or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccination Forum Guidelines Reminder and Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccination Forum Guidelines Reminder and Discussion

post #1 of 333
Thread Starter 
I would like to share some old Vaccination forum guidelines that serve as a particularly good reminder of our responsibilities as posters in this forum. This portion of our forum guidelines was inadvertently lost in the transition to Huddler. I'm bringing it back, edited slightly to account for our new, simpler UA, as I feel it clearly outlines how to keep our discussions here informative and respectful. These guidelines are not new; rather, they clarify what is already in the guidelines for Vax, S&DVax, and INV. But I'd like to use this space to further clarify any of the forum guidelies and to answer any questions you may have. smile.gif
Quote:
We are very pleased to have the intelligent, passionate, and wise voices of the parents here that post frequently to the Vaccinations forum to offer advice and information. We certainly want to keep the forum atmosphere a place where they can do so with their passion intact.

However, the passion must also carry a measure of compassion and respect, regardless of who is posting and what they are saying.

We would like our core membership to work in alliance with us in upholding the User Agreement, even in the face of someone who posts in a manner that feels suspicious or with underlying intention or agenda.

We would like to have everyone acknowledge and accept the guidelines of this forum so that all members of MDC, whether new or long-standing, will feel more comfortable posting here.

We would like all members to be aware of and appreciate our concerns about the posting manner here that has caused upset to parents in need of info who perhaps asked in the wrong way, asked without reading the archives, or responded in a way that felt inappropriate. Harsh posts in reply to such members have caused some to turn away from the forum. We want to do what we can to ensure that this does not happen.

This speaks very well of the atmosphere we would like all of our members to keep in mind as they post here in Vaccinations:
Quote:
Choosing whether or not to have a child vaccinated, especially in light of the politics of vaccines, must be an independent decision. It should not be coerced, but be the product of true informed consent. Few people even know that they have a choice regarding vaccinations, much less know what informed consent really is... Some parents want to comply with the entire vaccination schedule; others want no vaccinations at all. Some parents want certain vaccines but not others. And some want to delay the vaccines until their baby is older.
From "Vaccinations: Why All The Fuss" by Peggy O'Mara.

We embrace all parents, regardless of their choice. We uphold the Vaccinations forum as a place where they can come and discuss all aspects of all vaccinations, and find support in their desire to make an informed decision to not vaccinate, to vaccinate, to selectively vaccinate, or to delay vaccinations.

We would like all members to understand that this forum is not an anti-vax forum but rather is a forum to discuss issues and concerns so that parents can make an informed decision. This means that we do permit pro-vax posting and that should a member post pro-vax information they should not be labeled a troll or someone that does not belong at Mothering or MDC. Yes, there are lots of other places around the world wide web where this information is abundant. But that does not mean that its presentation or discussion is not appropriate here. Rather than rebuke or brand the poster as a troll, rise to the occasion and opportunity to demonstrate the flaws, inconsistencies, and misinformation you feel are present in such information posted. Intelligent, informative, and civil debate should be the shining light of this forum without stooping to accusation, condescending comments and veiled insults against an individual's character or intentions in posting here, as if that will somehow discredit the person or information.

We expect and insist that all members post here with an open mind and a willingness to learn - even from the new member. There should be an understanding that a large number of Mothering community members are against vaccinations so when you do come here to post to ask your questions, and you have an intention to vaccinate, members here will feel a need to inform you of the concerns about vaccinations. While no one should be labeled as irresponsible or uninformed for deciding to vaccinate, neither should parents here who have chosen to not vaccinate be accused of irresponsibility, not caring for their child, or presenting a threat to others. Please respect each other and refrain from statements that are condescending, hurtful, judgmental, and belittling. We will not tolerate such things and because this issue has reached an extreme we will be more pro-active and quick to warn everyone for such behavior, which could ultimately lead to your loss of posting privileges here in Vaccinations.

New members are advised to research the topic of their question first by perusing the archives and doing specific searches. Your questions are welcome and we certainly know a busy parent has little time for focused research and that the archives and search results can be overwhelming to sift through. But sometimes the info you seek is already posted and just what you're looking for. If you have searched the forum and did not find an answer, please say that in your post so that the members appreciate that you have already done so.

We would like to extend our thanks to all of you who make the Vaccinations forum a treasure of a resource. We you one and all.
post #2 of 333

So….anyone want to talk about it, nicely, preferably with a mod overseeing the discussion?

post #3 of 333

How many chances to posters get when they violate the UA? For example, by accusing people of being pharmashills (but could be any violation)? And are there consequences? Or just deleted posts?

post #4 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

How many chances to posters get when they violate the UA? For example, by accusing people of being pharmashills (but could be any violation)? And are there consequences? Or just deleted posts?

 

I was thinking about the pharma-shill thing.

