Aa
A queston for Medhelp
I have been reading this forum for many years and posting for two. I see a noticeable increase in deleted posts and the marked absence of many of the most helpful posters. I had disagreements with some of them, but their absence is my loss.
Why are you doing this? A forum can be moderated or not, but this forum seems in between and uses arbitrary rules.
Most of us take mind altering drugs; we need guidance sometimes when we are out of line, but threatening and banning are not helpful. This is a support forum for adults. Sometimes we are so overwhelmed by the drugs that we do not behave as adults, but that is rare.
If you apply arbitrary rules and let trolls post at will and you ban the people that complain about the trolls, you lose the respect of the forum members and you, medhelp, will lose in the end.
If you feel the forum has to be moderated, then supply a moderator that understands the forum and the problems of the participants.
Why are you doing this? A forum can be moderated or not, but this forum seems in between and uses arbitrary rules.
Most of us take mind altering drugs; we need guidance sometimes when we are out of line, but threatening and banning are not helpful. This is a support forum for adults. Sometimes we are so overwhelmed by the drugs that we do not behave as adults, but that is rare.
If you apply arbitrary rules and let trolls post at will and you ban the people that complain about the trolls, you lose the respect of the forum members and you, medhelp, will lose in the end.
If you feel the forum has to be moderated, then supply a moderator that understands the forum and the problems of the participants.
It seems that I missed whatever happened, but I am really glad that this discussion is going on. This forum is a lifeline for many people!
Wow, I guess I missed some serious fireworks around here lately. I'm fading away, but I owe the people on this forum a debt of gratitude. Without you my treatment would have been much, much worse than it was (and it was pretty bad!). And I might not even have successfully completed it without everyone's help. The moral support and information gathered here kept me on track, and helped me manage my healthcare better than a team of doctors could have. The level of discourse here is top notch and always has been . Extremely informative and intellectually stimulating, even including in depth, cutting edge conversations with a world renowned hepatologist (HR)! Where else are you gonna get that?? Nowhere that I've seen, and I've been on HCV websites for over ten years now.
I fear that a surge of overly aggressive moderation will kill this place. On the one hand a blatant troll cannot and should not be tolerated. Nor should an over the top a-hole viciously attacking other people. But aggressively informed debate, lively discourse and even witty sarcasm has its place here. It makes it much more interesting and much more engaging. Almost all of us are adults +20; we can handle a few ruffled feathers. Everyone acts like they hate arguments and conflict. But why are salacious (and extremely stupid) reality TV shows so incredibly popular? The reality is that "animated exchanges" are the spice that keeps things interesting here. Sure, you can go too far. Especially if you're in week 36, all your hair is gone, your a$$ itches like a Mt Vepoopius, your skin has scabs all over it and you just want to choke the b'jeebies out of your room mate - but you're so anemic you're too exhausted to walk up the steps to give him the proper beating he deserves. ;-)
All I gotta say is that I hope MH admins don't come down with an iron fist, because if you do you'll kill this place and then it won't be any different than any other boring, garden variety med site. Let people disagree, let them argue, let them say "nya nya nya naya" to each other. I just hope it doesn't get to the point where some anonymous patrolling church lady can "drop a dime" on another poster simply because she felt what was said was slightly off color. Also, why don't we get an "ignore this member" button added? That way the church ladies can avoid seeing troublesome posts about Margaret's itchy butt, and the rest of us can participate on whatever level we may feel compelled to participate . ;-)
Aiiiigght, that's all I gotta say. Hope this site stays pertinent and interesting and fun and the good ones can roam free on this forum and continue helping people. Believe it or not, lives are actually saved here!
