Suggestion Update to TOS needed

[wagrxm2000]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Look I get that people post things that offend others but we need to switch from a permanent ban to account holds for posts that simply offend someone.

There's a reason you can delete any post by us and ignore any user.

Ban the trolls but don't remove members that 99% of the time interact appropriately.

@BC_89

 

[GoSpursGo]

There are a few things to unpack here.

First of all, 99% of our members manage to float through their SDN existence without ever getting a warning of any kind. Our TOS isn't that hard to follow.

Secondly, if you see someone get banned, one of three things probably happened. Either 1) this was a spammer/clear troll; 2) this was the culmination of multiple warnings, and they refused to change their behavior despite multiple warnings; or 3) this was a re-spawned account of a previously banned user. In any of those three situations, a ban is clearly indicated. People don't get banned just for posting one offensive post, but if they have multiple warnings and continue to refuse to follow the TOS, then they kind of force our hand.

Not sure what happened in the pharm forums to prompt this post, but that goes for basically all of our forums.

 

[wagrxm2000]

There are a few things to unpack here.

First of all, 99% of our members manage to float through their SDN existence without ever getting a warning of any kind. Our TOS isn't that hard to follow.

Secondly, if you see someone get banned, one of three things probably happened. Either 1) this was a spammer/clear troll; 2) this was the culmination of multiple warnings, and they refused to change their behavior despite multiple warnings; or 3) this was a re-spawned account of a previously banned user. In any of those three situations, a ban is clearly indicated. People don't get banned just for posting one offensive post, but if they have multiple warnings and continue to refuse to follow the TOS, then they kind of force our hand.

Not sure what happened in the pharm forums to prompt this post, but that goes for basically all of our forums.

It's number 2 that I disagree with.

I don't understand why you guys don't just delete the comments that get reported.

We've had quite a few opinionated people get banned recently and it's destroying the forum.

 

[GoSpursGo]

It's number 2 that I disagree with.

I don't understand why you guys don't just delete the comments that get reported.

We've had quite a few opinionated people get banned recently and it's destroying the forum.

Not sure why this was deleted...

Anyways, I don't think we're going to agree here. There's a saying about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. If someone has been warned over and over again and they still won't follow the TOS, then the result is that eventually they will be banned. If they then come back... we're generally not going to go out of our way to look for them, but if they keep doing the same things that got them banned in the first place they will get banned again.

People don't getting banned for being opinionated. I basically agree with everything that @BC_89 and @owlegrad have said elsewhere.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Might as well close this.

I read a lot of what banned people have posted and in general they are posts that can be deleted. Usually it's just a bad choice of words from a person who probably doesn't get offended by much.

There are so few people here now, you guys clearly can't see what you are doing.

You can even delete this thread if you want since clearly there is no openness to any change.

And fyi I'm not disagreeing with what the moderators are doing, they are obviously following TOS. I'm saying it needs changed before the forum becomes completely dead. If 99% of an opinionated person's posts are deemed decent to maybe pushing it, just delete the bad ones.

I literally after every post have to stop and reread it to make sure it doesn't offend anyone too much.

 

[DexterMorganSK]

Might as well close this.

I read a lot of what banned people have posted and in general they are posts that can be deleted. Usually it's just a bad choice of words from a person who probably doesn't get offended by much.

There are so few people here now, you guys clearly can't see what you are doing.

You can even delete this thread if you want since clearly there is no openness to any change.

And fyi I'm not disagreeing with what the moderators are doing, they are obviously following TOS. I'm saying it needs changed before the forum becomes completely dead. If 99% of an opinionated person's posts are deemed decent to maybe pushing it, just delete the bad ones.

I literally after every post have to stop and reread it to make sure it doesn't offend anyone too much.

