formula early on and fed DD formula exclusively from 6 months on. I feel no regrets about that, since I felt it was the right choice for me at the time. But that doesn't make the research any less valid.

Please folks, lets try to remain civil with each other.

If you are asking what I would liked to have been differently is to have left out those statements and just say what you so eloquently said as to why it was coming to an end. I have already posted what I felt was an appearance of the last word by Rachel in the second thread. Again I am not questioning why it was locked, just making a statement of how what was posted right as it was locked appears to me.

[flagger]

>As for whether those were conservative publications,
>no need to take my word for it. Any google search on any of
>them will find page after page after page of commentary saying
>the same thing.

But you have no problem quoting research that has appeared in liberal leaning publications. Certainly the MDC boards are VERY liberal leaning in their style, and you mention them as a resources quite frequently. However, I can remember no one ever referring to them as liberal. I don't think it is fair to call out the political leaning of any research.

You for one know that I don't follow any of the research into certain matters and just go with the flow. Of course, I think many of the posters do the same, they just don't as admit it as loudly. :D

[blnony]

I have not responded or posted to any of the recent "hot topic" threads simply because they have seemed to petty and irresponsible, and I have not felt the need to waste my time with them. But this is too much. I can't believe that so many members of this community are behaving so childish and immature.
If I am not mistaken, everyone that is a part of this community is an adult. It would not be obvious by any of these recent threads. This is ridiculous.

There is no excuse to attack someone because they posted their opinion. If you don't agree, you don't agree, but that is not a license to become hostile to them or anyone else here. It is not fair to anyone to continue posting threads that are a continuation of insults and histeria, and feed the ire of those that are fuming.

It is very easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback. It is very easy to see how "you" would do things differently. If you do not approve of the method the Field's have chosen to moderate this board, you do not have to participate. You don't have to read or post in threads that you are uncomfortable with. I don't think any one moderating these boards, including Rachel or Beth have ever made an arbitrary move to lock a thread, remove a thread etc. And it is unreaslistic to expect someone not to participate in this community because others disagree with their views. If that were the case, this board would be very lopsided and not a very deep fountain of knowledge or experience for any of us. what benefit would that be to anyone?

It is possible to disagree and still have respect for others. If there are topics that you are uncomforable with, pass them up, don't participate, but don't shoot the messenger. Just to clarify, I breastfed and bottle fed, I'm pretty indifferent on gay marriage but I'm not going to begrudge anyone for their opinions and their choices they make in raising their child. Its not my place to do so, and I am comfortable enough with my judgment that I don't let others differing opinions cause any insecurity my decisions. I do appreciate being informed, and its my choice how I decide to use any information. Whether I agree or not.

I do not want to be an active member in a community that is filled with such a mean and disrespective undercurrent of emotion and venom. It isn't fair to anyone here. Starting new threads on the topics that are known for stirring heated arguments presently, throwing insults around, and filling posts with defensiveness and harsh judgment is hurting this online community.

Please, before you hurl these things around, think about it before putting it out there. Everyone in this community can have a positive efffect here. That has been one the best qualities of this board. Everyone has something good to contribute. It doesn't have to be cyber fights and insults.

[Torey]

Thank you Flagger. My point exactly. :)

[egoldber]

But you didn't answer my question. How did my being a mod affect what happened in that thread?

If the offending statement is:

"And for the record, I supplemented with formula early on and fed DD formula exclusively from 6 months on. I feel no regrets about that, since I felt it was the right choice for me at the time. But that doesn't make the research any less valid."

then frankly, I added that because I felt the need to "defend" my locking the thread by saying that I was someone who FF and still saw no need for the type of personal attacks that were present in that thread. If that gives the appearance of the last word, then there's the perfect example of how you can never please everyone all of the time.

Here's my point. If folks have a problem with the way the boards are being moderated or a particular moderator, then PLEASE contact the Fields and express your concerns. It is NEVER acceptable on this board to post personal attacks about an individual, even when that individual is a moderator.