I fear that a surge of overly aggressive moderation will kill this place. On the one hand a blatant troll cannot and should not be tolerated. Nor should an over the top a-hole viciously attacking other people. But aggressively informed debate, lively discourse and even witty sarcasm has its place here. It makes it much more interesting and much more engaging. Almost all of us are adults +20; we can handle a few ruffled feathers. Everyone acts like they hate arguments and conflict. But why are salacious (and extremely stupid) reality TV shows so incredibly popular? The reality is that "animated exchanges" are the spice that keeps things interesting here. Sure, you can go too far. Especially if you're in week 36, all your hair is gone, your a$$ itches like a Mt Vepoopius, your skin has scabs all over it and you just want to choke the b'jeebies out of your room mate - but you're so anemic you're too exhausted to walk up the steps to give him the proper beating he deserves. ;-)
All I gotta say is that I hope MH admins don't come down with an iron fist, because if you do you'll kill this place and then it won't be any different than any other boring, garden variety med site. Let people disagree, let them argue, let them say "nya nya nya naya" to each other. I just hope it doesn't get to the point where some anonymous patrolling church lady can "drop a dime" on another poster simply because she felt what was said was slightly off color. Also, why don't we get an "ignore this member" button added? That way the church ladies can avoid seeing troublesome posts about Margaret's itchy butt, and the rest of us can participate on whatever level we may feel compelled to participate . ;-)
Aiiiigght, that's all I gotta say. Hope this site stays pertinent and interesting and fun and the good ones can roam free on this forum and continue helping people. Believe it or not, lives are actually saved here!
I think all these suggestions are very good and it is wonderful that you are having this dailogue with us.
In my opinion, changes that help the moderator make the right decision are the most important part of this. Technical changes that help identify the abuse button as abuse itself would make the moderator's job easier. That combined with an effort by the moderator to understand the context of the thread or post under suspicion would also be a great help.
You have indicated that both are being implemented and I applaud the effort. I am not saying that the other changes, that provide more information to us, don't make the forum a better place -- they do. They are just not as important as making the right decision in the first place.
In my opinion, changes that help the moderator make the right decision are the most important part of this. Technical changes that help identify the abuse button as abuse itself would make the moderator's job easier. That combined with an effort by the moderator to understand the context of the thread or post under suspicion would also be a great help.
You have indicated that both are being implemented and I applaud the effort. I am not saying that the other changes, that provide more information to us, don't make the forum a better place -- they do. They are just not as important as making the right decision in the first place.
Personally, I'm not referring to banning when I'm talking transparency. I'm talking about editing or removal of posts - I'd personally like to see a standard comment inserted that a post has been removed. I don't expect an explanation to the whole forum when someone gets banned. People can email privately if they have questions about that but I imagine there won't be much information forthcoming regardless. Consistency just means removal of posts / threads applied with the same standards regardless of who the poster is.
Hi again -
The suggestions that you have made are actually already being considered, and we hope to have at least some of this in place sometime soon.
If you mean editing and/or deleting when you say actions being made inconsistently, remember that you can always PM one of us or use the "contact us" link and ask for an explanation. We will do our best to answer them without violating anyone's confidentiality.
We can't talk about why someone was banned at all, as that would violate confidentiality, so if that's what you mean by actions being inconsistent or not transparent, then there isn't much we can do about that, unfortunately.
Just hang in there with us, and I'm sure with better communication from both sides, things will be fine.
Emily
MedHelp
The suggestions that you have made are actually already being considered, and we hope to have at least some of this in place sometime soon.
If you mean editing and/or deleting when you say actions being made inconsistently, remember that you can always PM one of us or use the "contact us" link and ask for an explanation. We will do our best to answer them without violating anyone's confidentiality.
We can't talk about why someone was banned at all, as that would violate confidentiality, so if that's what you mean by actions being inconsistent or not transparent, then there isn't much we can do about that, unfortunately.
Just hang in there with us, and I'm sure with better communication from both sides, things will be fine.
Emily
MedHelp
Since you brought it up....I think it would be interesting to see if we can get some semblance of a consensus on what just and unjust moderating is.
I'll list a couple that come to mind:
Actions applied inconsistently
Actions taken with no explanation, not even a standard disclaimer one.
I'll list a couple that come to mind:
Actions applied inconsistently
Actions taken with no explanation, not even a standard disclaimer one.
It's a start at the least to implement SOME of these suggestions - the warning post, the transparency, a note that a post has been pulled/edited (or pull one instead of editing it - with a comment indicating as such). If we can see what posts have been deleted and it doesn't have to take the whole thread with it, it at least gives someone the opportunity to take it up with MedHelp and it gives someone the opportunity to post differently.