Reread number 2 above. Users are given many attempts to rectify their actions, and this is done by either editing their posts, deleting them, giving them warnings, and even messaging them to change their habits. If all of these fail and the user continues to break the TOS, then we don't have a choice but to ban.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Reread number 2 above. Users are given many attempts to rectify their actions, and this is done by either editing their posts, deleting them, giving them warnings, and even messaging them to change their habits. If all of these fail and the user continues to break the TOS, then we don't have a choice but to ban.

Reread my comment.

I want the TOS updated. People are getting banned not for foul language or attacking others (well they are but get rid of them) but because they offend someone that can easily just ignore the person.

But hey if you get rid of everyone that has controversial posts there won't be any conversations at all.

I stay here over Reddit because while everyone is anonymous, I still feel I'm not just talking to a bunch of trolls. That is slowly being destroyed.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure your common posters aren't reporting comments.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I want the TOS updated. People are getting banned not for foul language or attacking others (well they are but get rid of them) but because they offend someone that can easily just ignore the person.

Again, I get your point, but I disagree that people are being banned because they offend someone. There's a line between having a contentious discussion and insulting someone or flaming. Yes, we could just delete the posts over and over again, but what is the point when someone clearly shows that they have no interest in having a productive discussion? And why is it incumbent on the person being insulted to ignore it?

This does represent a deliberate change in our moderating philosophy over the last several years. Our general sense is that while our core group of established members liked the "tough love," "anything goes" climate on SDN, it is very off-putting to potential new members and gives us a very negative reputation. We're trying to find a balance where we can allow contentious, interesting discussions that don't devolve into toxic arguments and flame wars that drive away new users. As a result, posts that may have been acceptable 5 years ago aren't acceptable now. We aren't going to keep giving people an infinite number of warnings to change their behavior, and the vast majority of our long-term members have managed to adjust to the current style.

I hope you can understand where we are coming from and why we made this change in our moderation style even if we disagree on whether specific posts and users are problematic. We have heard similar feedback from some of our other established members, and are doing our best to find the right balance.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I hope you can understand where we are coming from and why we made this change in our moderation style even if we disagree on whether specific posts and users are problematic. We have heard similar feedback from some of our other established members, and are doing our best to find the right balance.

You've heard positive feedback from established members or comments like mine?

I don't think any established members on the pharmacy forum agree with quite a few of your recent bans.

Also I meant hit the ignore button so they don't see posts from that person.

 

[Osminog]

There’ve been so many long-time contributors to this forum who’ve been permanently banned over trivial nonsense. Psai... AlbinoHawk DO... Pharmacy Is A Scam...

In June, I received a PM on here from a new user that explicitly called for physical violence to be committed against me. The offender, who was barely active on SDN and had a tiny post history, got his account temporarily suspended. In a few weeks, he was back on the forum.

If you’re an established user with thousands of posts who occasionally says things that are politically charged/controversial or phrased in a less-than-polite way, you’re deemed a “loose cannon” (borrowing Goro’s term) and get removed and blacklisted. If you’re a new member who messages a total stranger to tell him that he ought to get his teeth knocked out, you get suspended for a couple of weeks. Welcome to the world of SDN moderation.

 

[Osminog]

Also, why does replying to this thread require moderator approval?

 

[GoSpursGo]

You've heard positive feedback from established members or comments like mine?

Comments like yours.

There’ve been so many long-time contributors to this forum who’ve been permanently banned over trivial nonsense. Psai... AlbinoHawk DO... Pharmacy Is A Scam...

In June, I received a PM on here from a new user that explicitly called for physical violence to be committed against me. The offender, who was barely active on SDN and had tiny post history, got his account temporarily suspended. In a few weeks, he was back on the forum.

If you’re an established user with thousands of posts who occasionally says things that are politically charged/controversial or phrased in a less-than-polite way, you’re deemed a “loose cannon” (borrowing Goro’s term) and get removed and blacklisted. If you’re a new member who messages a total stranger to tell him that he ought to get his teeth knocked out, you get suspended for a couple of weeks. Welcome to the world of SDN moderation.

