At some point we will have formal Forum Guidelines, but until then, I'd love to hear your ideas about what those guidelines should be and how they could be worded. I'd like to know what you want more of and less of, what you don't like but can live with because it's worth it.

Love and more love,
Grinity

I'll jump in and address the linking to blogs issue. Many people have their own blogs or other websites where they are contributors. I think it's appropriate for those posters to include their links in their signatures, but not appropriate to just post links to their own site as a response to a question. If people are curious about the poster based on the information in their post, they will naturally click through the link to the signature to learn more. I think it's also fine for people to copy text from their own sites and paste here when relevant to a particular question or topic, but even better if they tailor the response to the particular question.

I would like to see a guideline to respect everyone's opinions. Because our children and families are all unique, our experiences as to what works and what doesn't will be quite different. One of the best parts of this forum is that you get to hear many different viewpoints and ideas, and I don't want that limited. There should be room for disagreement and healthy discussion as well, while remaining respectful.

Here are some guidelines/rules of conduct from forums with varying degrees of similarity to this one:

http://giftedkids.about.com/gi/boards/proxicom/guide.htm
http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/ucp.php?mode=terms
http://www.bellaonline.com/misc/forums/rules.asp
http://www.bellaonline.com/misc/terms.asp
http://www.bellaonline.com/misc/forums/compassion.asp
http://www.giftedhaven.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=1212
http://www.mothering.com/motheringdotcommunity-user-agreement
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/faq.php

The above sites have the following rules on spam and solicitation:

* No commercial messages or solicitation, but can include links to a personal website in a signature (giftedkids.about.com)

* No advertising, promotional materials or solicitation (artofproblemsolving.com)

* No posting with the main aim of driving readers away from the forum website (bellaonline.com)

* No posting to advertise a product, business, website or blog or in any other manner from which you would financially benefit (mothering.com)

* Authors of homeschooling or other materials, or who have a financial interest in a particular program, may answer questions about those materials/programs but may not use a more general query to promote their materials/programs (welltrainedmind.com)

I don't know if I'd recommend a rule that no one involved with any website can link to it. That would rule out even links to Wikipedia posted by a Wikipedian. I don't necessarily think that a person could never link usefully to their own blog either. I think a pattern of linking to a website where one has an interest could become solicitation.

If we are to allow some links to websites where a person has an interest, I don't know whether it would be optimal to allow links only in sigs. That would mean that sometimes a person might know about a page that could be highly relevant and useful, which happened to be on a website where they have an interest, and not be able to do more than hope that the reader would find it by accident by following the link in their sig. A sigs-only rule has the advantage of being fairly easy to apply, being fair, and avoiding a lot of solicitation, but the drawback of excluding some useful content.

I would generally in the past have considered these factors when deciding whether posts were solicitation or spam:

* Apparent intent to drive traffic to the linked-to website, instead of simply participating in discussions on the forum site.

* Pattern of posting links to a single site. (This feeds into the last factor.)

* Pattern of posting more than one link to the same external website in a single post.

* Posting links to the same external website with low relevance or which are unrelated to the discussion.

* Relatively few/no forum posts without links to the external website, in proportion to posts with links.

* Relatively low amount of content when posting links to the same external site.

* Non-link posts with minimal or negligible content, such as "Okay" or "I agree", in an apparent attempt to counter the number of posts with links or to present a link in a signature.

* Any interest in the external website linked to in the ways specified above, but especially a financial interest.

Thanks Lucounu! Great Contribution.

I'm curious about topic drift...it seems that pretty often post drift away from the original poster's concerns. This worries me when the OP is relativly new to our forum or the idea of giftedness. Sometimes I've gone ahead and started a new thread that consists of a quote of someone else's post - but that hasn't been met with great success, so I sort of dropped that idea. Is there a way to say - hey, lets keep on topic, particularly if the OP seems new, worried, or vulnerable in some way, without making people so nervous about their posts that they don't post?

I kind of like the freewheeling nature of our current way, but I sure would love to see posters say - 'I disagree with you but I feel we are drifting too far off topic - care to 'step outside?' or care to start a new topic, or care to meet me in 'snark-postive timeout?'

What about PMs? Can we make it a board tradition that anyone can PM anyone else and say - 'Welcome to the board, I'm x parent of 3 gifted teens, and I'm worried when you do X, but I'd like to learn more about you and your perspective."

((shrugs))
Grinity

I like the idea of a respect rule (almost all forums have them) and tentatively a take-it-outside, don't-derail-threads rule.

Regarding respectfulness, a lot of sites use boilerplate language like "unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable" etc.

Mothering.com, which I believe is known for being somewhat restrictive, prohibits forum posts which are "disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, [and] personal attack".

Gifted Haven requires one to behave towards others by "respecting their opinions/beliefs, not singling them out without a solid, justifiable reason to do so, or insulting them for no particular reason".

Words like "harmful" may be too vague to be useful. I think "tortuous" must mean "devious" in this context, but it's so vague as to be worthless too. I guess that a certain amount of the boilerplate will likely wind up in the respectfulness rule (ETA: and it's actually already there in the rules that exist for this site). I think that mothering.com's policy has some interesting differences. "Adversarial" seems like possibly a bad choice, as it could lead to claims that any disagreement with another poster are off limits (and in fact some of the history of that site seems to have gone that way). "Baiting" and "casting of suspicion" might be good additions, although I don't know if they're necessary. "Demeaning criticism" is highly vague, but it or something similar might still make a good addition to get the idea across that we should be tolerant and respectful. A rule against "personal attack" is akin to one against singling a person out.

In retrospect in that other thread, if I had it to do over, I would probably start with a PM directly to the other person. It might be a nice explicit rule that if you have a problem with someone else's posts you start by PMing them, unless you choose to bring it to the moderator's attention. We could also consider a rule against singling someone out (a hard rule or one with qualifications like at Gifted Haven). I guess the wording would have to distinguish between what we consider to be bad singling out, and simple disagreement.

Re: Mon, that other website I visited used the phrase "support only" at the top of a thread if they only wanted advice how to achieve their goal and really weren't open to opinions. Maybe there could be a few kinds of tags "thoughts welcome" "how-to only" or "stay on topic" or "converse freely here".

Way Cool!

I do like the support only possibility in the title of threads. I would say, though, that mothering's gifted forum has moved so far in that direction that it seems like you cannot disagree with anyone about anything. I'd hate to see things here move in that direction to the extent that they have there b/c it feels so broad that it is no longer meets my needs at times.

What their guidelines read is:

I would also not want to go in the direction of that other site's guidelines. I value hearing differing opinions on subjects. It would take a whole lot of the interest and fun out of this forum if we had to agree to post only if we agreed on the topic at hand (which I know is only a possible interpretation of that other guideline). A full and open discussion will often include different opinions and comparisons.

Popping in while poorly connected, but: I think it ain't broke, so we shouldn't fix it. I think new posters who belong here generally get answers that let them feel that, and those who don't sometimes don't - but tbbh, that's how it has to be. This place has its own tenor, and part of that is that some peopel who stumble in will not feel welcome because they haven't found the right place. Part of that is that if you want to be somewhere were people will only agree with you, you're in the wrong place. So be it.

About the 'boilerplate' list:

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing 'tortuous' is a misspelling of 'tortious', given the tenor of the rest of the list.

This is a tough crowd, no doubt. I actually like that curmudgeonly wisdom flung so freely around here. My favorite, if it matters, is the off-topic conversations. I'm not the only one because people make "thought" threads, obviously just reaching out for such conversations. Some of the better ones happen spontaneously.
I guess what's on the table is "our" reputation. I would be all free and hippy-zippy and say "you be you, let me be me.". The tolerance creed. That's however humanistic and egotistical. I don't like the idea of more rules and strictness. I think having a "support only" button or a "stay on topic" smilycon would let sensitive posters make their threads without driving the rest of us into the closet who like to converse naturally, rather than act like the forum is a database of co-written news articles than need to be informative and stay in topic. I could adjust, if that's what this is, though.

The big issue is the definition of spam. If lucounu or other forumfly's could be given moderator privileges and be trusted to only ever use them to delete the Luie vatton handbag ads that would take a chore off of the host's hand. Let me think more about the members linking thing. I have a personal opinion answer "in the cloud", I just haven't materialized it into a solid visible line yet.

I can't believe Dottie's gone. That just lowered the quality of the board. She provided quite a service and free of charge and she's owed such a debt of gratitude. That was a valuable and irreplaceable service.

Eta: forumfly, cheesy attempt at humor. Like a barfly or a "regular".

Wow, I step away from the computer for a while and something big always happens. Where is Dottie? I just saw her post not to long ago.

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/107679/3.html

I agree. Absolutely, completely. And thank you for saying it so well.


Ditto.

Val

Grinity, I have to ask -- is there something prompting this? Has there been discussion that something isn't working here or do the admins want to implement some new rules for other reasons?

I'm guessing it may have something to do with Mark stepping in to end a thread recently? Perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm with ColinsMum for the most part. Love this forum but run away from time to time to "detox" from the wealth of info (find it overwhelming sometimes to read messages continuously without a break; refering to gifted forums in general here) and love coming back to find it just the way it was.

The one bit I would like to add is to not have a bunch of personal blog links in the body of the post. Wouldn't mind a short blog mention in the signature (e.g. how yahoo group members do it).

Thanks for asking the qn Grinity!

I always miss those things!

Just realized it isn't the way it was with Dottie gone. Sob. Fingers crossed that Grin won't leave us...at least for the near future. Apologies for this post...entirely off-topic!

Proposed forum rule: Beloved forum members may not leave without prior permission of the community...;)

I second the "Grin, don't leave us!" sentiment.

LOL - I'm not going anywhere. But I do think that there is a difference between disagreeing with someone diplomatically and lovingly and a spontaneous shot from the hip that would likely hurt someone else's feelings for no reason.