 

Alluding to the fact that some posters may be pharma-shills is bad because:

 

a) there is no strong evidence for it

b) it is trying to discredit what pro-vaxxers say by implying that they are untrustworthy, and may be here under false pretenses and for financial gain.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

From the other side:

 

Not a day goes by  without someone saying or implying that non-vaxxers (either individually or collectively - and yes, I can get numerous links) do not understand science or statistics.  

 

It is also a smear campaign and used to discredit the non-vax point of view.  The only way it differs from the pharma-shill mess is no one is accusing anyone of doing it for financial gain….

 

How about we collectively agree that trying to discredit an entire group on the vaccine boards is not fair play?  

post #5 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

How many chances to posters get when they violate the UA? For example, by accusing people of being pharmashills (but could be any violation)? And are there consequences? Or just deleted posts?

 

I was thinking about the pharma-shill thing.

 

Alluding to the fact that some posters may be pharma-shills is bad because:

 

a) there is no strong evidence for it

b) it is trying to discredit what pro-vaxxers say by implying that they are untrustworthy, and may be here under false pretenses and for financial gain.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

From the other side:

 

Not a day goes by  without someone saying or implying that non-vaxxers (either individually or collectively - and yes, I can get numerous links) do not understand science or statistics.  

 

It is also a smear campaign and used to discredit the non-vax point of view.  The only way it differs from the pharma-shill mess is no one is accusing anyone of doing it for financial gain….

 

How about we collectively agree that trying to discredit an entire group on the vaccine boards is not fair play?  

 

I think non-vaxers can also be shills. So the biggest problem is that anyone could be a shill and there is no way to know.

 

I haven't seen much smearing going on as far as the non-vaxers - mostly just a dispute on what sources are credible and believable.

post #6 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

How many chances to posters get when they violate the UA? For example, by accusing people of being pharmashills (but could be any violation)? And are there consequences? Or just deleted posts?
Good question, thanks for asking!

After 3 strikes, a member gets a 1 month "vacation" from MDC. However, there are no hard and fast rules on what will earn you a point. A lot of things that used to earn reminders/warnings no longer do under the more relaxed UA; and if threads go off topic or even a bit cranky, we generally want to allow members room to work it out among themselves. Moderators may call out UAVs on the thread or via PM for an edit/apology, though we do delete some posts if they are not cleaned up or resolved by the poster, or if they are really really bad. We also have official warnings (saved in the system) and the 1-point infractions.

Also, keep in mind that with fewer mods and a more hands-off moderation style, our response time may be slower and we rely heavily on the reports system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

How about we collectively agree that trying to discredit an entire group on the vaccine boards is not fair play?
It is, both under the UA (respect and courtesy) and these new/old Vax guidelines:
Quote:
While no one should be labeled as irresponsible or uninformed for deciding to vaccinate, neither should parents here who have chosen to not vaccinate be accused of irresponsibility, not caring for their child, or presenting a threat to others. Please respect each other and refrain from statements that are condescending, hurtful, judgmental, and belittling.

Edited to clarify the infraction process
Edited by Mosaic - 5/24/12 at 6:42am
post #7 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

I haven't seen much smearing going on as far as the non-vaxers - mostly just a dispute on what sources are credible and believable.
Needless to say, negative characterizations go both ways and have been present on the boards, both historically and recently. They are NOT ok, in either direction.
post #8 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

I haven't seen much smearing going on as far as the non-vaxers - mostly just a dispute on what sources are credible and believable.

 

Do you want me to find you recent links?

post #9 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Do you want me to find you recent links?
Keep it to PM please... I'd like to keep this thread about the guidelines and questions. Thanks!
post #10 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosaic View Post

Keep it to PM please... I'd like to keep this thread about the guidelines and questions. Thanks!

oh, all right….it saves me some work, anyways! orngtongue.gif

post #11 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

I was thinking about the pharma-shill thing.

 

Alluding to the fact that some posters may be pharma-shills is bad because:

 

a) there is no strong evidence for it

b) it is trying to discredit what pro-vaxxers say by implying that they are untrustworthy, and may be here under false pretenses and for financial gain.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

From the other side:

 

Not a day goes by  without someone saying or implying that non-vaxxers (either individually or collectively - and yes, I can get numerous links) do not understand science or statistics.  

 

It is also a smear campaign and used to discredit the non-vax point of view.  The only way it differs from the pharma-shill mess is no one is accusing anyone of doing it for financial gain….

 

How about we collectively agree that trying to discredit an entire group on the vaccine boards is not fair play?  

 

Agreed it's not fair play to try to discredit an entire group. But both sides have at times been accused of not understanding science and statistics. It seems only one has been routinely and systematically accused of being here under false pretenses and/or for payment (promise I won't post links). IMO, that needs to stop, and I'm glad to see these guidelines posted here. I hope they get posted permanently at the top of the forum and on each subforum as well.

post #12 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Agreed it's not fair play to try to discredit an entire group. But BOTH sides have been accused of not understanding science and statistics. It seems only one has been routinely and systematically accused of being here under false pretenses and/or for payment (promise I won't post links). IMO, that needs to stop, and I'm glad to see these guidelines posted here.  I hope the get posted permanently at the top of the forum and maybe each subforum as well.
Thanks for your thoughts! Long ago they were part of the original Vaccination Forum guidelines, and I'd like to restore them there officially as well. That means that these guidelines will apply to all subfora as well. smile.gif
post #13 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

 

Agreed it's not fair play to try to discredit an entire group. But both sides have at times been accused of not understanding science and statistics. It seems only one has been routinely and systematically accused of being here under false pretenses and/or for payment (promise I won't post links). IMO, that needs to stop, and I'm glad to see these guidelines posted here. I hope they get posted permanently at the top of the forum and on each subforum as well.