[nohomama]

>I just think what i meant as neutral was someone who hadnt
>constantly been a part of ALOT of the posts that have gotten
>nasty around here...IYKWIM -Linda

Beth and Rachel have both pointed out that their sole job as moderators is to stop personal attacks from taking place here in the Bitching Post and in the Lounge. I disagree with the argument that such a task requires neutrality or that a moderator must be completely devoid of any opinions in order to do their job well. It appears the Fields feel similarly.

Rachel has explained her recent actions here several times and has appologized for them as well. If folks continure to take issue with either her actions or her position as moderator, I suggest that it would be more appropriate and productive to contact the Fields with your concerns and complaints. To continue to critique her performance seems to amount to nothing more than yet another personal attack.

[flagger]

Ok but I don't see questioning as a personal attack. At least I don't mean it as one. I never said either of you were wrong for locking the threads. I just think there is a fine line between participating as a user and participating as a moderator.

You asked what I or we thought should be done differently, I would have left out that statement and then I would not have felt it was someone getting in the last word.

Same thing in the Rachel example. Clearly she restated her point before locking the thread, when certainly it could have been stated as you did about the thread detoriating into personal attacks and therefore let cooler heads prevail and everyone walk away.

And I am just speaking for me and not others about how I saw it when I read the durn things. I did not mean it as a let's beat up on the mods post.

[egoldber]

And again, my only point, and the point of others, is that if you feel there is an issue with the way the boards are being moderated, then please contact the Fields and express your concerns.

[newbelly2002]

It seems to me that people are losing sight of the fact that the moderators, Rachel and Beth, here are volunteers. They are posters who were asked to take on an added responsibility in order to help maintain the safety of this forum, and continue the sense of community that has been established.

If they were to remain entirely neutral it might help alleviate some folks' concerns. However, they were active members before they were moderators. And as they are paid for neither their time nor energy, it doesn't seem fair to ask them to censor their opinions for the sake of the community. Whether or not you agree with those opinions is not, it seems to me, the issue at hand.

Flagger, you opened a thread in order to raise--I'm assuming--a concern. It is certainly your right as a community member to call something you see as out of line or inappropriate. However, without a solution your new thread, it would appear, achieves little more than harrassing Rachel in exactly the sort of personal attacks that the threads in question were locked to prevent.

There needs to be a certain measure of trust in our moderators, trust that they are looking out for the best interests' of the community--which, coincidentally, do *not* always coincide with the best interests' of any given individual. Rachel said that her intentions were not to get the last word in. She apologized if it appeared to anyone that way. She promised that in the future it would not happen again. We're all learning as we go here.

If you want to take issue with the method or protocol, that's great. But taking issue with the individual is, to my mind, both hurtful and unproductive to the greater good.

Paula
Mama to Dante, 8/1/02

[KathyO]

Ditto, ditto and ditto, Brianna.

I had also avoided posting in this thread because it just seemed to be yet another one of those unattractive "pecking parties" that we seem to have a tendency for lately. But really, what's to discuss here?

Most folks seem to agree that the threads needed to be closed, so they were. No huhu.

Some folks took exception to Rachel having "the last word" - fair enough, she's apologized for that, and won't be doing it again.

Some folks seem to think that moderators should be remote, Olympian creatures who don't have opinions - this seems extremely unrealistic, and besides, the issue is not the exchange of opposing opinions, it's the use of sniping and invective and hair-splitting to no productive end.

So why is this dragging on, and on, and on?

The Fields OWN this board. They PAY for it. They chose these moderators. You don't like the mods, write to the Fields. And abide by their decisions. And stop bellyaching.

Best,

KathyO

[liya]

Sarah i never said Rachel should not have an opinoin. As i stated before she knows that her parenting style and mine are very similar so in no way would i want her to NOT post her POV. I just wanted to tell her what bothered me and she understood..It was perfectly clear and she appologized(which i dont think she had to its a mistake that anyone can make especially the way these boards are getting so aroused)...

As for the point of neutrality..The explanation wasnt coming out the way i wanted it to so i just left it at that(but it was in no way intended towards being neutral in OPINIONS)...This is a board that is constantly becoming full of nitpicking, bikering fights and its really becoming annoying. I remember when this board used to be filled with opinions and NOT constant arguing. The MODs have alot to bear(even more everyday as the boards get bigger)and I know they have done a great job at moderating. I also agreed that all the threads that were locked needed to be locked...I actually wouldve locked them way before(which is why i THANK i am NOT a MOD...LOL)....But as i said before i think both MODs are excellent ppl and there was a reason they were chosen by the Fields to be MODs in the first place....