Search 'Snark' for more details. I'm calling on all of us to behave ourselves with party manners here. We are in public even if it doesn't feel like it, and we'll never know more than 10% of the true full picture of anyone's post.

I think of this forum as a sort of social experiment. Can adult gifties who grew up without enough peers to really practice their full inheritance of social skills grow to the point where they can disagree without being disagreeable? What about disagreeing with total love? (I say things to people that they don't want to hear on a pretty frequent basis, right?)

Some of us didn't get much chance to develop our intellect, some did. Parenting is an opportunity to develop our 'hearts' - which believe me are as gifted as our intellects. We are making the transition from pouring all that love into our children to being able to pour that love towards everyone we meet. So yes, I do consider this place as a social experiment, as much as a place to share about giftedness. In my mind the two are inseparable.

I can't go to any other Public Gifted Forum - too much talking without listening, too much 'regular life.' So of course I worry that as we grow, this will become like any other place on the Internet.

Maybe we need 'traditions' instead of rules?

If we learn, then so much is worth it, but if we just repeat our habits, then it's going to get hard. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but I hope I am.

Love and More Love,
Grinity

Sometimes there's no way to disagree with someone without hurting feelings. It's the nature of being disagreed with. Sorry, I don't know what you mean by having to disagree "lovingly." Does this mean that from now on, we'll have to couch everything we say in cautious language?

I feel like this thread is an attempt to regulate free speech here, and I just don't like that idea.

Must go.

Maybe we wouldn't have to use cautious language, just up the love quotient in each message. "I disagree with your self-promotion on this board. <3"

I'm generally in favor of free speech. If we have to be loving, which would very likely be nebulously defined, that means we can't even use a touch of sarcasm or risk breaking the rules. Healthy discussion or debate on a topic where people disagree leads naturally IMHO to observations of perceived absurd results of someone else's ideas. One thinks through the implications of what someone else has said, looking for weaknesses one can use to rebut what they've said. Sarcasm in and of itself is wry, not malicious.

I still think a good addition might be a strong suggestion or rule that if you have a problem with someone's conduct on the forum you would ordinarily start with a PM, which need not necessarily be to the moderator. In the recent hullaballoo, I continue to think it's obvious that a poster was promoting her blog. I've gotten agreement via PMs from multiple people who agreed completely with my assessment of the situation, and who thanked me for saying what they were too polite to say. To me this is confirmation that I'm not factually wrong in what I say, but also that others with the same belief were more restrained for a reason: not fear of the moderators here, as it might be on another site, but because they couldn't find a way to address the issue without singling the person out, using language that might be perceived as harsh, etc. They couldn't bring it up openly without risking reproach, or at least the perception that they were in the wrong in some way, by some of the people here. That to me means that a PM was probably in order, as the simplest way to smooth things over and restore order. I don't think anything I said was really wrong in terms of message, but it was wrong because its method of presentation was destined to cause an unnecessary ruckus.

I think my motivation in posting publicly was partly an aversion to using PMs for such things (which I'm rethinking), but also partly because I felt like giving voice to what I thought others must be feeling (as they were). In retrospect it doesn't really help the situation to do that, though; any remediation should be able to be achieved via PM.

And in a PM to a single person whom one perceives to be in the wrong, one might naturally use a bit tamer language for a few reasons (no words chosen in an attempt to openly vent group frustration, convince others to agree, etc.). In a PM including a moderator, one would obviously tend to use toned-down language.

I remain of course wholeheartedly in support of an anti-spam/anti-solicitation rule.

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....th_Skills_Practice_for_4.html#Post107707
I'm such a gossip! Here's the first I heard of it.
I vote free speech. I'm sticking with my hideous analogy of this place as a watering hole. I'm going to quote the "Harvard killed rhetoric" article that I read here lately. Apparently ancient Rome had great debates and great thinkers and great public arguments because people had to find a way to make a better government and a better future. America, was apparently founded so well and so cleverly, that we have not NEEDed great thinkers or arguing, just needed people to implement the plan, so much so that families walk away from arguing over what to watch on tv even.
OTOH, I like that this forum is not crude or crass but it's also for adult conversation, not children. That's a rare combo and I'm digging it. Oy. I can't say what we've lost with Dottie. You say this is for "the public", but the non-regulars that come here are mostly for advice because their kid gotta test and they want a better reading of what it means personally about the kid and their life. There's books and articles for advocacy, acceleration, websites for philosophies and education styles. But who publicly responds to iq letters? Nobody even talks about iq tests and iq numbers like it's a taboo secret. Dottie was a heroic grass-roots effort.

Thank you for posting that link, La Texican.

As someone who is unable to spend as much time on the computer over the summer, I felt like I had walked in on the middle of a conversation when I read the various posts last night. That link explained a lot.

Though I read much more than I post, I have found this forum to be a life line in many ways over the past few years. I'm glad that so many people are thoughtfully considering ways to keep it the welcoming, supportive place I have nearly always found it to be.

I know you are trying to be humerous here, Lucounu, but actually this gets your original point across and it works for me on the level of 'here's what I think, I'm not here to attack anyone.'

I think humor and sarcasm is fine for many of the discussion here, but not all of them. If - for example - a newbie was posting about her child's problems, or about the difficulties of raising toddlers, and it can be percieved that the parent is concerned, then sarcasm doesn't belong in the mix, and humor must be gentle indeed, You've always acted very kind towards OP with a personal question.

In the thread that bothers me the most, a personal appeal drifted into a question of parenting style, and the unspoken rules for a 'general freewheeling - we finally get to talk about this- what a relief- topic' were starting to be followed - in a way that was perceived by the OP as an attack on her parenting style. I think we need to be 'squeaky clean' about starting new threads when a personal appeal drifts into a 'let's spar!' kind of topic.

Maybe that needs to be the tradition - checking to be sure that a personal appeal topic stays closer to the OP's question and the any 'let's spar!' topics that come off of that start their own thread in the Discussion Forum? I think it's ok to mention 'hey! let's talk about thumbsucking' or 'hey, let's talk about teaching kids to apologize of in Discussion Forum!'

I did actually disagree with OP about the thembsucking, but I tried to do it with love, and gentleness. If anyone things that I want a 'only the kind of support where one never disagrees' forum then what does that say about all the 'Trin-Slapping' I do around here?

(Dottie and I call it Trin-Slapping when I lovingly disagree out in the open.) Consistent with my female socialization, I get highly uncomfortable when I disagree openly with someone who has presented themselves in a vulnerable position, but I do have a horror of 'group-think' and the dangers people go blindly into because 'the group' thinks there is no danger, so if I feel it must be done, then I do it.


Isn't that interesting? I agree with your observation Lucounu...but what would be so terrible if we used that same 'toned down' quality on the board? That's basically what I'm asking for.

Lucounu - I think you've shown tremendous grace and lack of defensiveness during these last few days. I often feel as though I've grown as a person while reading your posts - and that's about the highest compliment my mind has!

Love and More Love,
Grinity

I personally have noticed there just seems to be more aggressiveness here lately than I remember before. I'm not refering to any one thread, just a general tone.

I agree that making it a tradition to start a new topic for these kinds of side shoots that arise is a good idea. That would also allow those of us who wish to avoid those arguments to do so. I also think that gentle criticism is more likely to be accepted, to be more helpful to the person, than a full-on attack.

Would having it a rule make it easier for people to follow long after this particular thread has been consigned to the depths of cyberspace?

I'm not sure, just putting it out there.

What would you tell somebody they couldn't say? Does it really bother you when people talk about their kids and their families? Obviously other people cringe when posters present themselves like they have an agenda. I cringe when people shut other people up. I cringe when someone posts their story and isn't received how they wanted to be. I also cringe when I feel I've said too much. I cringe when I say the wrong thing, but then I cringe so hard I immediately say something to make it better. A cringe-list ban consideration column has been started on one side of the paper.
On the other side is a vision for the future of the forum. What do you want it to grow into? Endangered are the days when people posted live iq scores, probably the only place it ever happens, just acknowlegement of something that's real. It seems like there's a strong support system for educational advocacy for an appropriate fit from BTDT mothers and archives of articles and studies. I think there's some professors and professionals and others, so, it's nice to talk. There's a lot of nature vs nurture discussions, and interest in discussing designing a better educational structure for the whole country, and biological or emotional gifted traits talks. Maybe that could go in an adult conversation area. Young adults drift through wanting to share their tale, but they don't need a section. They just tell their story once and take off. That's the thing, if you make an adult conversation area they would come here when they should be going to gifted haven. This place is for the parents.

(hanging out with cricket3 over on the sensitive tail of the curve here...)

I registered here nearly three years ago, having lurked for several months at that point; I couldn't believe what I had found here. Nowhere else had I ever seen a online community so warm, so generous, so courteous, so kind--and where people were sensitive enough to each other to step away from areas where hurt might be caused (I only remember two locked threads from the whole first year I was here--just to reaffirm the old cliche about what not to discuss with strangers, one was about religion, and one was about politics!).

For me, it's no longer the same here as it once was (although it still has its wonderful moments), and I neither visit nor post nearly as much as I once did; so many threads go south so quickly. Of course people move on or decide to limit their comments for many different reasons, but I have been for several months missing the voices of so many here who once were regular posters and who were also reliably kind and helpful contributors.

I don't know how useful it is to say how much I miss the good old days, but I do.

peace
minnie

I meant really what would you say? Like, make a list. I almost think instead of the rules saying, "don't compare kid's and brag too much", "don't push an agenda", and "don't try to shut somebody up", maybe it's better to make a clear vision statement of what we do want to create. That's why I mentioned one thing that makes this board completely different than any other is the live posting of test results. It was my first impression and probably most of yours, the list on the side saying s-b 5 results, another Wisc IV question... Now the topic titles look more conversational. Maybe a great place to start would be to more clearly define the topics that are thread-worthy. That would get more milage than micro-managing responses.

