Jump to content
MichaelTannock

What are your Invalidation Policy concerns?

Poll on Invalidation Policy concerns  

49 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. What are your concerns with the Invalidation Policy?

    • People won't have the freedom to tell others that their identity is wrong.
      11
    • People won't be able to suggest other labels for others to consider.
      19
    • People will be disciplined for merely relaying information.
      27
    • "Asexual" will lose meaning leading to the disintegration of the community.
      29
    • Asexuality will not be taken seriously by outside communities.
      27
    • It won't be possible to create resources to help others understand Asexuality.
      12
    • Education will be impossible without clear definitions.
      32
    • AVEN is not supporting a large section of the Asexual population.
      22
    • The term "Asexual" has become a status symbol so people to stop exploring.
      20
    • AVEN will stop improving its resources for fear of invalidating people.
      18
    • More pressing problems will be ignored to focus on stopping invalidation.
      19
    • Not concerned.
      11


Recommended Posts

Timeless

@GlamRocker You're asking very specific questions about your warn in a thread designed for another purpose. @FaerieFate has already offered to discuss them with you privately. My advice would be to take this discussion to PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate
3 hours ago, GlamRocker said:

These are the posts I got a warning for:

 

POST ONE:

What you describe is not asexuality but your personal feelings towards the act of having sex. These are SEX FEELINGS... SEX PREFERENCES... not asexuality. This is the same stuff all sexual partners go through with each other when figuring out how to best please each other sexually, to be the best lover they can be to their partners. NOT asexuality. An asexual doesn't describe their preferences to help their partner make BETTER LOVE TO THEM. Because the preference of an asexual is... DRUM ROLL... NO SEXUAL ACTIVITAYYYYYS

 

I didn't say "you are not asexual" in this post... just "what you describe here is not asexuality."

 

POST TWO:

I'm sorry, but until a person realizes that they actually just don't want to have sex, asexuality as an identity isn't for you. I didn't understand myself as an asexual or identify as an asexual while I was still having sex... because I believed I wasn't asexual, or else I wouldn't have kept trying to care for sex... I was still looking for my sexuality, I still had faith there was some sexuality to find. Why the HELL would I have identified as asexual during this time? When I wasn't living in any way significantly different than sexual people do?

 

The day identifying as an asexual became clearly correct for me was the day that I finally accepted the fact that I'M NEVER GOING TO CARE FOR SEX NO MATTER HOW HARD I TRY.  And so there is NO POINT in trying to "covert" myself anymore. If you really ARE an asexual, you WILL REACH THE SAME POINT. You WILL REALIZE YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX. Why? Because, for some people, ASEXUAL PEOPLE,  sex is NOT ENJOYABLE.

 

If it were, YOU'D BE NO DIFFERENT THAN A SEXUAL PERSON, which means... you ARE a sexual person. Now, if you consider yourself closer to the asexual side than the sexual side (which I make no personal distinction between), no problem, so what? STILL not asexual.  You're gray or demi, or WHATEVER else... but you aren't ASEXUAL. I understand that identifying as gray or demi (or whatever else) communicates useful things to potential partners and the world... but those thing AREN'T ASEXUALITY.

 

Asexuality exists as a concept to portray ONE SIMPLE THING TO THIS WORLD: we DON'T want to have sex. And, YES, We are COMFORTABLE with that. And we don't care IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

 

In the above post, when I say "you" it's not directed at any person in the thread... it's the usual place holder "you" that people will sometimes use in place of the word "one," or "that person," See: I'm sorry, but until a person realizes that they actually just don't want to have sex, asexuality as an identity isn't for THAT PERSON. It's clear when you replace my use of the word "you," that I wasn't actually addressing any particular person in the thread, but speaking of asexuality in a conceptual way... and YET...

 

But the readers can decide for themselves what they think about getting a warning for such posts.

I've offered to talk to you about this over PM. Not because I'm trying to hide anything, but because only you are allowed to discuss admod actions in public, admods aren't. So please refrain from talking about this in public and asking these questions in public. You won't get answers because we're not allowed to answer them here. I also ask kindly that you please stop derailing this thread, as Michael is legitimately trying to allow members to be heard and we can't answer you here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pook
3 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

I've offered to talk to you about this over PM. Not because I'm trying to hide anything, but because only you are allowed to discuss admod actions in public, admods aren't. So please refrain from talking about this in public and asking these questions in public. You won't get answers because we're not allowed to answer them here. I also ask kindly that you please stop derailing this thread, as Michael is legitimately trying to allow members to be heard and we can't answer you here. 

admods can discuss it publicly if the warned person wants to

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlamRocker
4 hours ago, ratherdrinktea said:

@GlamRocker You're asking very specific questions about your warn in a thread designed for another purpose. @FaerieFate has already offered to discuss them with you privately. My advice would be to take this discussion to PM.

