the probation post feature

I've requested that the posts that I have created over a year ago but suddenly put in moderation be deleted and they still remain in purple messages. Could someone just delete the posts + I'm just no longer interested in them.

Thanks

When a post is put on probation, it is not publicly visible until the edits are approved. (Only the original poster and moderators can see it.) Therefore, if the post is not edited to comply with publishing standards, then for all practical purposes, the post has been deleted.

I routinely delete Purple Moosages.

I have just shared about a topic I have some professional training about, and it was said to "not meet our publishing standards". I review my post, and sorry, there nothing wrong, only scientific explanation about the autonomic nervous system! I was not "suggesting that introverts are less than perfect and 'damaged' in some way". I have explained the reason why we can be introverts when we had some very early shock trauma! We are not less than perfects, though we have been damaged....

I don't see why explaining that some people have been damaged by an accident is not acceptable.
A damage comes from the outside, so it is not the same as saying that "somebody is less than perfect", don't you think so?

Please be a little more understanding about what people take time to share about, when this is a subject you do not know about!

Xisca,  Is it possible it has something to do with the way it was said?  Maybe it was said as if it was the only explanation instead of one way of understanding the situation.  

I haven't read the post in question, but I do know it's caused a lot of negative response which is unusual for your posts.  Perhaps what you said hit a nerve or didn't leave room for other people's ideas.  

raven ranson wrote:Xisca,  Is it possible it has something to do with the way it was said?  Maybe it was said as if it was the only explanation instead of one way of understanding the situation.  

I haven't read the post in question, but I do know it's caused a lot of negative response which is unusual for your posts.  Perhaps what you said hit a nerve or didn't leave room for other people's ideas.  

Thanks for your very kind answer... It is very opportune to talk about hitting a nerve for this topic! Absolutely nobody shares about the ANS, and I think it would be fundamental for permaculture actually... Why our society is hiding fundamental informations about the biggest system of our body? It is the chief of digestive, respiratory, circulatory, immune systems and more! ...or else I would not spend some time sharing what I know! When we express ideas, this never means others ideas are "bad", they can express them as well. I share my explanation, but it is the one of some scientists. In this case I insist that there is scientific knowledge behind and that it was more than ideas but informations. I chose to edit and add more explanation.

The topic is actually simple, but complicated because of the current paradigm, though the science is there. My training was 3 years long, and I chose to do it twice because I wanted to understand all the steps while having already learn all of it. So I can understand the reaction.

I'm afraid your post is still far from meeting publication standards - a moderator is likely to contact you shortly to discuss the matter.  

I suspect your professional training has narrowed your outlook somewhat as there are many, many naturally introverted people who are not damaged in any way.  Your writing seems to exclude this possiblility and your edits have left the post worse than when it started.

What about phrasing it like "one explanation for XYZ could be..."  or "I've noticed that sometimes..." or "one theory I heard for this ...."

That way it leaves room for other peoples experiences and opinions.  

Your posts are well thought out, just sometimes people experiences are different so it's good to phrase it as one of many explanations rather than a scientific fact.

Burra Maluca wrote:I'm afraid your post is still far from meeting publication standards - a moderator is likely to contact you shortly to discuss the matter.  

I suspect your professional training has narrowed your outlook somewhat as there are many, many naturally introverted people who are not damaged in any way.  Your writing seems to exclude this possiblility and your edits have left the post worse than when it started.

I think it has widened my outlook and given me more freedom... and the absence of this knowledge in mainstream science is part of the same as pesticides, contamination and all  what permaculture fights for. It damages. And it is very different when you say that we are - or are not - damaged. The guilt is somewhere else! It is outside us. In my case it was the owner of the lab where my mom should not have worked pregnant.

Also, where starts and end a damage? The word itself does not account for the intensity or the scale. Some small damages are not seen. It was my case and I would never have figured out that the chemicals that touched me were the cause of my shyness. I am not ashame of having had damage, it was not my fault! My other died last year from a type of lymphoma aid to be mostly from chemicals.... we were hurt at the same time. I knew for long that my liver had been damaged, but nobody told me that also my autonomic nervous system had been damaged!

