Posting Guidelines for the Forums - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 52 Old 04-11-2014, 12:33 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,744
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)

Hello everyone and thank you for your patience in waiting for clarification from me regarding Vaccinations posting guidelines.

 

After reading many of the posts about behavior, rules, and expectations and some of the more contentious discussions in the Vaccinations forums, I've pulled together two policy revisions and clarifications. We will move forward with these to try to bring the tone of the Vaccinations forums back into civility and to uphold Mothering's purpose on the web.

 

One: No namecalling. No insults. No attacks. Discuss the topic, argue the opinion, give your own opinion. But don't post to insult, demean, or denigrate a person or group of people as a whole. This includes members as well as nonmembers. Saying "You are an idiot" is clearly not acceptable. Saying "Your argument is idiotic" is not acceptable. Though we have long allowed negative descriptive statements like that, placing them in the "not namecalling" category, it seems to have only served as a loophole for members to insult but claim innocence through "it's not namecalling". 

 

This applies to all forums - support forums, the debate forum, and all other forums on Mothering. 

 

Two: Mothering has long stood in support of those who do not vaccinate or who choose to delay or be selective about vaccinating and we will continue to do so as a main goal of the Vaccinations forum. Though we do not have an official stance regarding Vaccinations, and certainly make room for vaccinating parents to discuss issues of concern to them regarding the health of their children, we do have a policy of not hosting posts that advocate for mandatory vaccination, which we have unintentionally neglected. Arguments seated in debating the need for vaccine programs, why everyone should vaccinate, how nonvaccinating parents "threaten" herd immunity, how non-vaccinated children are a threat to others, and other such discussions and comments that are very pro-mandatory vaccination are not acceptable and will not be hosted. 

 

As a result of this and stemming from all of the very "us versus them" discussions that have become the core ot the Vaccinations Debate forum, I've decided to close it. it will remain open for current discussions to continue but it is now closed to new threads. I think with the clear policies about behavior and posting etiquette we can host all general discussions in the main Vaccinations forum as we did in the past. The rules are simple and and straightforward and everyone will be expected to abide by them. 

 

This is all effective immediately. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. if you have any suggestions for improvement, please share. :) 


cynthia mosher is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 52 Old 04-11-2014, 08:05 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Thank you.
I appreciate the chance to have dialogue but the form of debate seemed incongruent with all I know of the origins of Mothering magazine (which inspires this community).
OrmEmbar is online now  
#3 of 52 Old 04-12-2014, 12:30 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Thank you for being clear about the MDC position.

I continue to think it's a pity to lump non vaxing choices with the other aspects of natural parenting, but as a commercial entity MDC has the right obviously to decide to do whatever it feels works best.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#4 of 52 Old 05-05-2014, 10:14 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Denigrating and demeaning would apply to posts that presume to make narrow, insulting judgments about why a parent would make one choice vs. another, correct?

 

E.G-- Things like " 'Group X' isn't informed/educated/concerned enough to make 'Choice Y' "

 

What about guilt-by-association arguments? Like " 'Practice X, supported by Group X' is associated with very bad, disgusting, unethical 'Practice Z' " without giving evidence showing why X is the direct cause or result of  Z, or that Group X is practicing Z, in the discussion at hand. Even biased evidence would be good, as long as the source could be checked out. I know we can't ban all logical fallacies, but this one seems particularly offensive when it's used to derail a discussion.

 

I'm still seeing this kind of thing and not sure if it's worth flagging or not, but it definitely alters the mood of the conversation and makes it nearly impossible to move forward with a discussion when these arguments are introduced.

ss834 is offline  
#5 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 11:34 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post
 

Hello everyone and thank you for your patience in waiting for clarification from me regarding Vaccinations posting guidelines.

 

After reading many of the posts about behavior, rules, and expectations and some of the more contentious discussions in the Vaccinations forums, I've pulled together two policy revisions and clarifications. We will move forward with these to try to bring the tone of the Vaccinations forums back into civility and to uphold Mothering's purpose on the web.