For a personal code of conduct rule I know a good compromise. K, I stole it from lucounu and Grinnity before it gets burried. I think it would work for everybody, the sensitive bleeding hearts and Val. Maybe it's because I have small kids but I'm imagining the results can be comical. Maybe, since we're gifted, we could shoot for the moon and make a 100% nobody gets offended consensus rule. It would be a rule that says if somebody sees something cringeworthy in your post they type "Rephrase", then you think for a minute and make another post worded differently. If your heart's softened one or two re-writes will still make your point and concede the others feelings. If it's "one of those things" you might have two people take up 3pgs. on the rephrase rule. It's got potential.

the theme running through most of these posts is that the board is different, it was better before, what made the board special seems to be changing. Interesting that it coincides with Dottie's departure. Not to say Dottie's wonderful participation was soley responsible for the quality of the board, but is possible that her farewell indicates the problems highlighted here. The board was started awhile ago and this dedicated group of supportive people welcomed newbies and performed an invaluable service, Tex mentioned the iq evals which almost always serve as a welcome to the forum. Who will do that now? But participation here is likely linked to the stage of parenting the individual is in. Some like Grinity continue to do it, even though they are past a lot of the critical stages of gifted parenting, but I would guess that as your parenting roles change you drift away from the earlier issues. So in a sense is the board changing because the core group is not being replaced with the same types of people performing the same types of roles. It's rather like comparisons between Europe and America in terms of new immigrants, the US is often given credit for socializing new people such that they become fervent defenders of the American way of life. So the board is different because the people who have come and stayed are different and are creating a different social norm, one with more conflict, although as someone noted, there are always challenging threads, so how much is just rose colored glasses for the smaller, more banded together board.

From this perspective, the need is for more participation from the "elders" to maintain that voice. But it's probably unrealistic since they aren't in the same place. So then it's a new generation core group stepping up and actively working to maintain the board - and maybe that's what this thread is meant to be?

DeHe

I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering if my posts are the ones that are upsetting to other members of the forum/community. I'd offer the following thoughts:

First, if I offend with my posts, I would like to recieve a respectfully worded PM that explains what came across as aggressive or unkind. While I do have some strongly held beliefs, I strive--sometimes unsuccessfully--to express them respectfully. When I catch myself missing the mark, I try to correct it with a follow up post, but I don't always catch it. I'd hate to feel like I have to second guess everything I say and would rather trust that others will gently let me know if I've offended.

Second, I don't read every thread. I spend time on threads that are personally relevant, interesting or helpful. It seems to me that all threads shouldn't have to be all things to all people. What draws me to this forum has evolved over time. I came initially in an attempt to better understand my children. I still come here for that purpose, but as my understanding has grown, so has my need to look at broader issues and to try to hash through issues that impact school policy. I do that so that I can work through my thinking in a community of people who understand giftedness--at a variety of levels--before trying to work through the issues IRL with a cross-section of people who may or may not understand giftedness. Some of those discussions definitely ignite strong passions and feelings in myself and others, but I think/hope they will become the foundation for meaningful change in our schools. I don't want to lose the opportunity to have those disagreements here. Is it not simply possible for us to choose to participate in the threads that match our interests and styles? I am supportive of the idea that the OP can put in their subject line or original post a "handle with care" comment that would alert the rest of us to proceed with a little extra caution.

One of my biggest fears is that this forum becomes so geared to being supportive only, that it ceases to be a place where we can get some honest context for our experiences. One of the most important things to me when I came was to get a concrete sense of how to interpret my childrens' abilities. IRL I was getting a lot of vague responses and it prevented me from understanding where my children did or didn't fit and what they might or might not need. Here I read about children whose abilities were significantly different than mine in some ways, very similar in others. Had I come and just gotten a blanket reassurance that my child was probably gifted (because that would be considered supportive in some odd way), I would be no better off than when I started. I never view the offering of milestones as oneupmanship--our kids aren't in the sames schools and communities. They aren't in competition with one another. It is a unique opportunity to honestly share and understand how gifted, bright, typical/atypical etc. our children are, so that we can effectively and knowledgeably know when to advocate and when to relax.

Those are my two--or three--cents, fwtw....

I don't think there's any very nice way to suggest that someone is spamming, for example. That's why I think that some things are best left for PM. Disagreements about education or parenting are different from disagreements about the way we conduct ourselves on the board. So for the former I agree that a general attitude of respectfulness can work well, but maybe not for things that are bound to raise hackles no matter how you say them.

I've thought a bit about suggestions to add meta-info to thread titles. I don't think adding extra information to the title of a new thread about the intent of the thread would hurt at all, but it would be bound not to be followed perfectly. I guess if someone really doesn't want things to veer off topic she could indicate that, but is it likely? I see posters like Val already starting new threads when appropriate, so maybe just a strong suggestion to do that would be the best improvement.

I also think it's a good idea to make people read the rules when they first sign up.

Thanks! I guess I just don't feel defensive. I obviously said what many wouldn't say, for various reasons, but in the end I think some useful changes will happen.

My thoughts mirror yours.

Well, the "rose-coloured glasses" did occur to me as a possibility, DeHe, so before I posted, I went back and read dozens and dozens of threads from '08 and '09. The spectacles are not tinted.

I certainly miss Dottie, but also Kriston, incogneato, fangcyn, Erica, questions, Iron Mom, Ania, Raddy, seablue, JBDad, Isa, blob, ienjoysoup, montana, LMom, OHGrandma, shellymos, Dazey, Lorel, and so many others--some of them are still around, but not posting much (also some of my favourite people have popped back up again in this thread--Irisheyes, eema, and melmichigan--hi!).

You might be right, DeHe, that some of us who have been around for a while need to try to do more of the heavy lifting. I'll go welcome a newcomer right now!

mm

Edited to add that I do not, of course, mean to imply that I have any idea why some people are not around much anymore--just wanted simply to say that I miss them, and miss what they brought to our community here.

I agree, Ithink forums that only allow puppies and rainbows are at best useless, at worst harmful.

Aren't we adults? I haven't seen any namecalling or bullying on here, or did I miss it? Is mere disagreement a terrible thing to run from? Or simply honesty? How would anyone ever learn anything in life if no one could ever disagree with you or tell you you're full of it and to pull your head in?

Are you sure people stopped posting here because it became terribly adversarial, or perhaps a snark board was trolling?

mm
Thanks for including me in this list, minnie
It means a lot coming from the best children's literature expert I've ever "met."

I am still thinking through my feelings about the change in tone of the board. I do know I'm not the daily visitor I once was. Part of that is due to my dd being accepted into DYS. Now I'm trying to absorb all of the substantial information being shared on those email lists. Looking at the above list of names, I could project others might be in the same position.

But more than that, I think I post here less because I don't want to be vilified over a bad word choice or a poorly thought out sentence. I think "back in the day," people on this board tried to read between the lines of an initial post. What was this parent really wanting to know? Now I think you can be lambasted for putting the wrong word in the title of your post -- the discussion veers off track -- and no one focuses on what truly led you to post in the first place.

I will say that I think the overwhelming number of posters have only the best of intentions. But I do believe a small minority has intimidated others from participating as fully as they might.

I agree with this too for the most part. There have been a couple of instances where I have been shocked at the very personal attacks that have been made on people's parenting choices - particularly around acceleration. I'm not talking about situations where people share an alternative view to another poster and state why and based on what experience they disagree, but situations where people are often responding not to the OP, but to someone else's response to the OP (people who were merely stating their point of view and not actually asking for advice themselves). Rightly or wrongly I have sometimes ended up participating in those discussions in as a respectful manner as I can, because I have a strong personal reaction to seeing people targeted like that, but I do find some of those kinds of responses very unsupportive.

I have however had quite negative responses on forums which have been incredibly constructive (because they were presented respectfully) so I would hate to see a situation where people were afraid to disagree with one another. I would also hate to see someone like Lucounu have to tone done their humour - I regularly chuckle out loud at some of his responses and while he is forthright on occasion I haven't ever really seen him attack anyone one a very personal level (yes, the personal attack is my personal theme here!)

I'm also wondering if we might be seeing a bit more plurality of views and that that is changing the tone of the board. When I first started looking at this board (for a year or so before I joined) there were some very common and often repeated views. There was also a group of people whose views were always sought and, I often felt, taken for granted (and to some extent that was fair enough, given their wealth of experience). However, there were certainly instances where I did not post my own opinions because they would have been contrary to those held by the opinion makers on the board and I didn't feel what I had to say would be heard. Now I see a lot more diversity of opinion as new people come to the board and with that comes change and with any change some people will inevitably find that a product (whatever it is) no longer suits their needs.

I do think the board is changing, and I do think that there are instances where people have responded very inappropriately and personally to other posters. In fact, though I have always tried to be very respectful, I do wonder whether I am one of the people that is being referred to because I do from time to time take sides when I think it is important to do so. But if I'm honest I don't think the 'tone' of the board is any more disrespectful than is was 18-24 months ago. Just different.

Anyway, my 2c.

Giftodd

Hey Taminy -
I love what you wrote above so much that I copied it and tried to add it to my signature line! Too bad the character limit is 100 - here's what I came up with:


I wish I could have such a 'signature' in real life as well. I think that this is a way to balance that awful 'second-guessing' with going overboard and posting 'aggressive and unkind,' and the fear of 'the bandwagon effect' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

I invite anyone else who seeks similar feedback to include a similar note in their signature line.

Love and more Love,
Grinity

Hi Taminy - I think you are correct here in that you aren't the only one wondering....LOL I'm currently wondering if I'm one of the Opinion-Leaders who is quashing diversity (hence my new signature line!) I went back and took a look at about 10 of your random posts and I think that you are an excellent example of respectful and gentle disagreement.

I think I'll start a new thread where people can post examples of threads that are shining examples of 'our vision.'

Love and More Love,
Grinity

No Grinity, you're not who I was referring to While I might have different views to you from time to time (rarely though) I always find your posts interesting for their breadth and the consideration you give to individuals'circumstances.