[sweetbasil]

This is really the only e-community I'm very active with, so my social skills in a chat room may be really poor, but I'm wondering if it's competely inappropriate for a moderator who hasn't weighed in on said threads to post some sort of notification and then delete threads that get so out of hand. I've seen this done on a couple of other boards I visit....There are some who only visit once in a blue moon, dig up old posts, and things get stirred back up again. Is this too drastic an action to take? If I'm way off, please don't get upset w/me- it's just a thought I've had over the last few weeks of seeing hostility on the boards, and just want this to be a shiny, happy place like it always has been ;)

[aliceinwonderland]

I think it's everyone's right to raise a concern, and it seems that several people agree with you. Becuase this is a technical issue, and not "I need Help", "I need an opinion", "My baby did something cute", etc type thread, wouldn't it be a better idea to directly contact the Fields about it? Maybe all the members that have an issue with this could do so, so the Fields can make an educated decision about whether or not to change things.

This is just a suggestion, because the alternative seems to have produced yet another bickering post, where people are being forced to defend themselves.

I think we're wasting each other's time, no??

Respectfully,

eri:)

[nohomama]

Linda,

I think because I responded to and included a quote from your post to Rachel you, understandibly, interpreted my post as being directed soley at you. My intention, however, was more broad than that. I may well have misunderstood you're point but there are other members here who have argued that because Rachel is an outspoken member of this community she somehow lacks the objectivity needed to be a moderator.

I appologize if I misunderstood what you were trying to say and if it seemed I was directing my remarks towards you alone. I should have been more clear.

[lizajane]

i don't have time yet to read all 4 pages... but just wanted to quickly throw in that:

*********I******* specifically asked rachel or beth to lock the gay marriage threads. *********I********* specifically asked them publicly so that everyone would know that it was ********MY******** idea to lock the threads, as the instigator of the debate that became the trainwreck. fwiw, i think they did the right thing in locking the breastfeeding/formula feeding threads because we were all still worked up from the gay marriage mess. but you CANNOT remark on the decision to lock the gay marriage threads without remarking on the fact that it was NOT their idea, it was MY idea. I I I I I, ME ME ME ME ME, MY MY MY MY MY.

be back later to read more.

[starrynight]

I don't feel a moderator shouldn't be an active member, or shouldn't ever post their point of view or opinion. But in every other community I belong to the moderators just watch the hot button topics they do not get involved with the nit picking, controversial, or other threads that have topics that tend to get flamy with either personal attacks or political nonsense. They step in with a "hey the isn't how things are done here, no attacks" or they step in with a "this needs to be deleted or locked due to violation of rules or user agreement." They do not get into the fray and then when it gets super nasty say I'm locking this. The rest of the other posts they freely speak on and give their opinions. In one community I belong to the moderator only does that-moderate. I don't think that is the best answer though because then you have someone that is not a 'regular' poster who is making the rules. I do think that to prevent ill feelings or maybe even further attacks etc that it might be a good idea for the mods to only deal with the hot button stuff but not actually get into it. JMO

[MelissaTC]

She already apologized for what some considered to be rude, etc.. Ok. Let it go. Geez!

[flagger]

>I think we're wasting each other's time, no??
>
>Respectfully,
>
>eri:)

Gee thanks for telling me that raising a POV in the bitching forum was a waste of everyone's time. You certainly didn't have to click on it. I really appreciate the sentiments.

[hellokitty1]

>It bothers me that so many folks seem to think it's somehow
>not okay to present the facts (or at the very least scientific
>information about a very important subject) because it might
>"upset" people, "scare them" or make them feel "guilty". If
>this had been a discussion on something like refusing to put
>your child in a carseat (for whatever reason) I am sure people
>would have stepped in and said that wasn't safe and given
>scientific info and studies which show how unsafe this is, and
>no one would have thrown a fit or said the original poster was
>being bullied or belittled.

Okay, this is the kind of statement that causes a needless uproar to begin with. Putting a child in a carseat is the feakin'law!!!!!!!!! And to not have your child in one is illegal and you can go to jail!!!!!