So I never meant that introverts ARE damaged but that they HAVE been damaged, and we all had some sort of damaging accident! I know absolutely nobody who has not been damaged in any way. So there cannot be any link with "being less than perfect". I see it as impossible.

And this is a relief when people can see the connexion. I have guessed it for several persons, and including sometimes the type of accident that was involved!!! I also know the difference that makes the reaction to any damage/accident show as extrovertion or introvertion, but that would be out of scope. Introvertion is one type of adaptation, it is mine, and again, it has scales like a thermometer.

When you say "I suspect your professional training has narrowed your outlook", is this suspicion about me not being honest, and is "narrow" a way to say I am less than perfect? Burra, you have once before told me I was not honest about how I had multiple times edited a post or two, based on you seeing the time of edition, and I had to justify about leaving my windows open as Ii was transfering some content from one place to another... That might be why you suspect me? I know you have shared in a topic where I posted too, that you are an introvert. I do NOT mean to challenge you if you think this is genetic for example. I am on the same side of the thermometer as you! I am a safe and honest person but I cannot make you believe it.

So... I WANT TO SHARE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT KNOWN because if it was, it would PROVE THE DAMAGE OF CHEMICALS! And more.
This is a big piece for permaculture.
This is a big piece for relationships in general.

Porges has worked with autistic children, to apply his discovery. From the polyvagal perspective, he says that autism and ptsd have in common the difficulty to feel safe even in safe places. Let me quote him about the problem with mainstream ideas....
p88 of the pocket guide to the polyvagal theory.
"I decided that if I focussed on auditory hypersensitivities, I could move into an area that would be helpful and wouldn't be viewed as controversial, such as trying to cure autism ... Since the diagnistic assumes a lifelong disorder based on an unidentified genetic cause... the psychiatric community interprets a reversal of symptoms as being due to faulty diagnosis and not a true recovery."
I have reversed fibromyalgia and a near aspergers state by knowing it was not as in my head as they make us believe, and the autonomic nervous system is the chief of orchestra of all other systems in the body. (Only the cell itself might be above it... and maybe some unknown energy I dont know...). We are still free to keep what we want of our personality, but I think it is very open and full of hope to say that there has been a form of physiological fear because of a threat to our safety! You can even see genetics as a form of threat if some genes are not the best for us! Fear is a very healthy reaction to have so that we can safe ourself. Anxiety, that I never had, is more when the sympathetic system has been triggered and blocked at one point. All forms of calmer reactions, that I tend to have, show that the parasympathetic system was more triggered. You will always see both forms of reactions in any big accident/threat involving different persons. I used to be quite immune to fear and anger, but I discovered it did not mean they were not there. Actually, it was in the pains I had, and I still have a slow metabolism, on the way to get it better! All what we have no access to with our cortex, is the domain of the ANS (and the limbic too, phylogenetically between cortex and ANS).

raven ranson wrote:What about phrasing it like "one explanation for XYZ could be..."  or "I've noticed that sometimes..." or "one theory I heard for this ...."

That way it leaves room for other peoples experiences and opinions.  

Your posts are well thought out, just sometimes people experiences are different so it's good to phrase it as one of many explanations rather than a scientific fact.

If saying "one explanation could be", then I see no problem... For me, it is implied automatically whenever I say or somebody else says anything! Just read it in my signature...

About the polyvagal theory, people can think that if called "theory" it means it is not a scientific fact, but in science, when something is called a theory, it does not mean hypothesis! I quoted the book, this work is a masterpiece,, already used by many, and explaining several techniques that evolved in parallel. It explains a lot of animal behaviours etc etc. This is a big help for permaculture that I want to share, and I can see this is not so easy so better refer to the book, after all it is around 250 pages...

And it is a theory I have been studying and applying for 8 years. I believed in it right away because I am an animal behaviourist and it made sense right away.

I think the issue may be one of tone, Xisca.

You just stated that you believed the theory as soon as it was put to you. That suggests an inability to vet it objectively, because you subjectively want it to be valid.