Re: irisheyes & mon
Can we have a no strawman rule? �Sometimes, even IRL, you have to think someone's being obtuse on purpose...I like�"no �strawmen" because it's pro-precision and not anti-anybody. �It's basically like writing a rule that says "you have to use your brain.". IMO, You're right. �It's just barely starting to pop up that people are hearing what they want to hear and not what you're trying to say. �Ban that before it starts! �That is another thing imo that made this place rare and special was that people only responded to what people really meant to say.
Re: correct word choice.
I've publicly been wrong, publicly chided, and publicly apologized twice already in my short time here. I don't mind.

Whatever happens, I really hope this board doesn't morph into the gifted child discussion on mothering.com. (over moderated, all about k and under, mostly about homeschooling, one upmanship on who's kid is the most gifted, censored...) I'm sorry if it seems snarky to criticize another board, but my alienation there lead me here.

I know that I often post here when I am needing support, am freaked out, or feeling alienated. I guess than I am not the only one. So I assume that many of the other people here are reading and posting when they are on edge and might be more sensitive.

My word choice is not so great today.

I have really valued my time here.

I love the way you worded this - you really captured 'GIDF magic'!
I like your idea of 'Ban the strawman' as well - although I had to look it up on wikipedia to make sure I really knew what that was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Smiles,
Grinity

I could reduce the level of acrimony on this board at least a bit by never writing about the demographics of intelligence and giftedness, but I think these are important topics with big implications for educational policy, both for gifted and non-gifted children. Much public discussion about education is conducted as if we KNOW that the distribution of general intelligence and of mathematical ability is the SAME across all racial and economic groups and for both sexes. I have repeatedly challenged the assumption of equal abilities and am careful to cite my sources. I think it's mostly the substance and not the style of what I write that offends some people. Freedom of speech means that people will be exposed to ideas that they vehemently disagree with.

I understand that controversy should not crowd out the discussions of invidual childrens' circumstances and of educational resources that are the main focus of this board, and I have participated in many of those discussions.

This is very true - I feel that that whole train of thought is outside the purpose of this board. Why is it that such a high percentage of the time we talk about politics, it's this particular story? If this is an important topic (and not a great way to get people off track, as I suspect) for educational policy then post on a board where people come to discuss educational policy. I don't set the U.S. agenda for educational policy, and I don't get much say in it. For now my number one concern is my own child's eduation. Even though I vote in my local elections, it's the whole package, never line-items.

The only time I want to hear about politics here is if someone is running for office, fighting an age discrimination case, visiting their representitives to talk about giftedness, or their child is writing a letter to the editor.

But what I like is that I've noticed that when you have a 'political' topic to discuss, you start a thread about it, so that folks can choose if they want to be part of it or not. Bostonian, I notice that you are very careful to only bring up these ideas on threads that are clearly 'big ideas' thread, and I really appreciate that. Maybe you are creating a model for how to deal with difficult topics?

Thanks,
Grinity

Guidelines:
In my opinion the most important aspect of this board is that no matter the variety of opinions and life experiences represented by the members all are treated with respect. I greatly value the diverse views presented and have learned an amazing amount by taking a bit of advice from here and a suggestion from there.

As a guideline, I think that persuasive language is not intrinsically useful in this forum. A statement of position or opinion without attempt to persuade others to your viewpoint keeps most ego out of the posts looking for help. Maybe we could have a topic for posts asking for debate.

I do not want this forum to become bland. over the years, this site has provided so much more honest shoot from the hip information that I have not found on any other forum. My child may not be Davidson Institute level of gifted, but I've never been made to feel that my concerns and questions were out of place. Also, I've been extremely grateful that again rarely does oneupmanship become an issue. IQ scores are tossed around but not in a my child is better than yours but more as a reference point.

Due to the business of our lives right now, I'm not on often but I credit this board and its members with saving my sanity and my hair on a regular basis!

I second the No Converters rule!

I have been away quite a bit over the last few months as well, but I have to say I agree with ELH's post. I would hate to see any squelching of discussion, but it does seem that more people lately have been willing to offend without caring that they did so on the one hand, and willing to assume a person meant offense without giving the poster a chance to explain on the other.

One of my earliest posts on this forum involved me repeating a gifted myth as a fact (at that point, I didn't know it was a myth at all). Grinity very gently smacked me down - and I was able to both admit that I didn't know it was a myth and also explain more fully my concern. I think about what it might have meant if she had just attacked me, and others had joined it, and I likely would have just slunk away and never returned.

On another topic, I strongly disagree with Bostonian on a number of points, and a couple of times I believe his (her?) posts have crossed a line involving racial stereotyping that I believe is unwarranted. That being said, I am a grown up, and if I feel I want to engage on that particular topic (I rarely do, as it isn't why I am here) I will post, and if not, I will ignore the thread. If I really felt a post was racist, I would report it, but by and large I chalk it up to very different worldviews, and I also believe that much of what Bostonian posts is interesting, and worth noting, even if I disagree with the position.

Just a couple wandering thoughts.

LOL! I think every single one of the half a dozen or so posts I made on mothering was deleted, then they banned me. I read a lot, and only posted when it seemed no-one else was saying what needed to be said to the OP. But I guess lots of other people were being deleted and banned too, then?

I did not say politics in general was on-topic for this board. I do think educational policy regarding gifted children is on-topic in this sub-forum, in the "Thinking Big" sub-forum, and in the research sub-forum (if the initial post cites published research). General educational policy discussions are also common here, and contrary to what you wrote, they ARE one reason some people come here. One example was a long and IMO interesting thread "Waiting for Superman" http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....960/Waiting_for_Superman.html#Post102960 .

If we are not supposed to discuss gifted education policy in any sub-forum here, this would have the effect of muzzling important discussions in the gifted community, and I don't see what outlet would take its place. You did not mention any alternative outlet.

I agree with this, both the good and bad. I'll bring some of this up elsewhere.

I think that that model of handling "difficult" topics - those that clearly may not be of interest to everyone on the board, or that have an obviously controversial component - has been pretty much the norm, and has contributed to the general welcoming tone and overall civility that has characterized the board during the time I have been here.

I don't know if we need to make a formal rule about it, though. I think that the forum is, as a rule, pretty effective at self-policing to enforce a cultural norm of free and open yet still generally respectful discussion. There seems to be an expectation that we are all grown-ups here, and can be expected to make our points and present our opinions about even controversial issues in ways that don't resort to personal attacks. Even in the threads that have sometimes started to veer off into unpleasant territory, the community is generally able to intervene and bring the discussion back to some degree of reason and civility.

We have a pretty diverse group of individuals here and some of us do have an interest in discussing hot topics relating to gifted education and educational policy, especially since we frequently have differing viewpoints. I have always believed that it was possible to entertain an idea without getting married to it, and it has been really interesting to me to get a sense of the varied viewpoints on many of these hot-button, big-idea topics. I think I'd find it really annoying, though, if people were constantly interjecting these kinds of debates into, say, threads that started out as discussions about the implications of a child's WISC scores - but I haven't seen that happening.

I guess if I had to suggest rules or guidelines for the forum that had to be read before being able to post, I'd suggest ones that looked something like this:

1. You are posting in a public forum, not a diary or private journal. Other actual people are reading what you write. The person you are replying to could be a family member or a friend. They are almost certainly someone's family member or friend. Please try to remember this when composing your posts. Give enough context so that people reading your posts can give you helpful replies, and please be aware that different families and friends have different thresholds for what constitutes courteous verbal interaction, and that other posters are not necessarily trying to be rude just because they don't talk to you like you would talk to them.

2. The other people reading your posts don't have the benefit of hearing your voice or seeing your body language. They can only use the actual words you wrote to get at your meaning. Forgetting this is one of the most common reasons for misunderstandings and disagreements on the internet. Use emoticons or rephrase before posting if you think there is even a chance that someone could read what you wrote in a way you didn't intend it.

3. When reading posts, remember that human beings wrote them, human beings are reading them, and human beings are flawed. If you feel like you are being attacked, take a deep breath, calm down, and re-read to try to see if there was any way that the person could have meant what they said in a way that was not a personal attack. If there was, then that was probably what the person meant.

4. You are not required to rise to bait.

5. Everyone else doesn't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with everyone else.

6. You always have the right to stop reading or posting in a thread that has ceased to interest you or that has ceased to be productive.

7. If you want to talk about something in particular, start a new thread. Don't hijack other people's posts.

Hmmm. I'd like to offer a different perspective on the educational policy discussions. I think many of us arrived here in part because we were struggling to understand our children's experiences at school. Based on some recent threads, I think it's fair to say that Bostonian and I come from fairly different world views, but I do find it helpful to be able to frankly discuss these kinds of issues, because so often IRL people are not up front about why they do or do not support particular policies--policies which directly end up impacting my children.
When I try to advocate for my children, I sometimes find myself in coalition with adults that I don't know well. We have some shared beliefs, certainly, which is how we came to be together, but there are also places where our beliefs and philosophies diverge. Having discussions here helps me to recognize sooner when my view and that of another parent or parents is diverging, and allows me to better articulate both where I do and do not share particular objectives under our larger goals. It also helps me to see that some of what I might otherwise advocate for has implications I hadn�t considered�either for my own child, or for other children who also need to have their needs met. I would agree though that these are threads that are best explored when the heading is specifically related to educational policy or research.
I do dislike when threads become focused on one upping one another though. If it becomes clear that there is no desire to find common ground, I no longer want to participate. However, I recognize that the point at which I am no longer finding the discussion helpful may come earlier or later in a discussion than it does for other participants.

Grinity--
I like the idea of adding a signature line like that. Mind if I borrow the idea?

Nicely done! I like 4 best

DeHe

I hope lots of people borrow that idea...golly...I hope the whole internet borrows that idea. Then maybe some IRL organizations....that's my idea of politics ((wink))
I give you all the credit for the intention - love the way you put it.
Smiles,
Grinity

I love the "Step to the side" when thread are way off the original. Other than that, I like the looseness we have here. Everyone is passionate about their kids and we are all traveling our own road. Most of the time I've found opinions to be delivered in a coherent manner without any snarking attached.

