"Forbidden Topic"

[jokacz]

#15 - There is no place in our forums for the general discussion or speculation of illicit drug use. This is to be considered a forbidden topic and mention of it will be removed.

This seems pretty vague to me and in need of clarification.

[brutusbluto]

Originally Posted by LynnT

Im just curious why it gets mentioned on other areas of the board without the insert of "prohibitive topic" and not on the upstate.

If there are board rules then they should be followed on All public areas of the board. There should be consistency among mods.

Could be unmoderated areas of the board, or just a mod that doesn't give a crap.

[brinker999]

So - where are these forbidden topics listed???/

[jokacz]

@jymie Give us your interpretation of rule 15. Do you know the company line on it?

[Mouthful-of-Bees]

Thank you all, again, for openly sharing your thoughts on this discrete, yet perplexing topic. I agree with each of you that say it is wrong to contribute to the demise of another human being — that seems to almost go without saying.

Perhaps the dilemma of my conscience is peaked after I have come to know this type of a provider as a person whose flaws are suffering right out in the open, which seems to make it hard for me to just write them off, or advertise their faults publicly. I’m just not sure that shunning is an effective means of behavior modification. However, I suppose sympathetic understanding and encouragement can often be misconstrued as approval, which may serve to just perpetuate self-destruction.

I just wish I knew some middle ground. Perhaps there is none.

[jokacz]

I’m just not sure that shunning is an effective means of behavior modification.

You can't modify her behavior, only she can do that.


I think our responsibility begins and ends with not enabling her with our money and encouraging others to follow our lead. You can't save someone that doesn't want to save themselves.

[brutusbluto]

Originally Posted by jokacz

@jymie Give us your interpretation of rule 15. Do you know the company line on it?

Originally Posted by brinker999

So - where are these forbidden topics listed???/

In part guideline #22 - ECCIE Staff will go to great lengths to avoid editing, deleting, or censoring our members posts or threads...unless absolutely necessary. Forbidden topics such as underage sex, illicit drugs, bestiality, revealing personal info, medical speculation, or images not in compliance will be removed from public view.

As a mod we are asked to use our own feelings on what is appropriate and what is not. When we have questions we always ask other mods for guidance. Its all in the way it is phrased I guess, Im going to the drug store, is ok, he is a drug addict would not be ok. Any mention of the illegal drug would not be ok.

[jokacz]

But this thread is OK?

[guest032013]

Whackerdoodles ?

[GP]

The term ILLICIT is key. Just mentioning drug use should be ok, but getting into gory details is what we should be avoiding IMHO. This topic has been brought up a couple of other times and we have gotten absolutely no where with it. Jymie was censoring every mention of the word "drug" for some time, then he lightened up for a bit, but now he is back at it again, all while the rest of the board doesn't. Not trying to mod bash, but we have grown accustomed to being over moderated here in upstate NY unfortunately. We have asked for some equality and balance, but that seems to not happen. No fault of our local mods I don't think. I just think they are trying to do a good job and end up being a little over zealous.

[DDarkness]

Originally Posted by GP

The term ILLICIT is key. Just mentioning drug use should be ok, but getting into gory details is what we should be avoiding IMHO. This topic has been brought up a couple of other times and we have gotten absolutely no where with it. Jymie was censoring every mention of the word "drug" for some time, then he lightened up for a bit, but now he is back at it again, all while the rest of the board doesn't. Not trying to mod bash, but we have grown accustomed to being over moderated here in upstate NY unfortunately. We have asked for some equality and balance, but that seems to not happen. No fault of our local mods I don't think. I just think they are trying to do a good job and end up being a little over zealous.

GP that agree to disagree part again. ILLICIT is obviously an issue mentioning drug use is also an issue. Jymie explained it well I thought when he said drug store ok use not ok etc.

The topic has been raised in the past, the guidelines are clear, and I do appreciate the recognition of local mods but being over zealous is not in my nature or style but then I'm new to the role

[jokacz]

Originally Posted by Mouthful-of-Bees

Really, my question is of an ethical nature. Under the circumstances described above, am I obligated to stop seeing this type of provider or is it okay to continue enhancing their revenue stream just as long as I encourage them to turn about in a new direction?

I've been struggling with this for quite a long time now and wondered what others did in these circumstances. Is there a correct strategy for these circumstances? I worry about some of the rationales I've developed for continued relations with some of these providers.

OK then, is this an appropriate question for discussion here? I would have to assume so since no editing has taken place in this thread. But it is a drug discussion. Anyone? Bueller?

Edit - just noticed this was posted at 4:20 LOL

[GP]

Originally Posted by DDarkness

GP that agree to disagree part again. ILLICIT is obviously an issue mentioning drug use is also an issue. Jymie explained it well I thought when he said drug store ok use not ok etc.

Then....

drug store is ok
staff edit by jymie: term not allowed is NOT ok
but just mentioning staff edit by jymie: term not allowed IS ok as long as you do not mention it's use.

It is my understanding that the terms of the illegal substance are also not allowed.

[guest032013]

She spent extended time in the bathroom repeating ritual behavior

[jackfengshui]

My first experience with this topic occurred when I made a post which included a link to a news item concerning proponents of the legalization for the recreational use of a particular plant product (which is already legal for medicinal use) in California gaining momentum because the additional tax revenue might help solve the state budget crisis. My post was quickly deleted. I was a bit surprised but not upset. I understood that the Mods are untrained volunteers who are being asked to enforce rules that are often not very precise. The deletion of my post actually became a topic of discussion in the National Forum, and there was quite a divergence of opinion.

The apparent variations in under- or over-moderating in various regions might not be the result of some conscious philosophical decisions. They may simply reflect the different workloads in different regions and the ability of the Mods to pay attention to everything.

In order to promote uniformity in Mod actions among different regions, the board will have to hold national conventions for the Mods to get together and compare notes. It will also have to maintain a "bible" of landmark decisions and case studies.

As for the push to report someone with a "habit" or a "health" problem in the name of public safety, there is a very important caveat - the need to ascertain that the allegation is true. If the allegation is false, someone's reputation is being destroyed.