 

One: No namecalling. No insults. No attacks. Discuss the topic, argue the opinion, give your own opinion. But don't post to insult, demean, or denigrate a person or group of people as a whole. This includes members as well as nonmembers. Saying "You are an idiot" is clearly not acceptable. Saying "Your argument is idiotic" is not acceptable. Though we have long allowed negative descriptive statements like that, placing them in the "not namecalling" category, it seems to have only served as a loophole for members to insult but claim innocence through "it's not namecalling". 

 

This applies to all forums - support forums, the debate forum, and all other forums on Mothering. 

 

Two: Mothering has long stood in support of those who do not vaccinate or who choose to delay or be selective about vaccinating and we will continue to do so as a main goal of the Vaccinations forum. Though we do not have an official stance regarding Vaccinations, and certainly make room for vaccinating parents to discuss issues of concern to them regarding the health of their children, we do have a policy of not hosting posts that advocate for mandatory vaccination, which we have unintentionally neglected. Arguments seated in debating the need for vaccine programs, why everyone should vaccinate, how nonvaccinating parents "threaten" herd immunity, how non-vaccinated children are a threat to others, and other such discussions and comments that are very pro-mandatory vaccination are not acceptable and will not be hosted. 

 

As a result of this and stemming from all of the very "us versus them" discussions that have become the core ot the Vaccinations Debate forum, I've decided to close it. it will remain open for current discussions to continue but it is now closed to new threads. I think with the clear policies about behavior and posting etiquette we can host all general discussions in the main Vaccinations forum as we did in the past. The rules are simple and and straightforward and everyone will be expected to abide by them. 

 

This is all effective immediately. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. if you have any suggestions for improvement, please share. :) 

Several of us have been concerned that this thread http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1401619/anti-vaccine-myths-and-misinformation#post_17625335 has been allowed to remain on the VOS forum. (Yes, it was flagged.)  The whole point of that thread is an article that sets forth the need for a vaccine programs and why everyone should vaccinate. Doesn't that violate MDC policy, bolded above?

Indeed, Page 2 claims that non-vaccinated individuals threaten herd immunity.  

Page 3 trashes many of the doctors who have publicly discussed their concerns about vaccine safety/efficacy, calling them all "conspiracy theorists," including MDC's own Dr. Bob Sears.

Page 4 insists that there is no risk/reward benefit for even delaying vaccines, just added risk, which is certainly a slap in the face to those of us here whose children have had severe adverse effects from vaccines.

Page 5 argues that there is no constitutional right for American parents to intentionally avoid vaccinating their kids.  Yikes--do we REALLY want to post an article here that appears to push the idea that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are trumped by government-mandated vaccines?  That's downright frightening.


Throughout, the article talks about "anti-vaccine folk" and how "they use propaganda to link vaccines to autism" and other health issues. If you can stand to read the article, it's 5 pages of bashing "anti-vaccine folk." The article concludes: "Get Educated. Get Vaccinated.  Stop the Outbreaks."

I certainly understand that vaccinating parents would like a support forum here on MDC.  Is MDC's policy now to allow "support forum" to include hosting links to articles like this?

 

sassyfirechick likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#6 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 12:10 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Several of us have been concerned that this thread http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1401619/anti-vaccine-myths-and-misinformation#post_17625335 has been allowed to remain on the VOS forum. (Yes, it was flagged.)  The whole point of that thread is an article that sets forth the need for a vaccine programs and why everyone should vaccinate. Doesn't that violate MDC policy, bolded above?

Indeed, Page 2 claims that non-vaccinated individuals threaten herd immunity.  

Page 3 trashes many of the doctors who have publicly discussed their concerns about vaccine safety/efficacy, calling them all "conspiracy theorists," including MDC's own Dr. Bob Sears.

Page 4 insists that there is no risk/reward benefit for even delaying vaccines, just added risk, which is certainly a slap in the face to those of us here whose children have had severe adverse effects from vaccines.

Page 5 argues that there is no constitutional right for American parents to intentionally avoid vaccinating their kids.  Yikes--do we REALLY want to post an article here that appears to push the idea that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are trumped by government-mandated vaccines?  That's downright frightening.