One of the best parts of this forum is hearing what other people are doing to get ideas of what might work for you. To many restrictions are going to destroy that as "opinion" becomes someones preconceived contraversy.

I say...... If it's not broke, don't fix it!

I have to admit to being guilty here. I don't think that I've derailed anyone's threads to discuss my kids' needs in a means other than as a way to give background context when answering the OP's question. However, I know that I do tend to make diversions when something that someone writes brings up a thought about something semi-related. Others do the same at times.

Is the overall feel of others here that it would be better to try to avoid those threads that sidetrack into other conversations? Do we want to start separate threads when we have side conversations or sidetrack threads or just avoid jumping in on threads with things like, "my kid's scores are ___, what would you suggest?" on a thread about someone else's kid's educational needs?

I'm not sure how much I am one of the guilty parties here, so I want to make sure that I am following the greater desires of the board members.

Although I tend to come into every conversation confidently knowing that I am right -- and that all who disagree with me simply must be wrong -- I have been helped a time or three to see and appreciate a different perspective during some of the knock-down-drag-out threads.

This DITD forum seems to have an incredible assortment of backgrounds, and yet we've all found our way here for the common purpose of hoping to better understand the care and feeding of our very own giftie. In the end, I really don't care if I'm getting my advice from a granola-munching, gun-toting druid, or a bible-clenching, tree-hugging redneck -- or any of the numerous variants in between. (FWIW, I've got my Sierra and American Rifleman magazines side-by-side in my bookcase. Oh the horror!) I'm just eternally grateful for Mark's gentle and infrequent wielding of the Moderator's Hammer, which allows for our diverse population to truly get into the proverbial meat (or tofurkey) of things when necessary.

(Frankly, I'm amazed that we haven't had tons more heated conversations given how tightly intertwined education and politics tend to be. I think this demonstrates our ability to self-regulate.)

I think/feel/believe that this wonderful forum -- as it currently exists -- does a great job of self-moderating, and that developing an extensive set of guidelines or rules will just serve to stifle energetic debate. You can't blow your nose at some sites without a dozen self-important, hyper-ventilating dolts citing this & that rule, or dragging in the Moderator Staff for an informal hearing.

In the end, it's probably helpful to have these conversations on occasion, but I definitely vote against any serious effort to extensively codify the behavioral expectations of these forums.

(Uh-oh -- did I just violate the "No Straw Men Rule" that was discussed a few pages ago?)

Peace, Hugs & Keep Yer Powder Dry,

Dandy

I'm leaning toward Dandy's position of keeping the board as is. If we do have guidelines, it would be nice to keep them loose. I think flare-ups do cycle through from time to time, but discussions like these can help get things back in line.

And I do like very much that some people here are simply a tad more sarcastic than others...

I don't think you swapped propositions on us here. Unless it's a misstatement of the idea of 'Forum Rules' in the first place.

Perhaps the point of having rules isn't to wag fingers or quash diversity of opinion, (although I can certainly see how that might happen) but to encourage folks to act on their best selves, and when something does go 'sour' to have an explicit set of rules to refer to when trying to account for that sickening feeling. It beats - 'we just don't like you' any day of the week in my opinion.

And of course, if we had forum-specific guidelines, some of us would be able to violate them without causing any flap, through deft humor and other likability tricks, while others of us would still have trouble finding a place to blow one's nose. Social skills help in all areas of life - I know that I get away with some questionable stuff because I care and people generally can tell that I care.

I don't think that this is going to ever be a place that treats people kindly who repeatedly come to every conversation 'confidently knowing that I am right' unless they are pretty good at hiding that attitude. The fact that you can joke about it counts in your favor, but I am hoping that we are moving, as a group, towards, "Miller's Law" instead:

Or as (help! - who was that?) said: Here we answer not the question that was asked, but the question that the poster meant to ask.

Thanks Dandy, for giving me a terrific opening to bring up 'Miller's Law' - almost like you are being my Staw Man - I've been looking for a way to work it into the conversation.

I also like the way you put

And I think this statement belongs prominently in our 'statement of purpose'

I think it's also true that often we do do a good job of self-moderating. If we do get dedicated mods, I hope we make it a tradition to use those roles constructively.
I guess we aren't the first group to want or fear authority to excersize judgement. It may not be a thing that groups need, but it surely is a thing that many in groups want.

I think that there are a lot of humans walking around believing that all who disagree are wrong, but I think on a board aimed at Gifties, that there is a special twist on this....who wouldn't have preferred to go all through school with tons of opportunities to be disagreed with by peers who were wiser than we? Even teacher who told us that we were wrong, often we found to be ....wrong. I think that this leaves us isolated in a way that isn't good. Yes, some of us are born with this position as default, but I think that even those folks benefit by repeated exposure to wiser than us peers.

Love and More Love,
Grinity

Popping in again, can I throw three pieces of opinion into the pot?
First:
Yes. I really want this place to be (stay) a place where people will jump on statements I make which they think are false, and where it's OK for me to argue back with full strength if I want to. I like to read conversations where other people have that kind of interaction, too. I also like to be able to disagree with things other people say if I think they are wrong, but that is not so important to me - there is the whole internet full of people being wrong whom I can jump on if I want :-) :-) In too much of life, IMO, either nobody will disagree because it's considered impolite to do so, or if they do, they do so with such poor arguing skills that it doesn't add much value. Strong arguments are really important to me in letting me work out what I think!

Second: may I recommend constructive use of Hide All Posts By? You find this useful option on the page dedicated to each of us. I have it turned on for several posters here (no, I won't say which ones!) because I know from experience that their way of putting things often rubs me up the wrong way. You still see *that* such and such a poster wrote something at this point on this thread, and it's one click to unhide it, and in fact I often do so, but the fact that their posts start off hidden is a little reminder to me that I should make sure my guard is up before I read what those particular people write. I suggest that this is one good way to deal with people who make posts we don't feel are helpful, or which are borderline spam. Ignore them, and they'll go away, or change their ways; we have the technology to ignore them, so why not use it?

Third: personally, I don't like the suggestion of using PMs to deal with posts we don't approve of. I've never received such a PM, but if I did, I think I might find it hard to judge whether it was representative, and I would certainly feel that it was more of a personal attack than anything said in public, however it was worded. I did once receive a PM about another poster, suggesting that I and others shouldn't be responding. I suppose that's OK, but in practice I didn't much like it: although I saw the point the PMing poster was making, I felt that as an adult on a public board I could really make my own decisions about how to handle an interaction here and I rather resented being "told" to interact in someone else's style (even if it was worded as a suggestion - I forget).

Okay, so can you all tell me if I am one of the people who is offending everyone here b/c I am now finding myself more than a bit paranoid and wondering if a bunch of people are hiding all of my posts?

Cricket - I think if people are still responding to you, you are safe. I rather like the option of hiding posts; I didn't know it existed. It's just another method of choosing to not respond to particular people, with the added benefit of hiding something that you know might bother you. I've never had the urge to use such a function here personally, but I like that it's an option.

I think it is - please stop worrying kcab and cricket Grinity

Wait, what did Cricket say???

Cricket, I'm not hiding anyone's posts, but if I were, yours would not be among them.

Lucounu, just click "unhide"

Well...my opinion is that Mark is the moderator, and it's his job to remove trains of thought that aren't appropriate here. I think he does a good job, and he's said that he's going to write some guidelines. Bostonian, to give one example, has posted so many threads on educational policy, demographics, and so on, Mark would have removed them long ago if they were inappropriate. I don't like banning discussions of ideas because they make some or many people feel uncomfortable.

I'm trying to say this as gently as possible here...I've got a concern that this thread is an attempt by a few to force some members to be more PC. <3 <3 <3

A few people here have complained that some of the posts have been too aggressive for them, making them hesitant to post. For my part, I've noticed more one-upping here in the last six to nine months, and have been hesitant to post about certain things because I believe that instead of a thoughtful response, I'll get a reply that's meant to make me and anyone else with the same problem feel inadequate. So why bother? <3 <3 <3

But I haven't brought it up, because any attempt to formally regulate speech in a vague way will always be too open to interpretation, making censorship too easy.

Nearly any post on this board will fall into someone's I don't like it category. In any gathering of two or more people, there are bound to be disagreements and people are bound to feel piqued. It's part of life.

I will publicly agree that the blogger was overdoing it. But the matter was handled well by people on the board. I recall a couple situations in 2007 or 2008 when one or two new posters signed up with explicit agendas. They were, emm, handled in the same way as the recent blogging thing and/or by Mark. I think the system works.

Well put Val. Mark is an excellent moderator.

I'm sorry you've been feeling that the one-upping is more prominient, what a drag - I haven't been percieving that.

Love and More Love,
Grinity

I could have phrase my ideas better. I feel that there have been more instances than previously of what I think of as bragging to make others feel inadequate, as opposed to celebrating some wonderful achievement or whatever.

Made up example of the former:

"I'm having trouble getting little DS to write. He hates it. Any suggestions?"

Reply to engender inadequacy: "My DD started writing when she was 4 months old! I gave her some bright crayons and some construction paper."

Thoughtful reply: "Have you tried X or Y? Check this thread from a year ago..."

One of the worst offenders of this kind of thing (IMHO) hasn't posted in a while. But my point was that it came up, it put me off the board, but I don't want to formally regulate speech (at least, not in this way).

Example of celebrating achievement: see the Ultimate Brag thread.

That's a great example. Thankfully I missed that thread (I don't read them all - actually)

I think those examples would be useful to send out as a 'welcome to the forum' not as in "you may not do this" but as in "We are proud of the atmousphere we've created here, please contribute to it's maintenance by doing this as little as possible, and not being freaked out if we complain when you do do this.

Maybe if we made if funny somehow? Remember that highlight's magazine with the good example and the bad example?