Again, what you consider to be "trivial nonsense" promotes the toxic culture that gives SDN a bad reputation. Without getting into specific action taken against specific users, we are often extremely lenient with these long-term users and they get many more warnings than we would afford to random users without any posting history. If we have given >10 warnings including post holds and they are continuing to act like a jerk, what else do you propose we do?

Also, why does replying to this thread require moderator approval?

I literally have no idea. But I think that's why @wagrxm2000 's post earlier appeared to be deleted.

 

[Lawpy]

I don't think people are getting punished for giving opinions. It's posting really inflammatory and trolling stuff that's bad.

 

[wholeheartedly]

There’ve been so many long-time contributors to this forum who’ve been permanently banned over trivial nonsense. Psai... AlbinoHawk DO... Pharmacy Is A Scam...

In June, I received a PM on here from a new user that explicitly called for physical violence to be committed against me. The offender, who was barely active on SDN and had a tiny post history, got his account temporarily suspended. In a few weeks, he was back on the forum.

If you’re an established user with thousands of posts who occasionally says things that are politically charged/controversial or phrased in a less-than-polite way, you’re deemed a “loose cannon” (borrowing Goro’s term) and get removed and blacklisted. If you’re a new member who messages a total stranger to tell him that he ought to get his teeth knocked out, you get suspended for a couple of weeks. Welcome to the world of SDN moderation.

It’s also worth noting that what people think someone got banned (or dinged) for and what they actually got banned (or dinged) for are frequently two very different things. As is what people get dinged for and what they say they got dinged for.

For example, one user got banned an everyone assumed it was one of their last snarky posts and everyone was up in arms about it, but in reality they had been completely inappropriate in several PMs to another user.

 

[Neopolymath]

Again, I get your point, but I disagree that people are being banned because they offend someone. There's a line between having a contentious discussion and insulting someone or flaming. Yes, we could just delete the posts over and over again, but what is the point when someone clearly shows that they have no interest in having a productive discussion? And why is it incumbent on the person being insulted to ignore it?

This does represent a deliberate change in our moderating philosophy over the last several years. Our general sense is that while our core group of established members liked the "tough love," "anything goes" climate on SDN, it is very off-putting to potential new members and gives us a very negative reputation. We're trying to find a balance where we can allow contentious, interesting discussions that don't devolve into toxic arguments and flame wars that drive away new users. As a result, posts that may have been acceptable 5 years ago aren't acceptable now. We aren't going to keep giving people an infinite number of warnings to change their behavior, and the vast majority of our long-term members have managed to adjust to the current style.

I hope you can understand where we are coming from and why we made this change in our moderation style even if we disagree on whether specific posts and users are problematic. We have heard similar feedback from some of our other established members, and are doing our best to find the right balance.

At least someone finally admitted to the bolded instead of pretending like the mods didn't put the kids gloves on while weaponizing professionalism against a lot of good overall contributors that keep the boards active...

This website is losing attendings, residents, and insightful med students specifically on the medical student forums directly because of this misguided PR move. I say misguided because from my experience in real life and on reddit, people groan about SDN because of "You won't match anything because you scored a 220" or "You won't get into any med school if you only created 1 non-profit" types of silly posts NOT because someone was a little blunt with their communication. Those posts are not against the TOS by any means but drive people from using the site because it's tiresome to wade through the same bad info. Instead, as far as users actively on the site, if someone posts something dumb and is told they are objectively making "an illogical and asinine point" the first person can whine to a mod that their poor feelings were hurt even when the language was less intense than conversations I have with my grandmother. I, mean, have you seen r/medical school? People can get super rude on there at times but no one says it has a bad reputation and it's mostly because it doesn't have the types of posts I mentioned above.

I've been reading SDN since 2009. Clearly, there has been a growing minority of infrequent (read: not particularly useful/forgettable contributors) posters who are very sensitive to any perceived disagreement and it's worsening SDN as a resource. Apparently, worrying about these people's feelings is more important than post subject matter and quality of information. That's the prerogative of the people maintaining the site. Let's face it though, the only reason people read this site is the information coming from attendings, residents, and accomplished med students. This site is about 1% as funny as reddit so if it keeps alienating useful posters to attract sensitive and naive premeds and m1s then it is going to lose any appeal.