Throughout, the article talks about "anti-vaccine folk" and how "they use propaganda to link vaccines to autism" and other health issues. If you can stand to read the article, it's 5 pages of bashing "anti-vaccine folk." The article concludes: "Get Educated. Get Vaccinated.  Stop the Outbreaks."

I certainly understand that vaccinating parents would like a support forum here on MDC.  Is MDC's policy now to allow "support forum" to include hosting links to articles like this?

 

 

Were any of those points or quotes you don't like pasted or discussed in the VOS forum?  Like you said, it was 5 pages long and went over almost 50 different arguments.  Cherry picking a part or a few sentence out of thousands and thousands of words and using that as an argument that we shouldn't be able to link or discuss any part of it is silly.   Do we really want to go down that road?  Because trust me I could go and cherry pick a sentence or part of lots of links that are posted by members here that violate the user terms of this forum.  Again, as long as the offensive parts aren't quoted or discussed, I'm not seeing the problem. It was a huge article that made lots of great points.  No one is forcing you to go on the VOS forum and click on an outside link and read an entire 5 page article. 

 

This part "Page 4 insists that there is no risk/reward benefit for even delaying vaccines, just added risk..." isn't a violation anyway.   We've made those arguments on these threads before.  There is even evidence (and we've discussed the study before) that delaying the MMR increases the risk of seizure.   Or is your position that anything you don't agree with or like should be banned from discussion? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#7 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 12:21 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)

More like the heavy modding needs to go both ways if it's going to be that way (although I prefer it to be less, but it is what it is).  Teacozy more often than not you have browsed he INV threads, found things you didn't' like then spun them around in your own VOS forum.  Honestly I feel like you spend quite a bit of time reading the INV forums even though you cannot post in them.  Why? If the title seems offensive then yes it draws people's attention and they might read it - when you title your post "Anti-Vaccine Myths and Misinformation" do you really think it isn't going to piss people off?  Especially given the number of people on these boards with vaccine injured kids.  Once again the "anti-vaccine" is generally the wrong term to use.  Just because an article uses it, no need to repeat that bit of "misinformation" just for the sake of rousing people.

sassyfirechick is online now  
#8 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 12:29 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

More like the heavy modding needs to go both ways if it's going to be that way (although I prefer it to be less, but it is what it is).  Teacozy more often than not you have browsed he INV threads, found things you didn't' like then spun them around in your own VOS forum.  Honestly I feel like you spend quite a bit of time reading the INV forums even though you cannot post in them.  Why? If the title seems offensive then yes it draws people's attention and they might read it - when you title your post "Anti-Vaccine Myths and Misinformation" do you really think it isn't going to piss people off?  Especially given the number of people on these boards with vaccine injured kids.  Once again the "anti-vaccine" is generally the wrong term to use.  Just because an article uses it, no need to repeat that bit of "misinformation" just for the sake of rousing people.

 

When has a PV member asked for links to outside articles be removed from the INV forum?  Even in my arguments on the thread that started all this I said that I thought it was fine for both sides to link to articles (even if parts of the article might violate the UA) as long as the offensive parts weren't pasted or discussed on mothering.  I believe that comment even got "likes" from NV members.   Blogs and articles on this topic (from both sides) are generally not going to follow the mothering guidelines as this is a heated topic.  It seems silly to essentially ban all links to outside blogs/articles, but if thats the way you want it it's going to go both ways. 

 

Articles that only mock not being allowed I don't really have an issue with.  But the article in question was not that kind of article. 

 

And no, I actually don't spend a lot of time on the INV forum. I occasionally read a thread that looks interesting.   Apparently, lots of the NV members read the VOS forum, since I believe three different threads have been made into spin offs or linked for discussion in the last day. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#9 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 12:31 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Several of us have been concerned that this thread http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1401619/anti-vaccine-myths-and-misinformation#post_17625335 has been allowed to remain on the VOS forum. (Yes, it was flagged.)  The whole point of that thread is an article that sets forth the need for a vaccine programs and why everyone should vaccinate. Doesn't that violate MDC policy, bolded above?

Indeed, Page 2 claims that non-vaccinated individuals threaten herd immunity.  