No I'm not, I don't care about my warning, I'm putting it here for all to see so they can decide for themselves what's safe to actually say or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlamRocker

I also think it's strange that every time I talk openly about my warning, people suggest, "wouldn't you rather speak of this in a pm?" Of course no one's trying to hide anything... They must just be really concerned about the shame I must feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlamRocker

@FaerieFate I don't try to discuss it with you in pm because I don't need any answers. I already know what's going on here and I accept it. I speak openly of my warning because I'm not ashamed of what I've said or of having received disciplinary action. I speak of it because there's a lot of cloak and dagger here on aven, people are stumbling around in the dark about what's really happening. Well, I think that's terrible for them. And here I am, with the power to shine a light in some dark places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelTannock
3 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

there's a lot of cloak and dagger here on aven

What do you mean?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlamRocker
8 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

What do you mean?

Trying to keep what people are being disciplined for secret so aven can hide that it's trying to increase its numbers and support even at the cost of asexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelTannock
Just now, GlamRocker said:

Trying to keep what people are being disciplined for secret so aven can hide that it's trying to increase its numbers and support even at the cost of asexuals.

I don't think that's the case since being unable to discuss reports puts myself and other Admods at a disadvantage when a member makes accusations, rather than members who are free to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timeless
1 hour ago, GlamRocker said:

I also think it's strange that every time I talk openly about my warning, people suggest, "wouldn't you rather speak of this in a pm?" Of course no one's trying to hide anything... They must just be really concerned about the shame I must feel.

It's because none of us can reply to you in public. We cannot discuss members warnings on the public boards. No admod can reply to you beyond 'take it to PM'. If you don't want to discuss privately, the other option is not discussing it at all.

 

If you're concerned about the motivations behind someones warn, you can read the declassified threads in the Admod Archive which is subforum in this forum. You can request early declass of your warning after 3 months.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Quote

I also think it's strange that every time I talk openly about my warning, people suggest, "wouldn't you rather speak of this in a pm?" Of course no one's trying to hide anything... They must just be really concerned about the shame I must feel.

Yeah, seriously.  The level of secrecy enforced here is unreal

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelTannock
2 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Yeah, seriously.  The level of secrecy enforced here is unreal

Can you at least see how it puts Admods at a disadvantage during these kinds of discussions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
15 minutes ago, ratherdrinktea said:

It's because none of us can reply to you in public. We cannot discuss members warnings on the public boards. No admod can reply to you beyond 'take it to PM'. If you don't want to discuss privately, the other option is not discussing it at all.

Isn't that the point @GlamRockerwas making though? The fact that none of it can be discussed publicly at the time it's happening seems like there's an active attempt to cover stuff up?

 

Sure it's released eventually (weirdly events from years ago that no one even cares about anymore are still being released which makes no sense to me unless they're actually requested) ..but yeah..

 

it's not like this is some secret government forum for FBI agents to meet with each other and discuss spy missions and things.. but some stuff here is treated as secretively as though you're hiding government secrets lol

 

Edit: I also think covering it up is detrimental. When a post breaches ToS it should be clarified in green text above said post why and how it breaches ToS, which will help others understand and prevent them from making the same mistake!! Instead it's treated like a secret government operation :o

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pook
17 minutes ago, ratherdrinktea said:

It's because none of us can reply to you in public. We cannot discuss members warnings on the public boards. No admod can reply to you beyond 'take it to PM'. If you don't want to discuss privately, the other option is not discussing it at all.

huh... you could when i was a mod

 

could you point me in the direction of where that change was announced/declassed? curious to see why

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
6 minutes ago, pook said:

huh... you could when i was a mod

I was so frikken confused because your account says you've only been here since Wed, but your posts here sound like someone who has been around the block. Off topic I know, but you having only been a member since Wednesday really threw me off. Is AVEN glitching or something? Lol

 

6 minutes ago, pook said:

could you point me in the direction of where that change was announced/declassed? curious to see why