Leaving that aside, I have had conversations on this site that underwent extensive edits, not because I had said anything factually incorrect, but because the way in which I conveyed my information shut down any discussion on the matter. It is necessary in discourse to leave room for the ideas of others, even if just in form.

Also, in that way, if you state something at one time that in the moment appears to be the only logical explanation that you revisit later and realise was perhaps a little optimistic or narrow-minded, you have an easier time of admitting potential wrongness.

I also tend to think that if you can't leave the cited material and explain the phenomena in ways others can comprehend without your practical background, that might affect how your message is perceived.

Maybe simplifying and analogising more would help.

-CK

Thank you for the probation feature.  I recognize  and appreciate the need for an umpire here.  I have made posts a time or two years ago that quietly disappeared and I was left wondering "What did I say that could possibly have been offensive?".  With this probation feature I have the opportunity to learn where I am out of sink with the umpire.  I may even be able to try to justify my position, although from a position of weakness, since it's the umpires website.  That's ok.  If I have a website, I expect to be the final arbiter on what belongs there.  

I just made a post that I was notified needed editing because it recognized value in a product that isn't organic or better.  Seems to me an arbitrary standard, I am firstly concerned with what works, and then I take from those choices organic or bettter.  HOWSOMEVER  I am not making posts on my website, I am making posts on someone elses website and recognize their perfect right to control the comments and set the standards.  I won't even argue if their standard is justified, because it doesn't matter.  Their ball, their rules.  Because of this I will adjust my comment and neither rage against some editing nor go away in a huff.

I appreciate the value of this site, even if it isn't always in accordance with the way I think the world ought to be (which amazingly enough, reflects the real world in this instance).  It may be that my arbitrary view of things isn't quite correct and needs adjusting.  Point to ponder.

Mick Fisch wrote:...  Seems to me an arbitrary standard, ....

And so begins wisdom.

Paul Wheaton, the owner of permies, said that he built this site for people that like to talk about things he likes to talk about in ways he likes to talk about.

Google says that Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim"

Yep, permies embrace the arbitrary as defined by Paul.

Well I guess this is the last straw for me.    When others can post hateful opinions  and I’m not allowed to respectfully reply then I know I’m in the wrong place  so sad you are so are like all the rest  your opinion is the only right one and nobody can discuss otherwise so sad

Hal Barkdull wrote:Well I guess this is the last straw for me.    When others can post hateful opinions  and I’m not allowed to respectfully reply then I know I’m in the wrong place  so sad you are so are like all the rest  your opinion is the only right one and nobody can discuss otherwise so sad

The key is that what makes for "hateful opinions" and "respectfully" will be sorted out by me and the staff.   If you think that the the stuff we want to keep is "hateful" and the stuff that you think should not be deleted is "respectful", then it seems you are in the wrong place.

Your account has been locked so this issue is fully resolved.

You can bring a post to the attention of a moderator by using the report button.  

This is good for posts that you think aren't being nice, not leaving room for other people's opinions or anything else that you think breaks publishing standards.  The STAFF will take a look and evaluate the post.

You can also use the report button for posts that you think are really great so that a moderator can have a look and maybe give it an apple.  

I had quite a giggle when I read this mooseage putting my post on probation:  "breaking publishing standards by Stating the Truth". I didn't know that by publishing the truth I could be in contravention of the Publishing Standards. So that was a good giggle. I was writing in agreement after I read Mike Jay's who always makes posts of great interest. I saw that someone had disagreed about whether roosters are always protective of their hens. I didn't mention the person by name on purpose, but that is the genetic make up of a rooster: procreate and protect.
This said, I made the change and removed the offending sentence altogether.
I agree that we need careful publishing standards so as to avoid offending. It was not my purpose to offend.

With 'rooster' the problem is caused by equivocating.

We have two meaning of the word rooster so if we say "a rooster is always protective"...

... and rooster means 'head of the flock' (like a mayor), then it is true.
...however, if rooster means 'cock', then the statement is false.

Therefore the truth isn't universal because the meaning of "rooster" isn't universal across the English speaking world.  