Page 3 trashes many of the doctors who have publicly discussed their concerns about vaccine safety/efficacy, calling them all "conspiracy theorists," including MDC's own Dr. Bob Sears.

Page 4 insists that there is no risk/reward benefit for even delaying vaccines, just added risk, which is certainly a slap in the face to those of us here whose children have had severe adverse effects from vaccines.

Page 5 argues that there is no constitutional right for American parents to intentionally avoid vaccinating their kids.  Yikes--do we REALLY want to post an article here that appears to push the idea that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are trumped by government-mandated vaccines?  That's downright frightening.


Throughout, the article talks about "anti-vaccine folk" and how "they use propaganda to link vaccines to autism" and other health issues. If you can stand to read the article, it's 5 pages of bashing "anti-vaccine folk." The article concludes: "Get Educated. Get Vaccinated.  Stop the Outbreaks."

I certainly understand that vaccinating parents would like a support forum here on MDC.  Is MDC's policy now to allow "support forum" to include hosting links to articles like this?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Were any of those points or quotes you don't like pasted or discussed in the VOS forum?  Like you said, it was 5 pages long and went over almost 50 different arguments.  Cherry picking a part or a few sentence out of thousands and thousands of words and using that as an argument that we shouldn't be able to link or discuss any part of it is silly.   Do we really want to go down that road?  Because trust me I could go and cherry pick a sentence or part of lots of links that are posted by members here that violate the user terms of this forum.  Again, as long as the offensive parts aren't quoted or discussed, I'm not seeing the problem. It was a huge article that made lots of great points.  No one is forcing you to go on the VOS forum and click on an outside link and read an entire 5 page article. 

 

This part "Page 4 insists that there is no risk/reward benefit for even delaying vaccines, just added risk..." isn't a violation anyway.   We've made those arguments on these threads before.  There is even evidence (and we've discussed the study before) that delaying the MMR increases the risk of seizure.   Or is your position that anything you don't agree with or like should be banned from discussion? 

 

MDC revised policy, as per Cynthia's OP:  "Arguments seated in debating the need for vaccine programs, why everyone should vaccinate, how nonvaccinating parents "threaten" herd immunity, how non-vaccinated children are a threat to others, and other such discussions and comments that are very pro-mandatory vaccination are not acceptable and will not be hosted. "

Taximom5 is online now  
#10 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 12:32 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

 

MDC revised policy, as per Cynthia's OP:  "Arguments seated in debating the need for vaccine programs, why everyone should vaccinate, how nonvaccinating parents "threaten" herd immunity, how non-vaccinated children are a threat to others, and other such discussions and comments that are very pro-mandatory vaccination are not acceptable and will not be hosted. "

 

And were any of those arguments being made on the VOS forum?  

 

The only parts of that article that were discussed on the VOS were about vaccine shedding, natural vs vaccine induced immunity, and quality of research.   None of those topics are against the rules here so again, I am not seeing how that is a violation of the guidelines. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#11 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 12:41 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)

Additionally, isn't the mothering policy that if we have a problem with a thread or specific post we flag it and let the mods deal with it? 

 

If not, I wonder why members haven't edited their comments like the mods asked in this thread in INV http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1401265/nyc-health-dept-breaks-law-denies-exemptions/20#post_17624954?  Where they use words like "crazy" and call people "sociopaths" ? 

 

I'd like some clarification on whether publicly calling threads/posts out and linking to them is still against the rules or not?  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#12 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 01:16 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)

The mods must love us.  That's all.  Bolt.gif

 

 

 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#13 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 01:34 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Additionally, isn't the mothering policy that if we have a problem with a thread or specific post we flag it and let the mods deal with it? 

 

If not, I wonder why members haven't edited their comments like the mods asked in this thread in INV http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1401265/nyc-health-dept-breaks-law-denies-exemptions/20#post_17624954?  Where they use words like "crazy" and call people "sociopaths" ? 

 

I'd like some clarification on whether publicly calling threads/posts out and linking to them is still against the rules or not?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post
 

 

 

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. 