I would also like to be pointed in said direction, though I remember like 4 years ago I merely mentioned that I had received a warning (which I had appealed) and all my comments in relation to it were deleted and I was told not to talk about it (and got a nudge) :o then like 3 weeks later I still hadn't heard back about my appeal, so messaged an admod, only to be told my appeal had been declined anyway (despite actually being totally valid). It was so weird Y_Y So I assumed that it's just always been that secretive around here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pook
1 minute ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

I was so frikken confused because your account says you've only been here since Wed, but your posts here sound like someone who has been around the block. Off topic I know, but you having only been a member since Wednesday really threw me off. Is AVEN glitching or something? Lol

nah i had an account before but i deleted for reasons which are no longer relevant :P

 

Quote

I would also like to be pointed in said direction, though I remember like 4 years ago I merely mentioned that I had received a warning (which I had appealed) and all my comments in relation to it were deleted and I was told not to talk about it (and got a nudge) :o then like 3 weeks later I still hadn't heard back about my appeal, so messaged an admod, only to be told my appeal had been declined anyway (despite actually being totally valid). It was so weird Y_Y So I assumed that it's just always been that secretive around here.

you couldnt talk about a warn while appealing it but after that it was always fair game

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
1 minute ago, pook said:

nah i had an account before but i deleted for reasons which are no longer relevant :P

That makes sense then :P almost deleted my own account a few times so I understand lol.

 

1 minute ago, pook said:

you couldnt talk about a warn while appealing it but after that it was always fair game

Yeah but it was a bit bloody rude to not tell me that my appeal had been declined for so long, until I actively went out of my way to find out. It was a hot topic at the time and I had a lot to say on it, but was literally forced to keep quiet as a result of the appeal... which was apparently declined after like 4 days but it took me 3 weeks to find out.

 

PS... I also think that the rule about not being able to talk about it while it's under appeal is just silly. It's like whomever made those rules was on a bit of a power trip if you ask me. If the member themselves wants to discuss their own warning (regardless of whether or not they've appealed) then I can't see what difference it makes one way or another. But yeah it's the rule itself I take issue with, not the fact that admods have to enforce it. Just seems like a needless rule :o

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate
23 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Isn't that the point @GlamRockerwas making though? The fact that none of it can be discussed publicly at the time it's happening seems like there's an active attempt to cover stuff up?

 

Sure it's released eventually (weirdly events from years ago that no one even cares about anymore are still being released which makes no sense to me unless they're actually requested) ..but yeah..

 

it's not like this is some secret government forum for FBI agents to meet with each other and discuss spy missions and things.. but some stuff here is treated as secretively as though you're hiding government secrets lol

 

Edit: I also think covering it up is detrimental. When a post breaches ToS it should be clarified in green text above said post why and how it breaches ToS, which will help others understand and prevent them from making the same mistake!! Instead it's treated like a secret government operation :o

Glamrocker has the full ability to put their warning on blast. Therefore, if Glamrocker PMed me with questions, I'd tell them they can put the explanations of their warning on blast. Glamrocker can make a thread in Site Comments about their warning, have the opening post be the message we gave them, and have every post after be an in depth description of our discussion. Hell, I'd never PM a member something that I wouldn't post, so they can quote our discussion for all I care. 

 

I really really don't care. However, this rule is for member safety. Without this rule i'd be allowed to freely walk around telling everyone about ever reported post a member had and every warn the member received. 

 

Do you think members would appreciate admods going around telling everyone about their disciplinary history?

 

This doesn't prevent members from shouting about their own warnings from the rooftops, though. Because we're not hiding anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pook

.

 

Edited by pook
changed my mind about posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pook

k back to shitposting

 

DUSTYKITTY.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelTannock

I'm still looking, but there's this thread in "Site Info Center",

 

Quote

Admods are allowed to correct misinformation. If a user voluntarily shares information about disciplinary matters against them, confidentiality is taken to be waived for the purposes of clarifying or correcting that information. This does not give Admods licence to refer to it any time they may wish to, and doing so in conversations not otherwise pertaining to the disciplinary matter in question will be considered a breach of confidentiality.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte
3 hours ago, pook said:

admods can discuss it publicly if the warned person wants to

They can.  There was a misunderstanding and I am working with said parties to alleviate the issue.

 

A response may be incoming (but not from me)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Quote

Can you at least see how it puts Admods at a disadvantage during these kinds of discussions?

Yeah, but I mean, it's what you signed up for and I don't see any particular movement to try to get it changed (unless THAT's also secret and behind wraps...)
 