I think there's a recent thread about roosters who push their hens out of protected areas when predators arrive.  So while it's true that roosters are "always protective" in one person's experience, another person has alternate experiences.  So both are true.  What to do, what to do...  Thus the publishing standards encourage us to not say things are 100% fact.  We're more than welcome to say "My experience is that XYZ always results in ABC".  Keep on giggling

It used to be the definition that in order to be a rooster, he (or she - it's not gender specific) had to go out and face danger and protect the flock.

So, if the 'rooster' is pushing the hens out into danger so he can seek safety, by definition, he (or she) isn't a rooster.  He's just a male chicken doing what most male (and female) chickens do - being chicken.  That's why roosters were so highly valued because they weren't 'chicken' chickens.

However, the meaning of the word rooster has changed over time, in some parts of the world.  In Canada, most people use 'rooster' to mean 'boy chicken'.  I think it's like that in much of the USA.  Saying Cockrel is too long and Cock is too vulgar.  

Now that rooster means 'boy chicken', 'protector of the flock' is no longer part of the definition of the term.  (just like decimate no longer means 'reduce by one-tenth' even though, like rooster, the meaning is right there in the word), a 'rooster' may or may not defend his flock.  It is fun to watch how English changes.  

To get around the regional variations and the trouble with one word having multiple meanings, "my experience..." is the way to go.  Or maybe to specify which definition of the word 'rooster' one is using.  

I don't have years to learn how to post here at permies. So I will be posting very little from now on.

Thanks for all of this. I have done some researching and now I understand things a lot better. And, as well, why my posts now keep getting deleted. I really like you guys. I do. But, yep. Some of those things I learned make a lot of sense. Thanks.

Better than just deleting. Looks like a good system.

Rufus

Ok I get it. Not too thrilled about it, because anyway you look at it, it's still censorship but, I will refrain from causing alarm to the masses. Thanks

D. Nelson wrote:Ok I get it. Not too thrilled about it, because anyway you look at it, it's still censorship but, I will refrain from causing alarm to the masses. Thanks

You would be about ten years too late:

https://permies.com/t/10914/CENSORSHIP-Paul-Wheaton-requested
https://permies.com/t/2767/censorship
https://permies.com/t/46109/ethics-politics-censorship
https://permies.com/t/24787/censorship-greed-ego-empire-building
https://permies.com/t/10911/CENSORSHIP

paul wheaton wrote:

D. Nelson wrote:Ok I get it. Not too thrilled about it, because anyway you look at it, it's still censorship but, I will refrain from causing alarm to the masses. Thanks

You would be about ten years too late:

https://permies.com/t/10914/CENSORSHIP-Paul-Wheaton-requested
https://permies.com/t/2767/censorship
https://permies.com/t/46109/ethics-politics-censorship
https://permies.com/t/24787/censorship-greed-ego-empire-building
https://permies.com/t/10911/CENSORSHIP

I very much appreciate your point of view and it is your forum and, I am thrilled to be a part of this family. I hereto promise henceforth never to rock thy boat again! My most humble thanks! Dan

I just wanna say, thanks for putting my post on probation. I needed that.

I've been asked to remind people that it is very, very rare to put a post on probation/almost-a-post.  

Most of the time if a post does not meet publishing standards, it VANISHES quietly, without warning, or recourse.  poof!  gone.

Very occasionally a staff member may think a post is worth saving or someone is worth a second chance.  When that happens, they put a post on probation.  

A simple plea for an explanation.

Two recent replies of mine in the CiderPress were flagged and very specific edits were requested to remain within standards. I can see how my words weren't great - but I thought standards in the CiderPress might be different.  I was wrong.  I made edits... and now the posts are gone.  Its really hard to learn - and not make the same mistake again - without some information about what happened.  

I can imagine that a timer was reached before staff reviewed ... and poof.  I can imagine that I made the post worse (not my intention) and annoyed a staff person... and poof.  I can imagine that my corrections weren't seen as sufficient ... and its weird that my good faith edits aren't given another chance.

Any explanation from a staff member would be appreciated.

Eliot Mason wrote: I thought standards in the CiderPress might be different.  I was wrong.  