 

 

I had a question, and I asked.   There have certainly been many times, by the mods' own admissions, that flags have not been seen.  If I was in error for asking, I assume a mod would tell me so, and then I would delete my post.

applejuice and kathymuggle like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#14 of 52 Old 05-08-2014, 08:22 PM
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,478
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Additionally, isn't the mothering policy that if we have a problem with a thread or specific post we flag it and let the mods deal with it? 

 

If not, I wonder why members haven't edited their comments like the mods asked in this thread in INV http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1401265/nyc-health-dept-breaks-law-denies-exemptions/20#post_17624954?  Where they use words like "crazy" and call people "sociopaths" ? 

 

I'd like some clarification on whether publicly calling threads/posts out and linking to them is still against the rules or not?  

I did ask for edits.  I had not had a chance to get back to it - which I will now do. :)  Thank you for bringing it to my attention that edits had not been made.

HappyHappyMommy likes this.

winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#15 of 52 Old 05-09-2014, 02:08 AM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,744
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)

Several of the things you are asking about are under review. We are aware they have been flagged but wanted to take some time to discuss their moderation before we act so that we are clear about application of our guidelines. Things are not always straightforward so sometimes it takes us time to decide on how to appropriately handle something and how our guidelines apply to certain discussions.

 

Regarding ehe article link, this is more about the type of discussion that is being postied in a support form and whether or not it is appropriate. The support forums are intended to be for discussion of issues that directly affect your choice to vaccinate, not vaccinate, or delay vaccinations.  Your post should not be to argue against what others think or to try to debunk information you believe to be incorrect that is not directly and immediately affecting your own vaccination choice. General discussions about a topic might be fine on the general Vaccinations forum but not in a support forum where it is simply meant to disprove or ridicule the opinions of others who think and choose differently than you do. 

 

It is true that no one posted in that thread to advocate for mandatory vaccination. But in a roundabout way, linking to an article that does that in essence, does it for you by proxy. So, while we really don't want to have to read through articles you link to and start policing linking, when you link to something that presents a case for something we have said we do not want to host, we may indeed take issue with you posting it.

 

If you have made the choice to not vaccinate and need support in stepping forward with that choice, that's what the support forum is for. But you should not be posting with information stating how wrong others are in their choice to not vaccinate. That is not the purpose of the support forum or even of the general Vaccinations forum. 

HappyHappyMommy likes this.

cynthia mosher is online now  
#16 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 07:30 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Several of us have been concerned that this thread http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1401619/anti-vaccine-myths-and-misinformation#post_17625335 has been allowed to remain on the VOS forum. (Yes, it was flagged.)  The whole point of that thread is an article that sets forth the need for a vaccine programs and why everyone should vaccinate. Doesn't that violate MDC policy, bolded above?

 

Apparently not everyone agrees that the article doesn't belong on MDC, since that same article is now being discussed in the I'm Not Vaccinating forum.

ss834 and teacozy like this.

Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#17 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 07:37 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

Apparently not everyone agrees that the article doesn't belong on MDC, since that same article is now being discussed in the I'm Not Vaccinating forum.

 

Exactly. 

 

If it's not allowed to be linked and discussed on the VOS forum then it shouldn't be allowed to be linked and discussed on the INV forum either. 

 

Mods? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#18 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 07:41 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)

Or are most of us in agreement that it's silly to moderate outside links as long as offensive parts aren't discussed on mothering? 

 

You can't have it both ways.  If your argument is that since parts of the link violate mothering rules it shouldn't be allowed on VOS then that rule should apply to every support forum.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#19 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 07:53 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)

The article makes fun of non-vaxxers.

 

Sticking it in VOS just adds to the "making fun of" vibe.

 

In INV people can have their say on why it is bunk.

 

If there were a article that was mocking/made fun of vaxxers, it really does not belong in INV.

 

One could argue it it does belong in VOS so vaxxers can have their say on why it is garbage.  

 

Or not.  The whole thing is confusing.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#20 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 07:58 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

The article makes fun of non-vaxxers.

 

Sticking it in VOS just adds to the "making fun of" vibe.

 

In INV people can have their say on why it is bunk.

 

If there were a article that was mocking/made fun of vaxxers, it really does not belong in INV.

