** Volunteer Staff Member to Certain Other Members **
I'll admit that I'm writing because I've been triggered, but here's the view of one mod on the issues raised by some of the posts in this thread. I write not to defend myself but to provide a different POV.
ETA: I've realized that 'triggered' is a euphemism. I mean that 'the mods' have been attacked unjustly, and I think I have been attacked unjustly. I don't like it. Also, if there's no response, the attack stands as valid, so I'm responding.
*****
First, my hat's off to Unthought for continuing to look for help. I am very glad he found it.
My problem with his request was that he asked members to give up their very precious anonymity, which is never a good practice on the web. If someone did respond, Unthought would present himself with the problem of verifying the responder's bona fides before working on his pain, and that simply would not have served his interests.
*****
Have you all read the guidelines? The request for contact - a request to others to violate their own anonymity and potentially put themselves at risk - was a violation of our guidelines. Besides, in asking for direct contact with someone on an anonymous forum that requires only an email address from registrants puts the requester at risk.
What, exactly, is an ideal response to a guideline violation, especially when the violation threatens anonymity, a basic promise of an anonymous online forum?
*****
Bigger has received post after post thanking him for his contributions. Does he lose all credibility because he was triggered ONCE by a post? Does that invalidate every one of his posts? Does that invalidate every post by every mod?
Does anyone think members lose their rights as members and as human beings when they agree to serve as staff members? Do you think we somehow agree to be perfect when we sign on as staff? Or should the staff take you to mean that we've never erred until now? (Boy, if that's what you mean, you're way wrong.)
One critic says they've used SI for 5 years. Does Bigger's post invalidate the help they've taken from SI?
*****
I am not a bot. I doubt that Bigger is a bot. I've met some staffers, so I know they're not bots. I've received help by other staff members that show they aren't bots. The staff's job is to keep members within guidelines, but we are human beings, and therefore prone to error.
I believe that the bulk of SI's value lies with the members who post. Members almost always post with respect. empathy, sympathy, and love for each other when we especially need to give and receive love, empathy, sympathy, and respect.
At the same time, the guidelines and member's voluntary adherence to the guidelines help makes the posts useful. We can see in other forums that engaging in political or religious debate and flaming turns forums into wastelands.
The staff enforces the guidelines. Shutting down violations helps keep SI generally a place of disagreements without being disagreeable.
All of us here are human beings, though, so none of us is perfect.
*****
Eric Berne wrote that his patients identified a game they call NIGYSOB - 'Now I've got you, you SOB!'. I think that's what's going on with a few vocal members here.
When games are played, the best response is for the game players to identify what they really want when they play the game. So, if you have reacted to Bigger's post as if it's a major crime against Unthought and yourself, look inside. The problem is connected almost definitely in the realm of demanding perfection from other human beings, and that's something only you can solve. All Bigger did was make you notice it.
*****
And BTW, Bigger is not a mod. His role is 'attache'. Between you and me, I think he has more power than a mod. Based on his contributions, that's not inappropriate IMO.
*****
I think it's important to read and understand before responding.
IMO, Bigger DID NOT write that the call for help was 'lame.' Rather, he wrote that the attempt to avoid being confronted for violating guidelines by acknowledging it was the lame part. I have a hard time disagreeing with that assessment, though I wish another, more neutral term was used.
Unthought's pain was real, and I think every reader recognized that. His way of attending to his pain by asking a member to identify themself was the problem.
I am very sorry the critics have been so shocked by Bigger and the mods here. No one on the staff wants to add to any member's pain. I wish I could say it won't happen again. I expect that we all do our best. We can do no more.
Apparently we're better, on the whole, than mods on another website - but that's 'on the whole'. Sometimes a member has a beef.
And the guidelines say: when you have a beef, communicate with the mods. My own experience is that the mods listen. They didn't agree with me, but I was still a member in good standing, despite the disagreements. I was not a mod at the time, but I can do no less that review any complaint as objectively as other mods reviewed mine.
If you have a beef, let the mods know via a PM or, better, a 'mod, please' thread.
[This message edited by SI Staff at 7:53 PM, Monday, December 30th]