FF instead of BF is NOT!!!!! So for me, the stink has nothing to do with sharing the "facts." It's the inappropriate comparisons to other things.

And in anticipation of a response, this is not an attack on the poster, just the statement.

[Rachels]

I saw Flagger's post that I have cited stuff that has also been cited in liberal-leaning publications. This is not intended to further an argument in any way, but just to explain my take on the research thing. For the record, of course I cite more liberal publications on occasion since they're the ones I tend to read, but I only do that IF I check out the research myself and find the statistics and design to be valid and replicable. I have no problem with a publication being labeled liberal or conservative, and I'd happily own up to either one if asked. But my problem is / was with poor research, and any publication citing poor research in order to prove its point. If I read research and think well of the design, it's something I'll mention, no matter who else has or hasn't cited it. But I won't cite research that has a poor design, no matter who has or hasn't cited it. For example, MDC likes to report pretty often on a study which showed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. And while I strongly believe in the option for selective vaccination, this is not a study I would ever cite, because its design was total crap. It has served to scare the hell out of people without being replicable or even adequately reviewed. So I COULD cite it, in that it is a study that exists that reaches some conclusions that support my perspective, but it would be unethical and injudicious to do that, because the study is so bad. Does that make sense? When I cite stuff, it's with a knowledge base of understanding research design and having evaluated it first. And if it's a good study, then I don't care what we call any journal that reports it. Calling it liberal doesn't please me, and calling it conservative doesn't bother me. But if it's a bad study, and printed just to further the politics of a particular group, be they liberal or conservative, then I think it's prudent to point that out. Not everybody is trained in stats, KWIM? So in discussing it here AND on the other thread, I wasn't at all riled up or defensive or upset. I was just pointing out something that related to the validity of the research being quoted.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[August Mom]

I appreciate you explaining that, Rachel. You are right that not everyone on this board is trained in statistics or able to effectively evaluate the design of studies. And, if you have closely looked at a study and found there to be methodological flaws, I think that most of us would appreciate you pointing out your specific concerns about the way that the study was designed, etc. However, I think the concern expressed above was that there was not a specific critique of the design of the studies cited or a particular methodological flaw discussed. Rather, there was just a blanket statement that the article or study was published by or was paid for by an ultra-conservative organization. This fact alone does not invalidate a study or the underlying references cited in the article. Nor does the mere fact that a study appears in a far-left publication automatically invalidate its findings. So, I guess I would appreciate a more detailed evaluation from you, as a person trained in analyzing such studies, when you want to criticize a cited source.

BTW, FWIW I have no opinion on the BF/FF thread as I didn't even read it.

I appreciate that Beth and Rachel have agreed to assist Alan and Denise and to take on the additional responsibility (and sometimes burden) of moderating forums on this site.

[luvbeinmama]

Yes, yes. I agree with Augustmom here. Thanks, Rachel. I was concerned about this, too, but chose not to say anything. FWIW, I think you and Beth are doing an admirable job at what can be a very difficult task.

[amp]

Flagger, being brave, are you? Actually, DH and I had this *very* conversation last night. It really felt like making sure to have the last word. Didn't sit well with me.

[mamicka]

Rachel was replying to my post when she said:

"Worth noting for anyone interested that the Weekly Standard is an ultra-conservative opinion mag, so may or may not be dealing in facts. Use your judgement."

I don't mind it being pointed out that its conservative, it is. I also don't mind it being pointed out that the study might not exactly be scientific. To me, it illustrates my opinion which is why I posted it. What I DO mind is that Rachel's statement is definitely implying that because it is conservative, it may not be reliable. I assume that people on these boards will use their own judgement & don't need to be reminded of that, even when information comes from a source that I don't deem reliable.

[Rachels]

No, my point was that because it was an OPINION mag, it may not be reliable. The same would be true with a super-liberal publication that's seeking to promote its own agenda. May be factual, maybe not. It was presented by the magazine as a study, though, not as opinion, which is why I said something. As for the comment about using judgment, okay, whatever. We could nit-pick until the cows come home about every little semantic thing that somebody writes, be it me or anybody else. But let's not.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02