 

One could argue it it does belong in VOS so vaxxers can have their say on why it is garbage.  

 

Or not.  The whole thing is confusing.  

 

Nope, this is what CM said :

 

"Regarding the article link, this is more about the type of discussion that is being posted in a support form and whether or not it is appropriate. The support forums are intended to be for discussion of issues that directly affect your choice to vaccinate, not vaccinate, or delay vaccinations.  Your post should not be to argue against what others think or to try to debunk information you believe to be incorrect that is not directly and immediately affecting your own vaccination choice." 

 

The original complaint about the article was that it should be banned because it discussed vaccination laws and contained personal attacks and other things that aren't allowed here.  Well, the link's content doesn't change based on which forum it's on.  It still has those same arguments and same personal attacks.  If one support forum can't discuss it, then none of them should be able to. 

 

Is your argument really "Pro vaccine members can't discuss it but we can" ?  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#21 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 08:02 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Or are most of us in agreement that it's silly to moderate outside links as long as offensive parts aren't discussed on mothering? 

 

 

What would you think if the only thing NVers linked to were sites that said all pro-vaxxers were stupid, evil or hate mongerers?

 

Up until quite recently most NVer links were to studies or government sites.  Very little linking to inflammatory sites and articles.  

 

Sometimes it seems like almost  all links from active pro-vaxxers are to inflammatory, offensive sites or articles.  I am too tired now to check whether this hunch is correct, but I might count links tomorrow during a specific time period to see whether this is perception or reality.  In any event, it gets real old, real fast…and I wonder if you would be ok with it if the shoe were on the other foot.   


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#22 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 08:09 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

What would you think if the only thing NVers linked to were sites that said all pro-vaxxers were stupid, evil or hate mongerers?

 

Up until quite recently most NVer links were to studies or government sites.  Very little linking to inflammatory sites and articles.  

 

Sometimes it seems like almost  all links from active pro-vaxxers are to inflammatory, offensive sites or articles.  I am too tired now to check whether this hunch is correct, but I might count links tomorrow during a specific time period to see whether this is perception or reality.  In any event, it gets real old, real fast…and I wonder if you would be ok with it if the shoe were on the other foot.   

 

I would not care as long as the offensive parts weren't being discussed or pasted directly onto the forum. 

 

An article (especially one as long as the one in question) can have lots of good and interesting points, and occasionally some we may disagree with.   Nothing offensive was discussed or pasted onto the forum.  

 

In any case, the rules should apply equally.  CM said that threads whose purpose is to "debunk" information are not allowed on support forums.  That whole thread was trying to debunk the link.   

 

If the rules are that link can't be discussed (even respectfully and within mothering guidelines) on support forums, well that applies to INV.   I'm fine with it only being allowed on the discussion forum, but rules about what is and isn't allowed shouldn't be different between the support forums. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#23 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 08:13 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

In any case, the rules should apply equally.  CM said that threads whose purpose is to "debunk" information are not allowed on support forums.  That whole thread was trying to debunk the link.   

 

 

You cannot debunk the other sides info.  I cannot go onto VOS and state why xyz is a crock.  Likewise you cannot go onto INV and say why abc is a crock.

 

We should be able to debunk misconceptions about our own tribe, though, in our own subforums.   That fits in with support to me.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#24 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 08:14 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

Apparently not everyone agrees that the article doesn't belong on MDC, since that same article is now being discussed in the I'm Not Vaccinating forum.

 

First of all, there's a huge difference between the way the article was posted in each forum.  In the VOS forum, the article (which aggressively advocates for vaccination by mocking those who question or criticize vaccines) was posted as an example of How It Debunks The Non-Vax Perspective, but what it really does is jeer at and demean those who question and criticize vaccines, and it, at best, stretches the truth in quite a few places (for example, by saying that most adults are up-to-date on all their boosters, which we all know is completely untrue).  The article belittles us over and over.  This is hardly material that a fully-vaxing parent--who already has the support of their own doctors-- needs to support their decision to vaccinate.