In general, the specialty forums are worth visiting because bad posts aren't tolerated and the forums aren't moderated in the same knee-jerk manner. Notice how many attendings mock and don't post in the med student forum? Could it be that they grew tired of dealing with med students' reactions to things they didn't want to hear that burst their bubbles and being told they needed to be gentle while they are contributing in the little free time of their busy lives?

It's just seems so silly to be frank.

Edit: I do want to say that Psai was a complete prick and wasn't particularly funny and didn't contribute hardly anything the last 2-3 years or so he was on here.

One of my fans reacted to my post haha

 

[GoSpursGo]

At least someone finally admitted to the bolded instead of pretending like the mods didn't put the kids gloves on while weaponizing professionalism against a lot of good overall contributors that keep the boards active...

This website is losing attendings, residents, and insightful med students specifically on the medical student forums directly because of this misguided PR move. I say misguided because from my experience in real life and on reddit, people groan about SDN because of "You won't match anything because you scored a 220" or "You won't get into any med school if you only created 1 non-profit" types of silly posts NOT because someone was a little blunt with their communication. Those posts are not against the TOS by any means but drive people from using the site because it's tiresome to wade through the same bad info. Instead, as far as users actively on the site, if someone posts something dumb and is told they are objectively making "an illogical and asinine point" the first person can whine to a mod that their poor feelings were hurt even when the language was less intense than conversations I have with my grandmother. I, mean, have you seen r/medical school? People can get super rude on there at times but no one says it has a bad reputation and it's mostly because it doesn't have the types of posts I mentioned above.

I've been reading SDN since 2009. Clearly, there has been a growing minority of infrequent (read: not particularly useful/forgettable contributors) posters who are very sensitive to any perceived disagreement and it's worsening SDN as a resource. Apparently, worrying about these people's feelings is more important than post subject matter and quality of information. That's the prerogative of the people maintaining the site. Let's face it though, the only reason people read this site is the information coming from attendings, residents, and accomplished med students. This site is about 1% as funny as reddit so if it keeps alienating useful posters to attract sensitive and naive premeds and m1s then it is going to lose any appeal.

In general, the specialty forums are worth visiting because bad posts aren't tolerated and the forums aren't moderated in the same knee-jerk manner. Notice how many attendings mock and don't post in the med student forum? Could it be that they grew tired of dealing with med students' reactions to things they didn't want to hear that burst their bubbles and being told they needed to be gentle while they are contributing in the little free time of their busy lives?

It's just seems so silly to be frank.

Edit: I do want to say that Psai was a complete prick and wasn't particularly funny and didn't contribute hardly anything the last 2-3 years or so he was on here.

One of my fans reacted to my post haha

Thanks for taking the time to lay out these thoughts.

I guess my response is that we get significant feedback for two kinds of posts. One is the type of post where you said that everyone inflates how competitive everything is, which is admittedly a problem. But we also get feedback that it is not a welcoming environment, and this isn't just because students are all "snowflakes" these days. I don't think we warn people for saying someone is making an "illogical and asinine point," we're warning people because they call others idiots or because they say they have reading comprehension issues. Those are inappropriate for a community of medical professionals--it reflects poorly on the field, and on our website. If a resident/fellow/attending would not say that to a mentee face to face, then you shouldn't say it online just because it's anonymous.

Naturally, there's a spectrum between giving tough but fair feedback and being a jerk, and we do our best to find the right balance.

 

[Neopolymath]

Thanks for taking the time to lay out these thoughts.