I also would like to be upfront about our 'pro-gradeskipping' flavor. Not that we think gradeskipping has no downside or is a cure-all, but there are lots of families here for whom it is a least-worst option. But that if a person joins who can't imagine why anyone would do such a thing to a child, then they should at least be warned tread gently and to stick to personal experience instead of proclimation of opinions in that particular area. I have no idea how to put that.

((shrugs and more shrugs))
Grinity

I didn't realize we have a pro-gradeskipping flavor, although I think we're certainly anti-anti-gradeskipping. I'm thoroughly against warning people not to voice their opinions, although there are certainly bad ways to voice any opinion. Not every person with a non-mainstream opinion is a troll, and no matter how pro-gradeskipping we are, being exposed to other viewpoints will not break us.

There's a similar situation to what you suggest on a different forum where they have an anti-vaccination slant. To put it mildly, they are not very welcoming of anything even approaching a contrary view, even though they have one forum that's theoretically open for general discussions about vaccination.

I agree, and think this is a perfect example of what I consider to be offensive speech that we've tolerated for quite some time now.

My heart just filled with love for you, for saying that. But I personally think that what's going on is that Mark mentioned in a recent thread that forum guidelines were in the offing, and Grinity decided to create a few threads to discuss issues that might feed into the guidelines. She's certainly trying to push things in a certain direction, but isn't that her right? She's just using her particular type of persuasion. With her it started by framing the discussion, but people are free to start other threads on forum conduct/rules, and to push this one in any direction they wish.

I think what's happened is an interesting discussion about different viewpoints on what the forum should be and have. The more touchy-feely types (a lovingly meant term) can only force things insofar as they are compelling in their reasons for making the forum more touchy-feely. The open thread has had plenty of input from people who IMHO have shown why this forum shouldn't be censored.

I'm always for getting all the cards on the table. If I were the only person who believed in straight talk and open discussion, and it became apparent that I had come to a "discussion" forum whose only real goal was to offend no one and make people feel welcome, I would probably just leave out of respect, realizing that I was in the wrong place. I'm relieved to see that this isn't that place.

I suggested the PMs because I was trying to solve the problem of potentially feeling the need to comment on someone's conduct, and wanting to avoid upsetting the more sensitive people here, who are apparently even more sensitive than I realized before. But you've given voice to exactly what I have felt in the past. For example there was a time previously, when someone was attacking someone else, that I openly asked the attacker whether she thought she was being appropriate. It was because I didn't want to attack her privately, and I also didn't feel like ratting her out and bothering the moderators.

I am thinking that while it might be good to have some sort of mission statement or guidelines, it would probably be bad to have many hard rules, if any. I was thinking of the PM "rule" as more of a suggestion, but now I think it's not called for at all. I do like aculady's suggestions a fair bit.

HI! I'm newish here. I posted my DD9's WJ scores and asked for help interpreting them BOY! I was so amazed that people actually talked to me! People who seemed to really CARE that I understood what my daughters results meant and even actually CARED that my daughter received the best help she could get! Not even my own mother wants to hear about my dd's schooling...didn't even listen when I read her the scores. My friends CERTAINLY are not going to discuss anything about my daughter except her height and her black fingernails. I don't have money to test her or buy an advocate and the school refuses any skipping. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the responses I get when I post! The more responses, the more welcome I feel! I wouldn't even mind if someone told me I was going down the wrong path...It would be great to have several oppinions even if they aren't the same...I have no idea where I am with my child, I have no idea where I am going. She is my oldest and we come from a long line of anti-intelectuals...Not people with low IQ's just people who dis-like "smart" people. I need all the help I can get. I would hate for someone's comment to me to be deleted because someone else found it offensive. I am an adult.

I was sooo happy to hear that my daughter didn't score sooo high that she HAD to have a grade skip. That was honesty. I never got that as a child. No one ever told me that my art was "muddy" or the shape was off....I knew it was...but I got A's anyway. I want to be told. Even if you don't like me. Even if you think I am making all the wrong decisions....I want to be told.

I respectfully submit that if there is one hard-and-fast rule we need, it is this.

AND I have been sitting in the car each morning this week, while DD5 in attending gymnastics camp..in the Dunkin Donuts parking lot...with my phone....reading reading and reading thread after thread. I enjoy it very much.

Also, thank you everyone for caring enough...this forum is a real lifeline. I think if people really need help, or advice, they would never be pushed away by a few poorly worded statements. Most people have been publicly humiliated already in a room full of administrators and teachers, psychologists and reading specialists. What could anyone do here that is worse than that! We are all in the same boat! -- right?

One thing I do hate...:) When there is a long discusion going on and then I write something...and then...the discusion ends. I hate being a discussion stopper!

Thanks so much lucounu - that's puts it perfectly!
You've given me lots to smile about today and I am grateful.

Where else in my life can I have a 'half-baked' thought and get such wonderful, and funny, help getting it all the way baked? No where?

YES! Go GIDF! Go lucounu!
Grinity

I like it here since we're not anti- or pro- anything in particular on this forum, except anti-pushing a single point of view. We are open to any and all suggestions and ideas, because what works for one person may well work for another.

I thoroughly loved this forum! The advice that I've gotten whether in response to my own posts / PMs, or from simply reading others' posts have helped us in understanding our children and advocating for them in a more effective way.

Grinity, I don't get that 'pro-skipping flavor' either. If anything, it helps me to understand that skipping is really a viable alternative and it's not that scary since so many of you have done it successfully. Even though we decided not to grade-skip our DS as he starts middle school this fall, I don't ever feel pressured in any way by anyone in this forum.

In regards to why some of us may not post as much anymore, a simple reason may be because we've gotten the advice we needed and we're in a pretty good place right now. That doesn't mean we don't still love this forum. I still read it every day as part of my daily reading. I remember when the board was out for a weekend (for maintenance?) a couple months ago, I felt totally 'out-of-balance' and I kept checking to see if it's online yet...

!

Great point Sydness....I can definitely relate to that!

I suspect though that while some of us come out of those situations feeling like every other injury pales in comparison, others come out feeling more fragile and may be more impacted by a shoot-from-the-hip style. I'm not suggesting we walk on egg shells (I like the mix of styles and personalities), I'm just acknowledging that for some newcomers walking into some of the more contentious threads might not feel too different from those RL meetings.

The moderator can terminate a thread that he thinks is hurting the forum, but that is a blunt instrument. I wonder if it is technically feasible to "demote" a thread so that it no longer shows up in the "Recent Posts" sidebar. Interested members would still be able to find the thread, but it would be less prominent. The moderator can also warn people that a thread is becoming too acrimonious without terminating it. On some forums the moderator deletes an entire thread when he dislikes some messages. I oppose that approach. Even acrimonious threads have some information content, both about the subjects discussed and the personalities of the discussants.

I am going to re-ask a question I posed a few pages back since I didn't see any feedback. Hopefully I'll be more coherent or you all will unhide it so I get some responses.

There was mention of not derailing threads being a potential part of the guidelines. I can see that working one of two ways and want to know what is being suggested.

Way #1:

Amy (made up name) posts a thread about her ds' WISC scores and asks for feedback. Mary (another made up name) chimes in to list her dd's WISC scores and also asks for what she should do.

Typically referred to "hijacking"

Way #2:

Amy posts a thread about her ds' WISC scores and asks for feedback. People give her the feedback she requests and it brings up comments about kids with low WMI. The conversation morphs into a discussion of what the WMI on the WISC is actually measuring and then to a discussion of grade acceleration and 504 plans (Amy isn't thinking of grade skipping her kid) and whether a child who needs significant accommodations to perform at a higher grade should skip and....

Do you all want to actively limit the second type of diversion or just the first or neither or both?

Hi Cricket2,
I think that neither of those 2 examples is part of the problem, and would reserve threadjacking as an expression where the 'tone' of the thread changes from an 'I don't know what my child needs' tone to a 'let's debate the pros and cons of X parenting ideal.' I think this needs to be stated better than I'm stating it, but basically I sure would prefer if new folks started their own thread, because sometimes I get confused and misanswer, but I dont' think it's worth making it a rule.

I think that the longer the thread goes on the harder it is for me to muster the enthusiasm to go back and read it closely.

So I would encourage folks to start new thread often -and it's fine to leave a pointer post to the new thread. But what I am trying to say is that the minute someone's personal vulnerability gets turned into a 'let's spar' sort of debate over parenting approaches, I'm going to feel uncomfortable in a way that starting a side thread would totally avoid. If folks want to talk about 'Does family bed create cranky children?' that's fine, but if Mary asks for help with her cranky 3 year old, and Amy suggest the family bed, and Beverly starts attacking the very idea of family beds and we take of on that topic, I think we've left Mary high and dry, yes?

Can anyone turn this mess of words into a short phrase or catchword? I'd sure appreciate it.

Please don't think I'm ignoring you Cricket2 - we need you! A soft gentle meandering into related topics is surely not a problem when you do it, but mabye we need to be cleaner about it because some of us aren't as good at self-monitoring when the focus is still on the OP and when it's wandered onto one of our personal hot-buttons and we are purely venting our general frustration? Perfectionism doesn't disapear when we reach adulthood, and can be turned outward as well as inward. I am proposing that after we type a post, we re-read it and say to ourselves "Could the OP take this the wrong way?" and "Have I just been reminded of an important but sidetracking discussion that I've been waiting all my life to have - maybe I'll start a new thread!" Then it's easy enough to cut/paste into a new topic. ((Ok, the waiting for anyone to answer isn't so much fun!))