On the other hand, in the I'mNotVaccinating forum, the article is posted with the suggestion that people post rebuttals to what the OP feels is misinformation.  Those who question or criticize vaccines are already under attack from those who don't understand that decision; posting rebuttals to the kind of attacks we are often faced with is the kind of support most of us wish we had had earlier, and it is the kind of support we are offering to others.

 

It seems kind of odd that you didn't seem to have a problem with the article being posted in VOS as a means of bashinging non-vaxers, but you do have a problem with it's being posted in INV as a call for support against the bashing? 

Taximom5 is online now  
#25 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 08:22 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post
 

Several of the things you are asking about are under review. We are aware they have been flagged but wanted to take some time to discuss their moderation before we act so that we are clear about application of our guidelines. Things are not always straightforward so sometimes it takes us time to decide on how to appropriately handle something and how our guidelines apply to certain discussions.

 

Regarding ehe article link, this is more about the type of discussion that is being postied in a support form and whether or not it is appropriate. The support forums are intended to be for discussion of issues that directly affect your choice to vaccinate, not vaccinate, or delay vaccinations.  Your post should not be to argue against what others think or to try to debunk information you believe to be incorrect that is not directly and immediately affecting your own vaccination choice. General discussions about a topic might be fine on the general Vaccinations forum but not in a support forum where it is simply meant to disprove or ridicule the opinions of others who think and choose differently than you do. 

 

It is true that no one posted in that thread to advocate for mandatory vaccination. But in a roundabout way, linking to an article that does that in essence, does it for you by proxy. So, while we really don't want to have to read through articles you link to and start policing linking, when you link to something that presents a case for something we have said we do not want to host, we may indeed take issue with you posting it.

 

If you have made the choice to not vaccinate and need support in stepping forward with that choice, that's what the support forum is for. But you should not be posting with information stating how wrong others are in their choice to not vaccinate. That is not the purpose of the support forum or even of the general Vaccinations forum. 

 

I interpret that to mean that pro-vaxers are not allowed to post articles stating how wrong others are in their choice not to vaccinate--not in the support forum, not in the general Vaccinations forum.

 

By extension, it also means that non-vaxers are not allowed to post articles stating how wrong others are to choose to vaccinate.

 

It does NOT mean that non-vaxers are not allowed to defend themselves against misinformation, half-truths, belittling, scorn, and blanket condemnations aimed at forcing vaccine compliance.

applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#26 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 08:23 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

First of all, there's a huge difference between the way the article was posted in each forum.  In the VOS forum, the article (which aggressively advocates for vaccination by mocking those who question or criticize vaccines) was posted as an example of How It Debunks The Non-Vax Perspective, but what it really does is jeer at and demean those who question and criticize vaccines, and it, at best, stretches the truth in quite a few places (for example, by saying that most adults are up-to-date on all their boosters, which we all know is completely untrue).  The article belittles us over and over.  This is hardly material that a fully-vaxing parent--who already has the support of their own doctors-- needs to support their decision to vaccinate.

On the other hand, in the I'mNotVaccinating forum, the article is posted with the suggestion that people post rebuttals to what the OP feels is misinformation.  Those who question or criticize vaccines are already under attack from those who don't understand that decision; posting rebuttals to the kind of attacks we are often faced with is the kind of support most of us wish we had had earlier, and it is the kind of support we are offering to others.

 

It seems kind of odd that you didn't seem to have a problem with the article being posted in VOS as a means of bashinging non-vaxers, but you do have a problem with it's being posted in INV as a call for support against the bashing? 

 

This is the quote from your original complaint: 

 

"The whole point of that thread is an article that sets forth the need for a vaccine programs and why everyone should vaccinate. Doesn't that violate MDC policy, bolded above?"

 

Well those parts of that article are still violating the MDC policy no matter where it's linked.  That was your argument. 

 

And no, I would have zero problem with it being posted on the INV if it hadn't been banned on the other support forum.   My position is that it should be allowed on both. 

 

So here's a question:  Do you guys have a problem with a pro vaxxer linking it on the Discussion forum?  You can respond there so there shouldn't be an issue right?   Or is what you really want just an opportunity to "debunk" and discuss an article that only certain members are allowed to discuss and link to?    Sorry that makes no sense.  Members A,B,C,D can link and respond to this article but members  E, F, G and H can't on any forum or in any capacity link to or respond to it? 