I guess my response is that we get significant feedback for two kinds of posts. One is the type of post where you said that everyone inflates how competitive everything is, which is admittedly a problem. But we also get feedback that it is not a welcoming environment, and this isn't just because students are all "snowflakes" these days. I don't think we warn people for saying someone is making an "illogical and asinine point," we're warning people because they call others idiots or because they say they have reading comprehension issues. Those are inappropriate for a community of medical professionals--it reflects poorly on the field, and on our website. If a resident/fellow/attending would not say that to a mentee face to face, then you shouldn't say it online just because it's anonymous.

Naturally, there's a spectrum between giving tough but fair feedback and being a jerk, and we do our best to find the right balance.

I understand where you are coming from as a moderator on two separate forums myself. It's a difficult position to say the least. It's an annoyance as a poster here but I'm mostly speaking from a business perspective as that's what this website is at it's core. That's why I said I think decisions must be made to protect the product being offered as the business doesn't work without a product.

I do need to clarify that I don't think people are snowflakes or some generational nonsense! I don't think young people are particularly hypersensitive overall. I do take issue with punishing someone for saying another poster made a reading comprehension issue or that they are repeatedly using logical fallacies (this happens so much here it hurts). Not infrequently that IS the exact issue on this website and it's tedious at best. There is no other rebuttal to be made to these posts and it's certainly not any less professional to point that out. It's no different than my boss telling I didn't read a study correctly when asked to present on it. So basically you put someone who isn't wrong in an untenable position because the other poster is spamming incorrect and poor quality posts without any oversight (as this website doesnt use upvotes/downvotes or some system to hide bad posts) and there isn't particularly an alternative besides using the ignore feature which I think people should use as little as possible. The recommendation is to shrug your shoulders and ignore the repeated bad posts. I abhor the appeal to seniority arguments that happen on here but I totally see why people stop posting as they proceed through training. It's unappreciated and tiring and the organization has shown to value the contributions less over time.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I understand where you are coming from as a moderator on two separate forums myself. It's a difficult position to say the least. It's an annoyance as a poster here but I'm mostly speaking from a business perspective as that's what this website is at it's core. That's why I said I think decisions must be made to protect the product being offered as the business doesn't work without a product.

I do need to clarify that I don't think people are snowflakes or some generational nonsense! I don't think young people are particularly hypersensitive overall. I do take issue with punishing someone for saying another poster made a reading comprehension issue or that they are repeatedly using logical fallacies (this happens so much here it hurts). Not infrequently that IS the exact issue on this website and it's tedious at best. There is no other rebuttal to be made to these posts and it's certainly not any less professional to point that out. It's no different than my boss telling I didn't read a study correctly when asked to present on it. So basically you put someone who isn't wrong in an untenable position because the other poster is spamming incorrect and poor quality posts without any oversight (as this website doesnt use upvotes/downvotes or some system to hide bad posts) and there isn't particularly an alternative besides using the ignore feature which I think people should use as little as possible. The recommendation is to shrug your shoulders and ignore the repeated bad posts. I abhor the appeal to seniority arguments that happen on here but I totally see why people stop posting as they proceed through training. It's unappreciated and tiring and the organization has shown to value the contributions less over time.

FWIW, I completely agree that in a forum full of adults people should be able to take honest criticism without getting overly sensitive. At the same time, I think that some users cross the line in delivering that message.

I honestly don’t have much else to say. I think we agree that SDN needs to be a place where honest advice can be given while not being rude. we disagree on where that line is drawn, but we are constantly re-evaluating our policies and I can honestly say that decisions aren’t made by a “rogue” moderator, it’s the result of a discussion amongst the team. We do truly appreciate the feedback.

 

[wagrxm2000]

The question I would have is whose opinion matters when making decisions. Are people getting warnings and banned from people who do or don't post.

I have no idea how many people look at this site a day compared to what seems like a relatively small number of active posters but I hope bans aren't happening from noncontributors.

 

[deleted480308]

Thanks for taking the time to lay out these thoughts.