You're talking about people being on treatment drugs and the impact it has on them. Well, removing a post might cause someone to do that double-take that Ricky suggests people do before posting and perhaps a post by someone with a cooler head will do just as well.
It will be very hard to define "just" and "unjust" moderating. We can't even decide that amongst ourselves. Expressing my opinion on something very strongly may seem entirely appropriate to me but someone else may take great offense to that. Some people ARE very easily offended and sensitive and others are not so much. Some people have a hard time with others having a dissenting opinion from theirs. Others not so much. We had the one guy posting that he's thankful he has Hep C. I think it was important that people were allowed to respond to that. It got pretty heated.
We've had a number of debates on this forum on precisely that...how just or unjust we felt someone's post / thread and subsequent responses are. It will be hard to nail that down. So do we wait until we have it perfect or start taking at least the steps that make sense and keep working at it? I vote for the latter.
What would be important is consistency and transparency, in my opinion, as a starting place Even consistency will be hard to define as it comes back to a moderator's opinion of just or unjust.
At the least, I would ask that MedHelp not pull posts solely on the basis of the amount of anonymous reports they get when they have no tracking mechanism to determine if they came from one or two sources hitting that mouse button repeatedly. They will have to read the thread before pulling it or not pull it at all until they have time to assess it or someone actually WRITES. That's my viewpoint on that.
Trish
You're talking about people being on treatment drugs and the impact it has on them. Well, removing a post might cause someone to do that double-take that Ricky suggests people do before posting and perhaps a post by someone with a cooler head will do just as well.
It will be very hard to define "just" and "unjust" moderating. We can't even decide that amongst ourselves. Expressing my opinion on something very strongly may seem entirely appropriate to me but someone else may take great offense to that. Some people ARE very easily offended and sensitive and others are not so much. Some people have a hard time with others having a dissenting opinion from theirs. Others not so much. We had the one guy posting that he's thankful he has Hep C. I think it was important that people were allowed to respond to that. It got pretty heated.
We've had a number of debates on this forum on precisely that...how just or unjust we felt someone's post / thread and subsequent responses are. It will be hard to nail that down. So do we wait until we have it perfect or start taking at least the steps that make sense and keep working at it? I vote for the latter.
What would be important is consistency and transparency, in my opinion, as a starting place Even consistency will be hard to define as it comes back to a moderator's opinion of just or unjust.
At the least, I would ask that MedHelp not pull posts solely on the basis of the amount of anonymous reports they get when they have no tracking mechanism to determine if they came from one or two sources hitting that mouse button repeatedly. They will have to read the thread before pulling it or not pull it at all until they have time to assess it or someone actually WRITES. That's my viewpoint on that.
Trish
All of these comments work well when the post or thread is being justly moderated and don't work at all when it is not.
Emily,
Thanks for elaborating yet more, participating in a discussion on how to make things better and for responding to our questions.
I agree with Great Bird's suggestion that there should be an indication that a post was edited or removed. On other forums I have seen the moderator include a line similar to "XYZ's post was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed." A moderator gets to make that call.
Posts shouldn't be edited with no indication that they are not the writer's original words. An edit would potentially change the meaning of the post entirely. Not sure if posts ARE being edited but seems better to simply remove them with a notation as such.
If someone chooses to re-post only more appropriately (subjective sometimes) then well and good.
As Willing said, I think transparency is important.
Trish
Thanks for elaborating yet more, participating in a discussion on how to make things better and for responding to our questions.
I agree with Great Bird's suggestion that there should be an indication that a post was edited or removed. On other forums I have seen the moderator include a line similar to "XYZ's post was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed." A moderator gets to make that call.
Posts shouldn't be edited with no indication that they are not the writer's original words. An edit would potentially change the meaning of the post entirely. Not sure if posts ARE being edited but seems better to simply remove them with a notation as such.
If someone chooses to re-post only more appropriately (subjective sometimes) then well and good.
As Willing said, I think transparency is important.
Trish
I'm under the impression that you may have edited one of the posts on this thread. If that is the case and it is something that you intends to do from time to time, I would like to respectfully suggest that you include an [edited] notation or a line at the bottom of the affected posts that indicates it was: edited at a [time] by the moderator.
Thank you for discussing these issues with us.