 

My sense is that the non/sel/ del have been accused of being people not understanding science/statistics way more often than the pro-vax camp.  It is pretty endemic.  

 

That is my sense.  I could be wrong - and I do not doubt we all bring our own POV/baggage to how we look at posts.

 

It should also be pointed out that the pharma - shill line of discussion has come (largely) from one person.  I think she should knock it off - but I also think those who take every opportunity to claim that the pro-vax side is the only side linked with science and statistics should also knock it off.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded.

 

Mosaic….I hope this line of discussion is Ok.  Do you think we should discuss it (the extreme arguing and lack of respect) on this forum, or should we just read the user guidelines (which rock, btw) and move on?  Whatever you think will work in restoring some harmony.

 

Kathy


Edited by purslaine - 5/22/12 at 9:06am
post #14 of 333

I'm in the middle because I do vaccinate but on an alternative schedule, and I skip some, so guess I get it from all sides. lol.gif

 

Anyway, I think the difference about being accused of not understanding science and statistics and not being real is that only one could be refuted. I mean it's not that difficult to demonstrate knowledge of science and statistics but it's pretty much impossible to prove you are real or not paid by big pharma. It's an accusation that can't really be fought other than saying nuh-uh, so whoever is making it has the upper hand so to speak.

post #15 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

 

Agreed it's not fair play to try to discredit an entire group. But both sides have at times been accused of not understanding science and statistics. It seems only one has been routinely and systematically accused of being here under false pretenses and/or for payment (promise I won't post links). IMO, that needs to stop, and I'm glad to see these guidelines posted here. I hope they get posted permanently at the top of the forum and on each subforum as well.

 

My sense is that the non/sel/ del have been accused of being people not understanding science/statistics way more often than the pro-vax camp.  It is pretty endemic.  

 

That is my sense.  I could be wrong - and I do not doubt we all bring our own POV/baggage to how we look at posts.

 

It should also be pointed out that the pharma - shill line of discussion has come (largely) from one person.  I think she should knock it off - but I also think those who take every opportunity to claim that the pro-vax side is the only side linked with science and statistics should also knock it off.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded.

 

Mosaic….I hope this line of discussion is Ok.  Do you think we should discuss it (the extreme arguing and lack of respect) on this forum, or should we just read the user guidelines (which rock, btw) and move on?  Whatever you think will work in restoring some harmony.

 

Kathy

 

She has been told repeatedly to knock it off - and then she posted a thread about how they exist and here's proof! Honestly, I don't think a UA does any good at all while she is still here posting about how anyone who posts something remotely pro-vax is a shill getting paid. Even if we WERE shills, we could still post as long as we follow the UA.

 

Now though she's really going to think I'm a shill living the high life....too bad she's dead wrong.

 

I'm also really tired of the conspiracy theory argument - even when the word conspiracy isn't used, if you define conspiracy in your post thats the argument you're making (general "you" - not directed at anyone in particular atm).

post #16 of 333

 *


Edited by AbbyGrant - 7/8/12 at 2:30pm
post #17 of 333
Saying someone doesn't understand science or statistics as a general statement is an ad hominem attack. Saying "no, you misunderstood that science/that statistic, it means this" is a different thing.
post #18 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

      Quote:

 

I dunno. Some things would clearly require a conspiracy to be true. I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out, but I'm open to discussion about it.

 

Equating questioning vaccines with being a conspiracy theorist is often an attempt to discredit a person or group.  (I am not saying you do this - in fact I cannot remember you doing this - I am just using this statement as a jumping off point for discussion)

post #19 of 333
Thread Starter 
This discussion is about more clearly defining posting behavior that is and is not ok in hopes of creating a more hospitable environment for fruitful discussions. Finger-pointing is neither productive nor helpful in creating a more positive environment.

This forum, its resources, and its tone, are all the result of our combined efforts. We can use those efforts to belabor what went wrong OR we can focus on what we can do, both as members and as your mod, to make this forum informative and approachable again. I think the discussion of clarifying what is ok versus what isn't would help everyone understand how to express their thoughts without causing undue conflict. smile.gif
post #20 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Equating questioning vaccines with being a conspiracy theorist is often an attempt to discredit a person or group.  


 Sure in that way.  But if someone is outlining what amounts to a conspiracy, I don't see the problem calling it just that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccination Forum Guidelines Reminder and Discussion