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#27 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 08:38 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

This is the quote from your original complaint: 

 

"The whole point of that thread is an article that sets forth the need for a vaccine programs and why everyone should vaccinate. Doesn't that violate MDC policy, bolded above?"

 

Well those parts of that article are still violating the MDC policy no matter where it's linked.  That was your argument. 

 

And no, I would have zero problem with it being posted on the INV if it hadn't been banned on the other support forum.   My position is that it should be allowed on both. 

 

So here's a question:  Do you guys have a problem with a pro vaxxer linking it on the Discussion forum?  You can respond there so there shouldn't be an issue right?   Or is what you really want just an opportunity to "debunk" and discuss an article that only certain members are allowed to discuss and link to?    Sorry that makes no sense.  Members A,B,C,D can link and respond to this article but members  E, F, G and H can't on any forum or in any capacity link to or respond to it? 

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  

Nope.  Perhaps I was unclear.  To clarify:  the whole point of the VOS thread was to present an article that sets forth the need for vaccine program, etc., as a direct argument of why everyone should vaccinate.

 

Those of us who question or criticize vaccines would like a safe place--a support forum--to defend ourselves against such attacks, without having those very same attacks posted on MDC as a case for a mandatory vaccine program  (which, I remind you, is against MDC policy anyway).

 

We are not looking for fights or arguments with you, and we are not calling for YOUR right to choose whether or not to vaccinate to be taken away from you.

So please don't twist this into an attempt to censor us from defending ourselves on the INV forum against such attacks.  If CM or any of the mods decide that MDC policy now dictates that non-vaxers can no longer defend themselves against the increasing number of attacks on our decisions, and our right to to make those decisions, I'm sure they will let us know.  But I don't believe it's for you to decide.

Mirzam and applejuice like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#28 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 09:59 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)

Taxi - that's your interpretation of why Tea posted the link in VOS. 

 

I interpreted is a link to a site which provides helpful suggestions to combat the common reasons why people choose not to vaccinate.

 

Particularly on MDC vaccinating parents are often told we have not researched and/or thought about those arguments. So a link to an article which suggests reasons why parents might decide differently about vaccinating even after having heard the common non-vax arguments seems like a great way to support MDC vaccinating parents in their decisions. 

ss834 and teacozy like this.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#29 of 52 Old 05-13-2014, 10:44 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Taxi - that's your interpretation of why Tea posted the link in VOS. 

I interpreted is a link to a site which provides helpful suggestions to combat the common reasons why people choose not to vaccinate.

Particularly on MDC vaccinating parents are often told we have not researched and/or thought about those arguments. So a link to an article which suggests reasons why parents might decide differently about vaccinating even after having heard the common non-vax arguments seems like a great way to support MDC vaccinating parents in their decisions. 

It would seem that way-- unless the article contains misinformation, half-truths, red herrings, straw men, etc, and then uses those to mock non-vaxers. In this case, that's exactly what that article does.

You guys seem awfully eager for an argument a debate.

Perhaps you missed my post here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post


But you should not be posting with information stating how wrong others are in their choice to not vaccinate. That is not the purpose of the support forum or even of the general Vaccinations forum. 

I interpret that to mean that pro-vaxers are not allowed to post articles stating how wrong others are in their choice not to vaccinate--not in the support forum, not in the general Vaccinations forum.

By extension, it also means that non-vaxers are not allowed to post articles stating how wrong others are to choose to vaccinate.

It does NOT mean that non-vaxers are not allowed to defend themselves against misinformation, half-truths, belittling, scorn, and blanket condemnations aimed at forcing vaccine compliance.
Taximom5 is online now  
#30 of 52 Old 05-14-2014, 10:41 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
It seems kind of odd that you didn't seem to have a problem with the article being posted in VOS as a means of bashinging non-vaxers, but you do have a problem with it's being posted in INV as a call for support against the bashing? 

 

The only reason I have an issue with it is that the thread was locked and the article itself deemed inappropriate for discussion.

teacozy likes this.

Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off