Bias (Everyone pls read)

 Thanks for bringing this up Lani.

I will confess that I wrote to Lani explaining that I didn't want to comment on the espencer thing because I felt that editing his comments was biased.  I stated in AR that I didn't see anything editable.  His comments/questions were not attacking anyone IMO and I can say that my DH has said things in ways that I have thought coarse/clinical and I wanted to kick him for - men - in general - are not as thoughtful with their words as women are.  I also think back to the mods being worked up about Stephanie/threedoghouse (can't remember her handle) and pretty harsh and unforgiving about her decision to euthanize her aggressive akita yet expecting no questions/ no anger/ only sympathy for ourselves.  I feel uncomfortable about this as I see it as not having a level playing field, would his posts been edited if he asked her?  Would the posts been edited if it was someone other than espencer?

I see the role of mod as one in which I have been asked to be extra 'fair' and to do my best not to let my feelings for particular members get in the way of my role as a mod.  And I also expect to be treated like any other forum member when i post things.

I agree that the Rainbow Bridge section should be supporting/comforting posts and it is unfortunate that a poster chose to ask uncomfortable questions but I suppose I don't think we should wipe out things we don't want to hear.

I completely understand if any of you feel that it might be best if I was no longer a moderator - if I am the odd person out, seriously no hard feelings.  I understand that you might want someone who goes along with the consensus - and you are likely aware that isn't me.  Please don't take this as my not wanting to continue as a mod - just making an offer if it makes your lives easier

Karen

Boy this is gonna be long! lol... 

Here's the thing. IMO, and just me here NO facet of life is such, where your prior patterns of behavior...do not make a difference in how situations including you, are handled. Lestaways I have never been someplace where that was the case. If someone is at work and they have been spoken to multiple times about being late...and then someone ELSE is late...someone who is NEVER late...they should not expect THAT person to be dealt with in the same manner they themselves have been dealt with. I suppose that is bias...but bias that was nonexistant until the person made their own choices freely...that resulted in action needing to be taken against them.

I am open to being fair...but I am also open to the possibility, that there really IS no such thing as fair. Is there? (honestly asking)

Espencer has made his bed here...he has been suspended here, more than once. He has said some truly offensive things here...as have others...

Then we move on to what we have here, a situation where I and maybe a couple others, see a known person who is seemingly here solely to stir crap, that NEVER ever has posted in a certain area...posting to threads where he feels his "pet topic" (Dog Behavior, in particular, aggression) may be a hot button.

Now...the thing is...I can see where Karen is coming from re: Bias. Let's say hmm...to pick someone at random...kle made those posts instead. Would we have edited them? Good question...but you cannot say yes, simply because it IS kle, and not espencer. kle has no priors here of arguing for the sake of arguing, namecalling, sexist comments, personal vendettas, reporting back to other forums, etc...and without that, those posts become an abberation more likely to cause concern as to HER welfare and state of mind (pm "are you okay? is something wrong?)...than concern as to edit or not. I suppose that is bias...but is is WRONG? Because I will go out on a limb and say no one BUT espencer would ever, ever post the things that were posted. It's hard to find a way around bias at that point. He is a true gem, one of a kind...lol.

This is a complicated issue...and I am glad we're talking about it. My view is this...espencer and others here and departed have invested A LOT of time, energy, and dedication...to amassing the reputations they have here. They have known the rules, and broken them...ignored our warnings...for the sake of having the last word, so many times...I am not sure why they are due any slack at this point.

As to this particular situation. I was not sure, he needed to be edited. In the absence of Kate I consulted Jaime, our other Admin who has been here a very long time. I directed her to the posts in question and let her know that I did not edit espencer when she expressed concern than I had (that'd be way way personal and I agreed). She then said he should be edited for ANY rudeness...because if he is not he will push things HARDER next time. I did not disagree because I actually, have seen that happen quite often here where only "overt" rudeness is edited. Not just speaking of espencer. But I was unsure so I posted about that too.

So that brings us to where we are now...a discussion on bias and if it should play a role. I don't know if bias should play a role...but I do not see how it cannot...given our discipline system is based on repeat offences...patterns of behavior, etc. I can see treating an espencer or Anne subtle dig as "picture it as kle/ewin posting" leading to a LOT more snark and hot threads...than erring on the other end of things. But that's just me.

Open to hearing more from everyone....and not even a little bit on the train that would lead Karen out of town as a mod...I think you should stay.

I also wanted to repost the rules as written right now, and bring up once again...what is covert? Is that not, pretty much saying "consider the source"?

3.)     Debating and discussion is fine. We encourage it. It's how we all learn. However, respect your fellow members. Different posters are likely to express different opinions, and while they may differ from yours, everyone is entitled to express theirs freely. Whether it is blatant or covert, we will not tolerate rudeness, insults or personal attacks.  Do not disrespect, taunt, bother, bug or flame anyone, either on the forum or via private messages or email.

 I keep trying to answer this and then getting called away for puppy stuff.  I am not ignoring it, Lumos is going on a socialisation outing in a few hours and hopefully after that he'll sleep enough that I can write everything I need to say, this is an important discussion and I don't want to give it anything less than the attention it deserves. 

 cut it out Lumos! I've have been formulating a response in Notepad hopefully it will copy normally -

Gina I take your point about is it even possible to be completely fair, I do think though that we are expected to have a higher level of impartiality than a non- moderator.  I suppose I view my responsibility as mod in some ways as similar to my responsibility with clients (as a counselor).  Do I read a client's 'rap' sheet and prejudge, no I do not.