The be nice requirements apply to the entire site including the Cider Press.

Especially in the cider press.

It's called the cider press because to make cider, one uses up a lot of apples.



Without knowing the specifics of your situation, perhaps these words from Paul might help?

https://permies.com/t/137686/apple-cores-apparently-annoyed-staff

Suppose you write a post in the cider press.   40 staff members will read it.   Let's suppose that 20 of those people strongly agree with you - those people find your post to be "nice" and move along.   A few might even give you their apple for the day.  But the other 20 read it and they strongly disagree with you - and connected to that, your post does NOT look nice.   It seems to have eight violations of the publishing standards.   Further, it would be great if you no longer had enough apples to be able to post to the cider press - after all, you clearly do NOT have what it takes to "be nice."   Each of the 20 give you several apple cores.  

maybe this too  https://permies.com/t/125437/Starting-discussion-complaint-rude-gesture#1000502

Anything you post will be viewed by 40 moderators.   So if even one of the 40 think it either crossed a line or came too close to a line - it will be removed.  A lot of the staff reviews are about stuff like that.  And the other staff will say "I would have left it, but I can see why you removed it."   And so it remains removed.  

Oh... it's THAT thread.

Yeh.

That thread is a mess.  

We have staff on all places of the spectrum of that topic ... long-winded word to say there are 40* different points of view and each one has access to the probation button and the "make post vanish" button.  

Given that it's one of THOSE topics and that the thread, in general, doesn't do much to further the aims of this site "to infect more brains with permaculture" and "making the world a better place instead of being angry at bad guys", I'm not feeling hugely motivated to do a play by play review of each moderators decision.  Mostly because I suspect if I read that thread, I would probably push the "make entire thread vanish" button for no other reason than to stop it taking staff energy away from doing more delightful things like gardening and making BB badges.

As for your specific post, do I need to read it?  

*actually, I think it's a lot more than 40 active staff by now, but the list I look at only has 40 places...

Eliot: The publishing standards is to be nice... THAT covid related thread attracted a lot of not-niceness, and about half of the posts in the thread ended up getting deleted. Nothing personal. Oh My! The apple cores were being awarded quickly.

The staff here are volunteers. We'd rather be doing something lovely around the homestead instead of moderating. The cider press, is a place where people can expect posts to be deleted rather than put on probation. Probation takes up huge amounts of staff time.

Sometimes we try to be specific about what we believe does not match publishing standards. For example, we might say that calling someone an retard is not nice... Then if the post gets edited to call them a dumbfuck, it still doesn't meet publishing standards. Or if the retard comment is left with a note added that being a retard is really not a bad thing, it still doesn't meet publishing standards.

Staff tend to be very reluctant to put something on probation a second time. Either it meets publishing standards on the first request to edit, or expect the post to get deleted. Eventually on THAT thread, we adopted a policy of no probation allowed, only deleting of posts that don't meet publishing standards. Even a hint of not-nice is enough to get a post deleted in THAT thread. "Not-nice" being determined by the most tender-hearted moderator that looks at it.

THAT thread ended up being a cluster-fuck for the moderators. In the end, we did triage on it as best we could as unpaid, untrained, volunteers.

I think I have had three threads hit probation over the past year or so.

I modified all three. I think one of them made it through. For the other two I realised that it wasn't worth the effort to try and modify them further and get them to a state where they would please everyone - the content wasn't important enough to me, or anyone else, to waste moderators time on.

I enjoyed contributing in THAT thread - from what I saw the discussion was mostly civilised and positive, but then I think I only saw one of the posts that ended up being deleted. As a moderator elsewhere, I know the feeling of trying to keep track of contentious threads. Often they are valuable, but the drain on moderator energy can be huge. In our group we tend to close - but not delete - threads when they reach that state, usually with a comment to explain exactly that it was taking too much moderation time.

PS - Well done to the moderators. You guys are phenomenal on these boards. And that from someone who has sat in your position and done the dirty work.

(EDIT - Belatedly realising quite how much I missed in that thread. And quite happy that I only gained apples, and didn't have any comments deleted. I think I might have finally got this thing figured out!)