I guess my response is that we get significant feedback for two kinds of posts. One is the type of post where you said that everyone inflates how competitive everything is, which is admittedly a problem. But we also get feedback that it is not a welcoming environment, and this isn't just because students are all "snowflakes" these days. I don't think we warn people for saying someone is making an "illogical and asinine point," we're warning people because they call others idiots or because they say they have reading comprehension issues. Those are inappropriate for a community of medical professionals--it reflects poorly on the field, and on our website. If a resident/fellow/attending would not say that to a mentee face to face, then you shouldn't say it online just because it's anonymous.

Naturally, there's a spectrum between giving tough but fair feedback and being a jerk, and we do our best to find the right balance.

I think we need to move the bar if you now warn people for saying someone has reading comprehension problems

 

[Osminog]

The question I would have is whose opinion matters when making decisions. Are people getting warnings and banned from people who do or don't post.

I have no idea how many people look at this site a day compared to what seems like a relatively small number of active posters but I hope bans aren't happening from noncontributors.

The opinion that matters in moderation decisions is that of the moderators. I was barred from replying to a thread yesterday because I made a claim about differences in hours worked between male and female physicians, and the relation of sex differences in hours worked to the shortage of medical care in high-need areas of the US. Rather than posing a counter-argument to show me why I’m supposedly wrong, the moderators silenced me, creating the illusion that I abruptly exited the discussion because I couldn’t defend my points.

“Proactive moderation,” as I’ve experienced it, seems to entail shutting down minority viewpoints. I suppose it makes the site seem far more welcoming and friendly when there is an illusion of total consensus on every issue and the naughty dissenters are systematically removed from discussions.

 

[GoSpursGo]

The question I would have is whose opinion matters when making decisions. Are people getting warnings and banned from people who do or don't post.

I have no idea how many people look at this site a day compared to what seems like a relatively small number of active posters but I hope bans aren't happening from noncontributors.

It's a mix. We get reports both from well-recognized and contributing members, as well as less active users. We honestly take each post individually to assess whether it violates our TOS independently of who is reporting the post. You guys don't see the numerous posts that we don't take act on where someone got offended, but it didn't violate our TOS.

And again, we don't ban users unless they've had multiple warnings.

 

[Mass Effect]

The opinion that matters in moderation decisions is that of the moderators. I was barred from replying to a thread yesterday because I made a claim about differences in hours worked between male and female physicians, and the relation of sex differences in hours worked to the shortage of medical care in high-need areas of the US. Rather than posing a counter-argument to show me why I’m supposedly wrong, the moderators silenced me, creating the illusion that I abruptly exited the discussion because I couldn’t defend my points.

“Proactive moderation,” as I’ve experienced it, seems to entail shutting down minority viewpoints. I suppose it makes the site seem far more welcoming and friendly when there is an illusion of total consensus on every issue and the naughty dissenters are systematically removed from discussions.

For the record, I just read that thread and this is a misrepresentation of what was posted. I won't hijack this thread to dispute it here, but I felt the misrepresentation deserved a reply.

 

[Osminog]

For the record, I just read that thread and this is a misrepresentation of what was posted. I won't hijack this thread to dispute it here, but I felt the misrepresentation deserved a reply.

I encourage people to go to the thread and read it for themselves. If they think that my posts reflect ill will or misogyny, then they should put their agendas aside and try to read more closely. Nowhere did I say that women are inferior, that women should be mistreated, or that female physicians lack competence—yet that seems to be exactly what some users got out of my posts, and that’s a shame. I would comment on these users’ reading comprehension abilities, but I learned today that such comments are no longer covered by the ToS.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I encourage people to go to the thread and read it for themselves. If they think that my posts reflect ill will or misogyny, then they should put their agendas aside and try to read more closely. Nowhere did I say that women are inferior, that women should be mistreated, or that female physicians lack competence—yet that seems to be exactly what some users got out of my posts, and that’s a shame. I would comment on these users’ reading comprehension abilities, but I learned today that such comments are no longer covered by the ToS.