Thank you for discussing these issues with us.
Thank you for responding to this thread. It is good to open a dialouge on these matters, rather than have everyone seething and guessing about why MH takes the actions it takes.
jd
jd
Those are good suggestions, and some are being worked on, and others are in place to happen at some point in the future.
Willing - the Report Abuse at the bottom of the page is a bit different than the "Report this" drop-down menu at the bottom of each post. That option doesn't collect anything, and while that is more comfortable for some who wish to remain anonymous, it doesn't lend a lot of insight as to why some posts might be reported.
Sometimes it isn't a specific rule found in the T of U, but part of a bigger picture as to why some things happen. Depending on the situation, many times it really causes problems when people are discussing someone who's banned, especially when we aren't allowed to step in and explain things. Sometimes talking about a banned member can create an unsafe environment for other members, or it might create division among members, etc. It really depends on the whys, hows and whos.
I know it's hard to understand everything when we can't talk about a lot of it, but I hope you can at least trust that we aren't banning people for the fun of it, or because some people in a forum might not like that person, etc. There are some very specific reasons why people are banned, and especially with long-time, contributing members, it is always a last resort. We don't like doing it, but know we have to sometimes.
I hope this is helping clarify some things, and easing your concerns.
Emily
MedHelp
Willing - the Report Abuse at the bottom of the page is a bit different than the "Report this" drop-down menu at the bottom of each post. That option doesn't collect anything, and while that is more comfortable for some who wish to remain anonymous, it doesn't lend a lot of insight as to why some posts might be reported.
Sometimes it isn't a specific rule found in the T of U, but part of a bigger picture as to why some things happen. Depending on the situation, many times it really causes problems when people are discussing someone who's banned, especially when we aren't allowed to step in and explain things. Sometimes talking about a banned member can create an unsafe environment for other members, or it might create division among members, etc. It really depends on the whys, hows and whos.
I know it's hard to understand everything when we can't talk about a lot of it, but I hope you can at least trust that we aren't banning people for the fun of it, or because some people in a forum might not like that person, etc. There are some very specific reasons why people are banned, and especially with long-time, contributing members, it is always a last resort. We don't like doing it, but know we have to sometimes.
I hope this is helping clarify some things, and easing your concerns.
Emily
MedHelp
It sounds like we are in agreement. Strange concept, but then we are both off treatment - LOL.
Andiamo: I certainly wasn't asking for anyone to excuse bad behavior. I am asking that we put that behavior in the context of the person's state of mind. People that treat are impulsive and angry. That means that SOMETIMES we should cut them some slack and give them a chance to understand the impact the drugs are having on their personality rather than just ban them or ostracize them or fight with them. In the end, this is a support group and that means, to me, supporting all aspects of the disease and the treatment to the best of our ability.
None of us are perfect -- even when we are not treating - LOL. So if we can't be that understanding, well -- none of us are perfect, especially me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm well aware that what you're asking for is tolerance for people on treatment. I support that. What I'm ALSO asking for is a measure of people exercising some personal responsibility as well. You brought up the one and I'm bringing up the other. I think either extreme is unacceptable - lack of tolerance and lack of personal responsibility. I think even when you're on treatment you have to try to see through the fog and try to be decent with people. When I found myself biting the head off of the guy at work, I worked on avoidance tactics and had to limit myself on here for awhile when I felt I could no longer discern if I was being reasonable. About the same time, I had a forum friend tell me that they would no longer talk to me until many months down the road when I was done treatment since they couldn't tolerate who they felt I was on treatment. So...goes both ways, doesn't it. Limits to the tolerance also when someone feels abused. A balance between tolerance and personal responsibility is what I think is fair.