I've been waiting my whole life to have almost all of these conversations! Yippee!
Grinity

I guess that was my point w/ my last post. I know that I am guilty of sidetracking like I mentioned in my #2 scenario when topics bring up hot button issues for me. I'll freely admit that I have major pet peeves about group ability tests and their use in iding gifted kids and the way gifted is mis/overidentified in many of the schools with which I am familiar. I am trying to ascertain if the times where I move in that direction on a thread are part of the problem here.

eta: I think that the reason I feel more free to discuss those types of issues here is b/c most of us have HG+ kids even if they aren't DYS level. I, personally, believe that HG+ kids are more harmed by policies that place huge #s of bright, high-achieving but not gifted kids in the GT classes and exclude kids who don't do well on group tests since HG kids are possibly more likely than mildly gifted kids to not do as well on a group test. Also, filling the classes that are supposed to meet gifted kids' needs with kids whose needs are much different b/c they aren't gifted is essentially a heterogenous grouping & leaves HG kids with nothing. This is kind of the only place I have to vent about it.

Locally, I only know of one or two families with whom I am friendly who have kids with GT ids who are in a similar spot to mine. On the other hand, most of the families I know casually or more closely do have GT ided kids. These kids are so different from mine, though, that these aren't the types of conversations we would have.

Maybe you could do it the opposite way. If the first thread has already derailed and built OT momentum instead of trying to redirect tye flow, clip and paste OP's first post and make them another thread. I have assumed if they still had questions they would have made another thread. When they don't I assumed they got whatever answer they needed and that's why they didn't persue it further.

I'm not sure about the demoting the thread, but otherwise agree with you. My previous comments weren't intended to suggest that we do anything different, just acknowledging that while I feel like Sydness does (e.g. after what we've put up with IRL, poorly worded responses aren't going to scare me away), some might have a different reaction.


I may be a bit alone in this, but I lean away from actively limiting diversions. On the other hand, I am more global than linear in my approach to most things, so I tend to like when conversations go in new directions. I can see where it might occasionally cause a problem, especially if the meander happens too early in a thread. I think it is appropriate (and helpful) to suggest to someone who jumps in with their own scores to start their own thread so that no one gets confused about which comments go with which scores.

Since I believe I am the person who posted the "No hijacking" guideline suggestion, I'll chime in on what I was thinking. Both of the examples above might warrant at least one new thread, not only to allow both the OP and the new poster(s) to get better answers without having to wade through replies that don't relate to the topic or question of interest to them, but also to be sure that people who are interested in the new discussion topic(s) but who aren't interested in the old one realize that the new discussion is happening. Pointer posts linking both ways in the old thread and the new one are a great way to handle the transition. The intent is not to stifle the flow of conversation, but to stimulate it in a way that makes it more useful to everyone on the forum.

I am right there with you - I started telling my DH I am the thread killer!!!

My understanding from the way that that particular situation was publicly addressed by the moderator was that the poster's actions did at least border on spamming the board, if they didn't actually cross it, and that the correct action in the future, should similar situations arise where there was some question as to whether a posters actions were spam or just unfamiliarity with the board etiquette, would be to contact the moderator and let him him handle it.

kcab, I think that spam is a special sort of problem that probably deserves its own guideline. I could have flagged all of the posts with the links and let the mods handle it. I will do that in the future, and if I'd thought to do it this time the whole issue could have been resolved more cleanly, no question. There would never have ensued any claims of "bullying", and if found to be inappropriate by the mods the linking would have been stopped at some point.

The current rule says that users are encouraged to email the moderator if they find posts offensive. Based on what Mark wrote, there are some changes/additions to the guidelines in the offing. I think for solicitation or spam, probably an explicit definition and prohibition will be good. A suggestion or hard requirement that suspected solicitation be handled by reference to the mods could appear in the same place and be hard to miss.

If newbies are required to read the rules at sign-up, that could help clear up the problem of unintentional solicitation. That looks like an oxymoron now that I've written it, but you get the idea.

Ok, I am having a little issue with your automatic spam thing. I was trying to post the title of a book

Winter of Fire by Sherryl Jordan

in the book thread... it keeps getting marked Spam?

Islandofapples....go to the post that isn't working properly and press the notify button...ask Mark for help....sometime the Forum just acts weird.

Thanks
Grinity

k thanks. I circumvented it for now with some spaces and dashes. ;D

That blogger gives her side of the story in a thread at the Well Trained Mind forum http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295804 .

Useless trivial factoid: in a similar situation I also jumped to the same conclusion that it felt like "cyber bullying" because it was done online. So I googled it to get a clue how to deal with it. Cyber-bullying is more about impersonating another person and ruining a reputation, or in that one case making up a fake heart-throb to taunt a young girl. Either way cyber bullying seems to include fraudulent persons with cruel intentions. When a pack of members treat a newbie or prospect cruelly it's closer to the description of "workplace bullying".
Although bullying would be more like badgering and harrassing and following her from thread to thread incessantly, IdoRC. However I see that happening in another case which I would not call bullying or badgering because two people have opposite philosophies, are coming from totally different angles, more drastically different than opposites, therefore they often respond against each other in thread after thread. I wouldn't call that bullying or badgering, I'd call it family. Just my 2c.

Plus, I don't see why you can't talk about one board on another when prolific posters are often members of several boards, there's only so many active major boards. Socially that's like saying don't talk to your friend at the gas station about what your neighbor told you at the grocery store. OTOH, boards are made with a mission and a purpose and somebody's paying to host them, not to support your gossip habit.

I read the thread and also the nasty remarks about this board she posted on her blog. She misrepresented herself:


FWIW, I'm on holidays right now and counted her posts. I counted 20/27 messages (up to the point where she was called out) with links to her blog. Some messages had multiple links. That's more than "some." And to me, seven without links is a lot less than "lots and lots." She was obviously distorting the truth on that other site. Not a good sign.

She was also pretty venomous in her comments about this forum and people who post here. I don't think that type of approach helps anything (though it does create an us-vs-them atmosphere). Maybe Iucounu was a bit strong here and there in his second post on the subject, but others weren't (a couple people seemed to bend over backwards to be gentle to her).

The overly defensive way that she's reacted suggests (to me at least) that Iucounu may have had a point about her motives. People who really are just doing something innocently typically react with regret, not venom.

Actually, in all her posts on the thread in question, she only complains about one person.

Here we are, at the bottom of the page.
http://teachingmybabytoread.blog.com/gifted/
Although I can see why a "cringe-worthy" thread was ugly and unnecessary, I think this was the point of it. This blogger says people are telling her in private "heart-wrenching" stories about how they were treated. Unlike other forums the moderator here doesn't jump in and erase all the evidence, so it would be easy to dig up and discuss what really happened. But I agree with the closing point of that thread, "it just turns into a way for people to mock less popular folks". It was also a chance for those who suffered, cringed, or had their feelings hurt to speak up, not that they did. I don't think I want to see the contention such a thread could cause, although I would like it if it was a working group that somehow helped people work through issues. I'm reading "Siblings Without Rivalry" right now and the author says "you gotta work through the bad (feelings between people) to get to the good (relationships). Of course, we're not siblings. We're adults.

There's some "cyber-bulling" going on, all right. Never have I been accused of being so viscous. Nor did I realize that over half of the regulars here had agreed (apparently by PM, and not including the people defending me or my assessment of the situation on that other board or here, or who privately agreed with me by PM) that I am a nut. O well.

I might agree that you are some kind of a nut, but I like you anyway.

WTH? Seriously?

Heart-wrenching experiences? (Perhaps Jen's been talking to Sylwester-the-NASA-man or something. Who knows.)

There are what, 100,000+ posts in these forums and she's publicly writing something like that after actively participating in a half-dozen conversations? Maybe the constructivist chapter on statistics is a bit thin.

I was up against a stack of deadlines when the original thread starring jenbrdsly occurred, so didn't get to look too closely at it. After seeing so many mention it, though, I'm sorry, but the train-wreck enthusiast in me just couldn't resist.

When I first followed a few of her links, I didn't consider her blog to be commercial, but then I refreshed the page after turning off my ad-blocker. Um, yeah, a little bit commercial in my book.

Adding on to Val's stats above, what strikes me as odd is how close together (in time) her early posts were, and how many of those were just resurrecting some older topics.

Walks like a duck and all that.

-- -- --

So I guess even the rabid laissez-faire part of me wouldn't mind a mention or two in the Guidelines about avoiding spammy behavior.

Agreed; specific examples of what's not okay would also help.

Okay, so which one of you created the giftedwiki? lol! Not to follow the train wreck myself...

Well, and you're OUR nut, Iucounu, and we're keeping you!

mm

This whole thing is soooo bizarre. I am stuck on the floor with a teething fussy baby (finally!) asleep in my lap, so I went and read the drama. I've had people "cyber bully" me before on various forums. It did upset me one time, but that is because I posted opinions that some people really didn't like. Oops.

It is the internet... People do sometimes say things they wouldn't say in person. So what.

No one was even mean to Jen. Seriously, you just questioned her motives. I post links to my sites sometimes on MDC when I don't feel like typing out a huge paragraph on how to wash cloth diapers, but I've only done it like 3 times. If someone doesn't want to read my article, they can ignore it. I DO make money from my sites, and I definitely hope someone will buy something I recommend. However, I write about things I really believe in and care about and then find a way to monetize my articles so I can help support my family.

So, I don't necessarily think people posting links to their money-making sites are spammers, though they could be...

I will remember to try not to post any self-serving links here, though. ;D

Okay, you've all got me so curious that I googled the other thread on WTM as well. This is getting really unfortunate with all of this 'he said, she said' stuff going on with two forums talking about behavior on another. One thing I do have to say that I like on MDC is that they don't allow linking to or discussing other discussion boards. I'll admit to guilt on having linked another discussion board on another thread b/c someone had brought up a point that supported something I was saying. It wasn't malicious or an attempt to draw negative attention to the other board, though. None the less, perhaps it would be better to add to the guidelines something that disallows discussions of other message boards.

And, in having read that other thread, what I am coming away with is a serious culture clash btwn Jen and a good number of the regulars here. I would hope that, as someone said earlier, people who don't find their "fit" here would realize that and move on without it turning into a major blow up. What makes me say that is her mention of how people here might be interested in her ideas about studying for the CogAT and other mentions that indicate perhaps a greater interest on studying your way to higher test scores. I'd venture to guess that the culture here leans toward showing what a kid can do but not hothousing higher scores.

islandofapples, withholding your useful links seems so... elitist. You'll fit right in.

