I would like to add that on this board we have a spectrum of ideas about what should be allowed to be discussed here. At one end I would probably place Grinity (as an example, not suggesting that she is alone). I believe that she has a goal of avoiding offense to anyone, and sometimes even avoiding disagreements in discussions, in order to make this as welcoming a place as possible.
Lucounu
these are 2 very different issues. I think you are guilty of creating a false dichotomy.
There's no false dichotomy. There are many different issues being discussed, and I have explicitly stated that I am trying to guide things in a direction where there are more shades of gray available here, and that I believe you're against that. I might have written the above-quoted text in haste, but I do think that in service of creating a wecloming, comforting environment, you would like to control not only what is discussed her, but also how it's discussed The latter is probably the bigger issue, but they're both issues. You agree above that you want to avoid discussing at least one issue, and there are others. See, for example, your response to Bostonian in the other forum guidelines thread:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/110059/6.htmlI could reduce the level of acrimony on this board at least a bit by never writing about the demographics of intelligence and giftedness
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?
but I think these are important topics with big implications for educational policy
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.
Because of this and a thousand other small things, when you contact people in private to let them know that you disapprove of their posts, I see it as seeking to control the board. You're attempting to control both the medium and the message. If Ametrine had intended, for instance, to say what you didn't like that her signature implied to you, I don't think you would have been okay with it, although of course you would have had to eventually let it go.
2) what to do when the desire of some for free speech allows speech that is offensive or attacking or perceived as attacking of others.
Ametrine's signature line wasn't an attack. Bostonian's postings of his views on intelligence-- which are always at least well-thought-out and quite civil, though they may not sit well with you-- are not attacks. The word "attack" is far too strong. You don't like others posting if you feel that it creates a less welcoming environment, in your personal opinion; and that's stifling, in my personal opinion.
It's not that my goal is avoiding offense to anyone, it's that my goal is honoring the actual parents who post here. There is very little support of the important work of parenting in general, and even less for parents of gifted kids. So I don't see the need for anyone to attack anyone else here. If I perceive that someone is being attacked, I will speak up and object - one way or the other.
I'm not a moderator. No one has to agree with me. I sent a PM to someone once and let her know that I didn't think she was trying to offend, but that I thought it likely that her words were being perceived as an attack. The poster told me that she disagreed and that was that. Nothing terrible happened to the poster as far as I can tell.
Like I mentioned before, nothing prohibits anyone from sending someone a PM. I don't think it's out-and-out wrong under the rules, though as we discussed in the other thread, sending a PM like that might be less than ideal. Whether or not it results in the person contacted feeling offended, though, you are trying to change the way other people are posting.
I do see you as skewing things too far from center. For example, I don't think anything will be served by everyone trying to constantly be loving, etc. This is a discussion forum for grownups. We don't need love; we need interesting ideas, and enough civility to discuss them fruitfully.
And that civility requirement doesn't mean we need to err on the side of construing every meaning of someone's words, looking for someone who might potentially feel offended. It's simply too restrictive.
You are showing a lot of promise in developing your own funny style of respectful disagreement - I'm proud of you.
I consider that to be a back-handed sort of compliment, honestly, and with apologies if you really, truly didn't mean it to be (no apology is necessary). Your compliment asserts, of course, that I still have a ways to go. Well, in my opinion, you could improve somewhat in the area of showing less passive aggression (I will have to think about whether I am recomminding more open aggression or just less aggression, but either would be better IMO; I of course feel like you have a right to be heard like anyone else). It might just be the way you come across.
Sometime overprotective, but I'm trying to really stick to being of service to other gifted parents.
I do think you have many good intentions, but can come off as a bit controlling at times.
I want us moving in the direction being here to serve.
I know you do. But I think of this as a
discussion forum, where one of the things that happens by design is that people come to ask questions and get answers, and another major function is general
discussion relevant to the areas that are indicated in the subforums.
"Being here to serve" shouldn't restrict the way we discuss things in general; it's too restrictive. To me, I still think it's over-the-top ridiculous that you felt it necessary to contact Ametrine in private about her signature line about elephants and tap-dancing shoes. She wasn't getting in the way of your being here to serve others, or harming the forum.
And afterall, most of us are going to have to negotiate with school folks or community members to get our kid's needs met, doesn't it make sense to practice a strong and respectful way of stating our thoughts? We know as little about the perspectives and past experiences of our school folks as we do about each other, so doesn't it make sense to practice getting our point across without attacking or being offensive?
No, it doesn't make sense to use our posts here to practice speaking in the same way as we do when advocating for our children. I think that's a choice for every person to
choose for themselves, not to have it forced on them, "suggested" via PM from an influential person, etc. I would be horrified to learn that a new forum guideline was in the offing, suggesting that people be on their absolute best behavior, and use speech as if they were dealing with school administrators. This is a place for discussion.
Anyway, I don't want to keep squabbling over this. I think I've
really said everything I can usefully say now, and so much more...