None of us are perfect -- even when we are not treating - LOL. So if we can't be that understanding, well -- none of us are perfect, especially me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm well aware that what you're asking for is tolerance for people on treatment. I support that. What I'm ALSO asking for is a measure of people exercising some personal responsibility as well. You brought up the one and I'm bringing up the other. I think either extreme is unacceptable - lack of tolerance and lack of personal responsibility. I think even when you're on treatment you have to try to see through the fog and try to be decent with people. When I found myself biting the head off of the guy at work, I worked on avoidance tactics and had to limit myself on here for awhile when I felt I could no longer discern if I was being reasonable. About the same time, I had a forum friend tell me that they would no longer talk to me until many months down the road when I was done treatment since they couldn't tolerate who they felt I was on treatment. So...goes both ways, doesn't it. Limits to the tolerance also when someone feels abused. A balance between tolerance and personal responsibility is what I think is fair.
thanks for responding. Along the lines of Trish's post above here's a couple of comments/suggestions:
- having never used the 'report abuse' facility I'm not sure how it works. I tried clicking on it today and it seems to collect not just the MH login but also an email address and reasons for the perceived abuse. If, in the moderator's judgment, the challenged post in fact violates the "Terms of Use" I'd suggest replacing the offending text with the explanation of why this is abusive (this could be easily automated). The result would clearly convey what part of a post was offensive and why it was. It would also clearly mark posts that were edited by MH; as it stands someone's post is altered without any indication that what remains is not what was submitted.
- consider adding a requirement that at least two members must flag a post as offensive
- clarify/expand the "terms of use" to reflect what is actually enforced. For example, I have no clue which of the 18 rules stated I violated by discussing what appeared to be the arbitrary banning of a former member in a thread devoted to the topic of excessively restrictive moderating.
Overall, deleting/modifying posts/threads should be a very transparent process so it's clear to everyone why censorship was applied. Silent censorship, as this thread should make clear, is not popular - unless its need can be justified the resulting chilling effect is bound to drive away users.
- having never used the 'report abuse' facility I'm not sure how it works. I tried clicking on it today and it seems to collect not just the MH login but also an email address and reasons for the perceived abuse. If, in the moderator's judgment, the challenged post in fact violates the "Terms of Use" I'd suggest replacing the offending text with the explanation of why this is abusive (this could be easily automated). The result would clearly convey what part of a post was offensive and why it was. It would also clearly mark posts that were edited by MH; as it stands someone's post is altered without any indication that what remains is not what was submitted.
- consider adding a requirement that at least two members must flag a post as offensive
- clarify/expand the "terms of use" to reflect what is actually enforced. For example, I have no clue which of the 18 rules stated I violated by discussing what appeared to be the arbitrary banning of a former member in a thread devoted to the topic of excessively restrictive moderating.
Overall, deleting/modifying posts/threads should be a very transparent process so it's clear to everyone why censorship was applied. Silent censorship, as this thread should make clear, is not popular - unless its need can be justified the resulting chilling effect is bound to drive away users.
"While I appreciate the understanding handed to those who are on treatment, I think it's going a little too far to allow that as an *excuse* to be nasty to other people. "
I certainly wasn't asking for anyone to excuse bad behavior. I am asking that we put that behavior in the context of the person's state of mind. People that treat are impulsive and angry. That means that SOMETIMES we should cut them some slack and give them a chance to understand the impact the drugs are having on their personality rather than just ban them or ostracize them or fight with them. In the end, this is a support group and that means, to me, supporting all aspects of the disease and the treatment to the best of our ability.
None of us are perfect -- even when we are not treating - LOL. So if we can't be that understanding, well -- none of us are perfect, especially me.
I certainly wasn't asking for anyone to excuse bad behavior. I am asking that we put that behavior in the context of the person's state of mind. People that treat are impulsive and angry. That means that SOMETIMES we should cut them some slack and give them a chance to understand the impact the drugs are having on their personality rather than just ban them or ostracize them or fight with them. In the end, this is a support group and that means, to me, supporting all aspects of the disease and the treatment to the best of our ability.
None of us are perfect -- even when we are not treating - LOL. So if we can't be that understanding, well -- none of us are perfect, especially me.
It's too bad you don't have a tracking mechanism on the Abuse button so that you can determine the source. Then at least you'd know if it's repeating from the same user or otherwise. I think it's a bit irresponsible to react solely on the basis of automated "abuse" reports - you end up being an unwitting party to someone's pettiness or personal vendetta. If you had a tracking mechanism, you could warn those that abuse the abuse reporting feature.
Maybe you need a Contact Us button for abuse so that people have to declare themselves. Seems a bit over the top but when abuse reporting is handled at face value and is obviously being abused itself, perhaps it forces people to really stand up for their viewpoint. It IS private after all. Not like anybody but the moderator is going to know.