In this case I was unaware that espencer was suspended prior to this time - so that either makes me a better judge of the current incident because I am taking it at face value OR a worse judge because I am looking at an isolated incident(s).

"It's always sad to say goodbye to a dog due to the lack of information and/or the proper way to treat a problem. Just like if i ask my Doctor how to treat a person's fear to whatever. I really dont think that a veterinarian was the best professional to treat a problem like this, but what it's done it's done. Poor Maggie"

"Was he sick, old or what happened?"

Whereas I will say that these aren't things I would say are they really editable?  To me he is displaying more concern/empathy for the dogs than the humans.  I understand that it touches a nerve when you have been a human to make that difficult decision but is it WRONG?

His posts are usually gruff and he is a strong CM disciple but that makes him - evil?  Not everyone communicates the same way and not everyone is sweetness and light 24/7.  I have always seen him to be passionate about dogs and CM, but not necessarily as a bad egg looking to upset people.  Additionally as a moderator I don't think we should be responding personally, because we don't like them or because of prior history, we should be responding to content.  If we start presuming to know what someone's intent is - whoa that is dangerous territory IMO.  This speaks to the question of covert - did anyone ask espencer what his intention was? Does our bias then override the poster's right to express their opinions freely?

Gina had you not just put down Buckwheat and he said this to Stephanie would you have felt the same way? Would his posts been edited? I ask this rhetorically.  To me that answer will be very informative, relative to bias.  Bias towards the poster and/or bias about the person involved.

Ultimately I guess I just don't feel comfortable knowingly being biased.  I want there to be debate and discussion, I respect that we are all different and so each person's perspective is different and informative if you are open to it.  Snownose baiting Liese was covert (even before she reincarnated herself)activity and in no way acceptable.  Espencer's posts were uncomfortable but I think they were acceptable.
These are my opinions nothing more or less.  Being unbiased may be unachievable but attempting to keep a level playing field is part of my ethos in all of life.
Karen

 

Karen...

kpwlee

Ultimately I guess I just don't feel comfortable knowingly being biased.

I can completely understand that.

I can answer the Maggie thread post question...yes, had Buck still been running this Earth I would have thought it extremely rude and questionable a post and would still have reported it, and asked for input. I'd change nothing.

I've always worked each case/each members as a new issue when something came up...what has happened in the past, is the past and is behind us. Of course there could be a pattern with some members and the history comes into play when they consistantly violate the rules of the forum and need a time out.

 Rude behavior, is just that. It will be concieved differently by different individuals. What I might allow to continue a little longer others might feel is offensive on the first attempt. I've always been accussed for pushing the envelope on allowing a member to hang themselves. Mainly because when I pull the plug there is no secret why it happened.

Men/woman/Countries/regions all take things differently, we have a very diverse group. No matter what, if something offends someone, it is deemed offensive.

Biased behavior because of history is an issue. I honestly don't feel this was an issue of being biased, I think Gina was genuinely offended that someone would question her motives when she obviously has done anything/everything she could do in the situation. If he wanted to discuss the issue or question the validity of the reason he should have started a new thread.

I will comment on Lani's feelings. In reading the message you wrote to him I thought you put too much into it. As I wrote, you just needed to edit the post he made removing the offensive parts ie; the questioning being deemed rude. Many of the members take the editing and move on, those who don't will write you and then you haev an opportunity to discuss the issue. If you always "moderate" on behavior and not personality you will always be on the right side of the issues.

Hope this helps!

 OK, let's try this...again LOL.

I wasn't here for this and I'm sorry for that, so now I'm just coming in and reading about it after the fact, here are my thoughts:

As a general rule, we can try as hard as we want/can to be unbiased and we are still going to be, sometimes.  It's just a part of being human and while yes, as staff our job is to rise above, it's not our job to be robots.  How we feel about specific members is going to colour our view because we don't go looking for the "bad" things they do or say or have done, they share those things freely.  Our opinions of EVERY member here are formed by the things those members CHOOSE to say on a public forum - not by us looking for things they have done or said elsewhere, that makes it a lot harder to discount someone's past actions.

Regarding this specifically:  I think there's a reason that he suddenly started posting in a section of the forum he never posts in (he almost never comes out of Behaviour) and he has a long history of baiting/being insulting/trying to get our backs up at him.  He's not being picked on, he is being very closely watched because his OWN behaviour has necessitated that we do so.  None of us picked him out of a hat as one of the members on the list in my head of people who's every post I read twice, he put himself on that list via his own actions and he has to accept the ramifications of that - which are that sometimes, we may err too close on the side of caution.  That may have happened here but having not yet spoken to Jaime, I'm not going to question her decision. 

What I am emphatic about is that none of you should EVER have to perform an edit you are uncomfortable with.  If we are divided in here on whether an edit needs to be performed, one of us in favour should do it.  I will not ask ANY of you to defend to a member, if questioned, a decision you thought was wrong, much less would I ask any of you to have to question yourselves over such a thing. 

Karen - I don't want you to go.  We'd be a worse group without you, we all have our own opinions and when we discuss things like this yours bring very valuable points to the table.  I think we all work well together, not to mention that I think very highly of you all as friends and people, and I'd be sad to see any of you go.

More later..