Oh yes. That is exactly why I am here! I am an elitist through and through.

I thought the same thing about the cogat comment. I don't know what to think, though. Thinking out loud: MDC is commercial, it's about a magazine publication, for profit. That's why they have so many rules and moderation. This forum doesn't have ads or sell anything. It seems like to me this is a public discussion forum for gifted affected people provided as as service by the davidson gifted institute for talent development.
Loading...Loading...Loading
still trying to think.
So, is the purpose of the community here, discussion, right? Well, and rehashing resources.

Lol, you're supposed to call it "perfectionists".
Anyway I thought "elitism" was code word for "high sense of entitlement."

Yes, I do think that is why MDC doesn't allow people to post links to their blogs or anything else that might be a source of revenue for the poster without paying to be an advertiser. However, I think that some of the rules, such as not allowing people to discuss other discussion boards, aren't necessarily due to MDC being for-profit. I think that the forum guidelines say something about "protecting the integrity of the board." Perhaps it is an effort to avoid things spiraling into schoolyard gossip.

Even w/out the 'no links to your own site; nothing that makes you $, etc.' type of rules, general forum etiquette dictates that one not do so with any regularity. I think that suggestions maybe rather than a strict 'no links' policy might be better, but I'd be willing to abide by either way.

This has been interesting to find out what's inappropriate in this setting. Spam is rude and uncalled for but whoever keeps posting 6 threads about Louis Vuiton handbags at night when everybody's asleep is still going to do it. I actually did not think of the bloggers bombardment as spam because she was linking to relevant posts in a relevant blog. I do think she could have clipt and pasted her answer and put her blog link in her siggy. That would have been normal. But, if I did not know that act was spam I'm certainly not the only one that wouldn't know, the could a generic "No Spam" rule have prevented that behavior. It wOuld create permission to quickly put a stop to it, but "we don't need no stinkin' badges."

Just don't do it a dozen (or more) times in rapid succession like Jen and you should be fine.

In fairness, lucounu didn't bring her to tears until after the 15th (or so) post. I thought this was rather restrained for such a viciously elitist nut.

Dandy

In her first several posts, the links were as long as (or longer than) her comments. Over & over again. And most of those links sent the reader off to a bunch of ads & affiliate links.

And, of course, we all think of lucounu as a bit "off" per what was said about the feelings of other regulars on this board .

Well, not *all*.

I am a bit "off" and proud of it.

Perhaps many of us here are that way....

Gee, this is exactly why I feel like I belong here!

Resurrecting this thread with an idea that might help cut down on ads for handbags and running shoes.

What would people (including Mark) think about creating a delay period (say, 48 hours) between registration and when a person can post? Two days is not too long, but it's long enough that the spammers may forget about the site and move elsewhere.

The delay period should be noted in the forum guidelines as an effort to reduce spam, obviously.

I wouldn't like that; I think a two-day gap between taking the "right, now I want to post here" decision and being able to do so would put off many humans, and we'd feel a lot less welcoming to the people who need to be here.

I'd be in favour of something, if we can find something that cuts down the spam without putting off new members. I think our spam problem here is pretty small really. If technically feasible, we might consider a system that did moderation of the first post or 3 that a new member makes (simple "is it spam?" moderation only, with enough people authorised to do it that the delay this imposed would be no more than a few hours). I'd even be willing to be one of those doing that trivial moderation job (whereas I would not be willing to do any moderation job involving actual judgement of the behaviour of humans). I doubt if many spammers can be bothered to make a non-spam post or three before they get the chance to post spam, so I guess that such a system would cut our spam to virtually zero. Something that might be completely automatable and at least partially effective would be a system whereby the first post a new member makes is not permitted to contain links. What options are feasible depends of course on the underlying BB software.

Gossip regarding spam. �I received an email that reminded me that all the chain letters, everything that says fwd this, is a spam service with something embedded to harvest active email addresses. �It also mentioned that now robo-dialing machines are calling people's �phone numbers to find out what times of day you're most likely to answer your phone so a live telemarketer can call you. �The email suggested dialing ####### quickly confuses the machine and kicks your number out of the system. �I was getting those calls and I didn't know why, so I thought I'd share.

Also, I saw this great rule at the bottom of a playground sign that seemed to sum up part of the gist of this thread:
"If you see anything that does not seem right please tell the staff immediately."

Also I saw a great quote in a political e-mail (where, ironically the quote was about all I agreed with).
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson in an e-mail

Has there been talk of having user moderators? I meant to ask this before, but it slipped my mind.

I don't know how much I like that idea, given that we have at least one user who's PMing people to tell them what they can and can't write.

So, I guess I can count myself lucky or non-offensive since I don't know what you're talking about! (i.e. -- I haven't rec'd one of those pms -- yet!)

Read this thread.

I've been PMed saying that something that I thought was bland might have offended someone somewhere; I recall that at least one other has reported something similar. (Anyone else?)

For clarity's sake, you mean PMs from the moderators? Or other users?

I think we're talking about PMs from other members. Indeed some of the discussion upthread suggests exactly this - that when one of us sees something we don't like, we PM the member concerned. (See Grinity's signature about wanting a PM if she offends, for example, but the idea is that this should be the default.) I think the argument is that a private PM is less inflammatory than commenting in public, and easier on Mark than PMing the moderator (who probably doesn't read every thread and so wouldn't be immediately up to speed anyway). As I think I said up there, I don't like this idea myself at all (e.g. for precisely the reason shown up in the elephant signature thread - you get a critical PM, you don't immediately agree, you still need to come to the board to see whether others share the feeling). However, given that the idea is on the table, attracted some support, and we're "in limbo" as far as actual guidelines are concerned, my feeling is that if someone is trying out the private PM, s/he is acting reasonably, assuming the PM in question was polite. If we don't want this done, we should have forum guidelines that say what people should do if they have an issue with what someone writes.

ColinsMum, that seems like a fair and reasonable interpretation of the events. So, when do we expect these formal guidelines so we can all stop offending one another ?

The only issue is knowing if you should presume to "correct" another poster or not. That old saying goes, "your rights end where another person's starts". You have your right to speak your mind. Does it matter if it's a pm or on a public thread? Unless you can read everybody's mind you're not going to "gently nudge" each poster you want to correct in the correct manner since some would be upset and argue back if you corrected them in public and some would be offended if you corrected them privately since that would not allow them a forum to publicly defend in if they disagreed with your correction.
And you don't know what people want to be corrected on. Someone told me I was accidentally racist by saying I felt gypped since gyp was short for gypsy and was a romanian racial slur. Scale of 1-10 for me, only 2 or 3 level of interesting. Someone corrected me on my thinking in the nature vs nurture question when old wives tales say we only use about 10% of our brain at once then no one operates near their ceiling of capacity. But I was corrected that parts of our brain have different assignments so using more at once would be applied to the task at hand but would be painful. To me that correction was interest level 9 out of 10. Also, I was recently corrected on misinterpreting data. Someone proved 41% of a genetic factor in g, so I assumed the other 51% was nurture. Some guy pointed out that just because they found the chromosomes creating the first 41% didn't necessarily mean the rest was nurture, it could just as well be other chromosomes they haven't looked for yet. That is the kind of correction I like. I was corrected about something I was trying to think through. The first type of correction is an interesting trivia factoid. I have a bone to pick. And, sadly, I know this is offensive and here I am saying it anyway. I've seen vocal advocates of the child led learning movement being the worst ones for making the trivial corrections on other adults statements, not the constructive on topic feedback like the second two. Ironic, huh.

I agree. Now I'll speak my mind, too.

I'm getting very tired of the PC police jumping all over trivial points that might possibly offend someone somewhere, maybe in the Andromeda galaxy. If you think I'm wrong, please say so in public so we can have a debate about it (as happened on a thread about GRE scores, which made me think about things. I appreciated different points of view). Why the need to hide?

I hate to see this forum suddenly turn to gelatin because of the overblown and self-serving way that one member reacted to a valid criticism. Let's not let her ruin it for everyone.

The world is full of people whose opinions you don't like. Part of being a responsible grownup is accepting that fact and not trying to control what everyone else says. Sorry, but I feel like I'm revisiting 7th grade here.

All right. I agree that a rule to PM someone in private won't work well, due to honest disagreement, an understandable reflex on the part of the recipient to get defensive about her/his posting habits (whether right or wrong, a highly subjective inquiry most of the time), and a probable tendency to encourage the development of "forum police".

In the event that spawned the recent navel-gazing pandemonium, I could have just PMed Mark, though I'm usually loath to bother him, and though it would have felt like tattling. I could alternatively have continued, after my first post and the other poster seemed not to understand what the fuss was about, to point out to her exactly why I had an issue, while keeping as close to a neutral tone as possible (I think I did try to do this but could have done better). The new discussion definitely derailed the original thread a bit, so I probably should have suggested that we take it to another thread. That other thread could have morphed into a discussion much like this one.

Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to share their thoughts in this thread. I would very much like to get something started and in writing by the end of the week, and I apologize for the delay.

Mark

Hello everyone -

Please see the updated Forum Guidelines/Board Rules: http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/ubb/boardrules/v/1.html.

For now, this is just a starting point and I can certainly make additions to these rules (or remove or edit them). I'm sure I'm forgetting something. I tried to incorporate many of the thoughts shared in this thread, and I really appreciate everyone taking the time to share their thoughts.

I also left in some of the legal jargon that was previously on the page.

There are a couple items that I would like to also share some thoughts on, so this will likely be edited further.

In regards to making some members of the forum mods, we gave it some consideration. However, there are a couple members of the Davidson Institute staff that are now helping me with this responsibility. It may be something we look at in the future, however.

As always, if anyone has a thought or suggestion, please respond to this thread or send me a PM!

Mark