R & Joseph - and ALL the staff:

Thanks for the explanation and all the work you do trying to maintain this place.  What I see now is that yes, this was somewhat about my post but in the larger context (which I can't see) there was a lot going on that had nothing to do with me and my words.  I can step away from being miffed, away from being hurt and say "Well, I DID touch the stove..."  I'm still not sure how to touch the stove but I'll figure it out.

Lesson Learned.  Thank You.

Here's something I do that may help some people. After I type something, I re-read it and ask myself this:

Does it sound like I'm trying to offer my advise/perspective/experience/research/opinion, etc. as an equal contribution to a repository of knowledge from which we can ALL learn...

...or does it sound like I'm trying to PROVE myself right?

Another way of saying "prove myself right" is "prove OTHERS wrong." I think this is how many people get tripped up and honestly don't understand why their thread got pulled. Proving yourself right/others wrong is not nice. Intent is not the issue. While you may see it as proving yourself right, they will most likely see it as you trying to prove them wrong. Crap ensues.

Imagine if ideas (posts) were physical objects, like cards, and a thread a table. People in a forum all step up to the table in turn laying down their cards which they feel can help build up that particular topic. Are you laying down your card(s) in a way equal to everyone else, in a nice, orderly fashion so everyone can have a fair chance to learn from all the cards, or are you trying to force your card(s) to the center, or on top of others, or throwing down so many in the hopes of drowning out everyone else's ideas?

Assuming you do prove yourself right, what does it accomplish? Will the vanquished rally to your cause, instantly dropping their own? "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." If you try to make people believe your ideas, you will likely be as successful as if you were to try to make an animal several times larger than you drink when it doesn't want to drink. I believe it is much more successful to simply provide the knowledge, and maybe even some encouragement, and let them come to the conclusion on their own. It may not be right away, but if your information is sound, and their logical mind sound, it is all but inevitable. And sometimes you may find it is not your ideas to which they come around, but their ideas to which you do.

Don't bother the gentle souls, because the gentle souls don't bother you. Permaculture is about working together to become better. Let's never forget that.

To parallel Jordan's thoughts:

I like discussions.  I hate arguments.

I see discussion as a collaborative effort to determine a truth - we may never get there, but there is an inherent recognition that we don't know the truth and thus we are all "somewhat wrong" and we have to acknowledge that. In a discussion I expect to say "Wow, I didn't know that" and for others to reply in kind with "That's interesting - I hadn't considered that approach/experience/perspective".

I see an argument as an antagonistic attempt to prove or force agreement that one position is the correct/true one.  An argument requires taking a position for or against.

These forums are wonderful havens of discussion, of admitting that we don't know things, of sharing what we do know.

THAT particular thread became a raucous argument.  Although I would stand by my statements I have to concede that they were argumentative in spirit even if the rhetoric was not, and thus, as Jordan expresses ... Then What?

For amusement and contrast allow me to share.  I recently was wondering why we don't use stainless steel vessels for our kitchen canning projects.  Some internet searching led to a thread on reddit where someone asked this question.  There are some helpful replies and then this: "If this person wants to can so badly in metals let 'em. It's a terrible idea the costs greatly outweigh the benefits and very well might poision his loved ones (god forbid the general population) despite multiple warnings and explanations just seems so hell bent on canning in stainless steel so meh we're not experts or liable. Have at it be a dumbass, dumbass."  Clearly not a helpful reply.  I'm glad that I can ask a question and not have to get my asbestos suit on to read the responses!

(and I'm grateful and sorry the staff have to see and react to such posts so that I don't have to)

Ok, I have one post on probation now. I get it and I respect the rules. I wanted to share my experience with the author and the problems she had getting her kid to sleep. Sleep deprivation can be a torture, and in fact, it has been used against prisoners many times, sadly.

Putting one sample on this is what took my post to probation. And I dont really know how to edit it in a way that makes forum staff and me comfortable. I think that deleting what I wrote takes out the sense of what I meant, and writing it in a different way feels wrong.

So well, it is difficult. Thanks for your work anyway, the forum is great.