Quote

I really really don't care. However, this rule is for member safety. Without this rule i'd be allowed to freely walk around telling everyone about ever reported post a member had and every warn the member received. 

 

Do you think members would appreciate admods going around telling everyone about their disciplinary history?

Honestly, who really cares if they do?  Oh no, some people are talking about something you did on the internet...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
4 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

Do you think members would appreciate admods going around telling everyone about their disciplinary history?

Eh? @GlamRocker (and others here) were wondering why mods can't talk with them publicly about their own disciplinary matters.. like their own warning and stuff. Not anyone else's. The question was, if one person wants to talk about their warning publicly (meaning they've waived confidentiality) and are even asking mods to speak publicly with them, then why should mods not be allowed to. It just seemed like an odd rule.

 

However, based on @MichaelTannock's most recent comment (and maybe Pumpkin's too?) it would seem that actually mods are allowed to discuss disciplinary matters publicly with members if said member actively wants that? (if the member has openly requested it they are also openly agreeing waiving confidentiality regarding their own personal case, it would seem?)

 

3 hours ago, Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte said:

A response may be incoming (but not from me)

Well, one would hope a response is definitely coming given the extent of the confusion that appears to have happened on the part of the admod team regarding this matter! :o

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte

I'm not an admod, I'm a trainer.  What I am able to do is say to the admods "hey y'all were wrong about the policy".  I don't have the authority myself to discuss these issues or even speak on behalf of the team in this situation.

 

I do believe there was confusion about the policy and I am making sure the team is on the same page for future situations.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
2 hours ago, Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte said:

I'm not an admod, I'm a trainer.  What I am able to do is say to the admods "hey y'all were wrong about the policy".  I don't have the authority myself to discuss these issues or even speak on behalf of the team in this situation.

 

I do believe there was confusion about the policy and I am making sure the team is on the same page for future situations.

Oh yeah we get that. Just saying, hopefully someone does address it because it seems like a pretty big oversight given how much it's been argued over these past.. well.. for quite some time now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate
8 hours ago, MichaelTannock said:

I'm still looking, but there's this thread in "Site Info Center",

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte said:

They can.  There was a misunderstanding and I am working with said parties to alleviate the issue.

 

A response may be incoming (but not from me)

 

Just notifying everyone I saw this. I apologize for the misunderstanding. If @GlamRocker is willing to discuss this, we can. Ask away!

 

4 hours ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Oh yeah we get that. Just saying, hopefully someone does address it because it seems like a pretty big oversight given how much it's been argued over these past.. well.. for quite some time now.

I apologize, that was my misunderstanding of the rules. If it derails this thread too much, I might split the convo into another thread so we can discuss it further, but that's fine. Again, I apologize, that's what I get fore trying to do mod things when I'm sick I guess. Remind me to never eat concert nachos again, those things are sketch. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlamRocker

@FaerieFate I don't have a question about my warning. I only put the posts that I got a warning for in this thread because people have been asking (not in just this thread, but in EVERY recent "invalidation" thread) "What am I allowed to say when correcting someone with the wrong ideas about asexuality?"

 

When people answer this question, they say, "You can correct them with Aven's official definition, you just can't say 'You are/aren't asexual,'" Basically, that you can't flat out tell people their sexuality, but SURE, it's safe to correct them. But many people seem unconvinced that they will be safe if they follow this rule. So I posted the EXACT posts I got a warning for so they can decide for themselves what's safe to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Yeah if a user brings up their own discipline and wants to discuss it, admods are free to reply in public. It is only breaching if you bring it up to others (not replying to the user), or bring it up without permission (the user asking to discuss it publicly) or post what fellow admods said without their permission (so don't go "I didn't vote warn but qute over there said it was invalidation"). 

 

Can I recommend some training scenarios over breaching? @Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte I ran mock trials with newbies when I was a trainer (pulled real cases and altered some facts to have the new admods respond to said event and see if they understood rules). Poor @Puck got pages of it cause she was enthusiastic. 

 

Example: a drive document with a scenario like this where a user wants to discuss the warn publicly, do you respond yes/no? How about if after discussing publicly it comes up with a different user, can you then discuss it? Yes/no ... etc..

 

I also had ones over invalidation vs debate. Elitism vs sincere repulsion and other edge cases that sometimes ran into issues. Sounds like the new blood could maybe use it, given the BoD concerns about straight up labeling people being no action voted ? (Was a way to check for understanding and correct misconceptions about ToS without waiting for things like this to happen)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...