"One could probably do a calculation and come up with a rough estimate for the number of patient deaths and adverse outcomes that stem from the admission of an average female medical school applicant over an equally qualified male applicant due to differences in average hours worked"

So that comment and the "cat lady" comment don't come off well. Not nearly as bad as the banned Dr. Tapatio person though.

The question is though are contributers allowed to have their opinions or does everything have to be politically correct? I'm not talking about women in the workplace specifically, women can have their dream job and a family.

@GoSpursGo, If I make a statement that is backed statistically is it still not appropriate by SDN standards?

 

[GoSpursGo]

The question is though are contributers allowed to have their opinions or does everything have to be politically correct? I'm not talking about women in the workplace specifically, women can have their dream job and a family.

@GoSpursGo, If I make a statement that is backed statistically is it still not appropriate by SDN standards?

That's a bit of a loaded question...

Without speaking about any post in particular... one can use statistics to draw a conclusion that is still sexist (or racist, or homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory). It's not really a matter of whether something is "politically correct," it is whether it is a violation of our TOS. Obviously, what is "sexist" or "racist," etc, is a matter of interpretation. Just because someone reports a post and claims it is "sexist" doesn't mean we will agree just because someone was offended.

And with that, I'll say that if this thread becomes a referendum on specific moderator actions, we'll close the thread. You're welcome to reach out to mod staff in private, but we're not going to debate those actions in public.

 

[Neopolymath]

Ah, yes, another example of what I'm talking about without even specifically looking for it: Interested in derm

So let's recap:

It's ok to say, "I cringe when i think of the idea of having introvert scientist/researcher playing the role of physician when I see majority of them cannot hold a proper conversation while looking in your face. "

but saying, " I find the bolded to be pretty ignorant and cringeworthy." in response is uncivil/insulting.

You have to be kidding me. Completely pathetic trend here being championed. I now have to encourage adults to read a dictionary. Not only is that initial post an objectively bad take but now calling it out for being both ignorant and cringeworthy (go ahead and debate this I'll wait lol) is too mean. I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the guy getting called out for essentially calling scientists all autistic.

I'll be sure to cite this precedent as protection against a TOS violation when I go unhinged (date TBD) and make an "X specialty is filled with autistic screeching" thread. It will be even better when I can report all negative responses as personal attacks.

edit: And BTW, I don't advocate for the initial post to be edited or taken down. That's not the point here.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Ah, yes, another example of what I'm talking about without even specifically looking for it: Interested in derm

So let's recap:

It's ok to say, "I cringe when i think of the idea of having introvert scientist/researcher playing the role of physician when I see majority of them cannot hold a proper conversation while looking in your face. "

but saying, " I find the bolded to be pretty ignorant and cringeworthy." in response is uncivil/insulting.

You have to be kidding me. Completely pathetic trend here being championed. I now have to encourage adults to read a dictionary. Not only is that initial post an objectively bad take but now calling it out for being both ignorant and cringeworthy (go ahead and debate this I'll wait lol) is too mean. I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the guy getting called out for essentially calling scientists all autistic.

I'll be sure to cite this precedent as protection against a TOS violation when I go unhinged (date TBD) and make an "X specialty is filled with autistic screeching" thread. It will be even better when I can report all negative responses as personal attacks.

edit: And BTW, I don't advocate for the initial post to be edited or taken down. That's not the point here.

Missed this when it was originally posted, but what makes you think the in-thread message was targeted at either post? We're all volunteers and aren't actively monitoring the forums 24/7 (as evidenced by the fact that I'm reading this several weeks late). It might take us a while to get to a report, and in the interim the thread can continue to move. So when you see a moderator post in a thread it doesn't mean that it's directed at the immediately preceding comment.

Furthermore, just because you see a moderator post "keep it civil" doesn't mean that someone got a warning (and FWIW, neither user did in this case). Sometimes we receive a report, and we determine that nothing really violates the TOS, but the thread is "testy" and could be heading towards an unhealthy discussion. So we choose to just leave a "keep it civil" message to try and remind people to cool it down before the thread goes off the rails. It seems like that's what happened there.