I also don't get why we need to refer to banned members as "the name that shall not be mentioned". Seems just a bit silly, doesn't it? We can refer to them but not name them? What's your reasoning behind that? I simply don't get that.
Trish
Maybe you need a Contact Us button for abuse so that people have to declare themselves. Seems a bit over the top but when abuse reporting is handled at face value and is obviously being abused itself, perhaps it forces people to really stand up for their viewpoint. It IS private after all. Not like anybody but the moderator is going to know.
I also don't get why we need to refer to banned members as "the name that shall not be mentioned". Seems just a bit silly, doesn't it? We can refer to them but not name them? What's your reasoning behind that? I simply don't get that.
Trish
After getting some explanations from some people, it seems that MH was not being consistent. We didn't allow discussions of one banned member, but were allowing discussions of another.
In fairness to those who support and miss the members, we are deleting the posts that are strictly about a specific banned member in this thread. I do hope you understand. We are aiming for consistency here.
We apologize for the confusion.
Emily
MedHelp
In fairness to those who support and miss the members, we are deleting the posts that are strictly about a specific banned member in this thread. I do hope you understand. We are aiming for consistency here.
We apologize for the confusion.
Emily
MedHelp
Thank you.
As you are well aware some people have a “Trigger Finger” for the Abuse Button. This is causing frustration for the rest of us. The different personalities and view points, are at the top of my list of things I like about this Forum. I wish people would stop and think, is this the Riba, am I being over emotional, am I being petty, is this really abuse or just something that goes against the grain of what I think, before pushing the abuse button.
As you are well aware some people have a “Trigger Finger” for the Abuse Button. This is causing frustration for the rest of us. The different personalities and view points, are at the top of my list of things I like about this Forum. I wish people would stop and think, is this the Riba, am I being over emotional, am I being petty, is this really abuse or just something that goes against the grain of what I think, before pushing the abuse button.
You've asked for more communication from MH before deleting things, etc., so I wanted to let you know that we have had several of these posts reported as abuse this morning.
Most of these aren't actually abuse, and the 1 or 2 that were have been addressed. We do have limitations with our reporting system, as members don't have the ability to explain why a post is abusive, but upon checking these out, there isn't any apparent abuse. If whoever is reporting abuse would like to explain why, they can PM me confidentially.
I'd also like to add that no member is banned for one thread, as long as they aren't egregiously violating the Terms of Use by posting spam, porn, threats, etc. As Harry explained earlier, we do have a cooling down period, and warning system that we follow. We do appreciate that sometimes bannings result in a big loss for your community, but please understand that we don't like banning people any more than you like us doing it.
Emily
MedHelp Moderator
Most of these aren't actually abuse, and the 1 or 2 that were have been addressed. We do have limitations with our reporting system, as members don't have the ability to explain why a post is abusive, but upon checking these out, there isn't any apparent abuse. If whoever is reporting abuse would like to explain why, they can PM me confidentially.
I'd also like to add that no member is banned for one thread, as long as they aren't egregiously violating the Terms of Use by posting spam, porn, threats, etc. As Harry explained earlier, we do have a cooling down period, and warning system that we follow. We do appreciate that sometimes bannings result in a big loss for your community, but please understand that we don't like banning people any more than you like us doing it.
Emily
MedHelp Moderator
Jim is nursing his tendonitis, according to this thread he posted June 15.
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Hepatitis-Social/Checking-In/show/975970?personal_page_id=8103&post_id=post_4564895
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Hepatitis-Social/Checking-In/show/975970?personal_page_id=8103&post_id=post_4564895
Maybe...just maybe....Jim is finally getting a much-deserved life. I hope that's why he's not here so much. That's certainly why I'm not here as much as I used to be. Not that mine is well-deserved, just that it's why I'm not here as much as before. I can't imagine Jim just disappearing without a word, that's not his style. He did this before and it was coincidentally around the same time as a previous time of considerable unrest on the forums and it was conjectured then that he'd decided to leave. He came back and said as much that he wouldn't just disappear. He simply had some personal things that required his attention.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis Social Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
