It’s quite simple.
I run a three tier comment policy. Red/Yellow/Green. Red is basically a safe zone topic. It’s for people to discuss the issue in a positive way. I use it rarely. Most of my posts are in the green which is practically anything apart from bigotry goes.
I know for a fact that only one person was banned outright and that was for threatening my family. In the same time I have given people like Larry Silverman and various trolls, bigots and ne’er-do-wells ample opportunity to play by my incredibly relaxed rules.
Much to the chagrin of people who think I should simply ban on sight. But this is my blog. I moderate under my rules and my rules are pretty relaxed. I have seen other bloggers on other sites operate stricter policies.
In fact to be banned here, you must be a spectacular shit head. Simply incapable of understanding the rules or abiding by them. And they are very relaxed. In fact this is a regular issue in FTB where I am told to ban people outright but refuse to do so because “Everyone gets two chances here”. And Pitchguest blew both.
Are you actually such a disingenuous shite, Avi, that you bring up the alleged pre-emptive ban again?
What the fuck is your problem?
Dear Pitchguest
I don’t care about the slymepit. I was once invited to join, but I found it rather hard since my IP was banned. Now here is the thing. I am Internet savvy enough to bypass a silly IP ban. Hide My Ass for example, lets me access your site via a proxy.
But here is the thing.
I haven’t banned anyone from your forum. You have been free to read and comment and even given the opportunity to be civil. You were given ample opportunity to do so. Instead you behaved like this. A petulant child throwing a tantrum because we won’t let you buy some sweeties.
I joke about the pre-emptive ban because I find it funny that for all the claims of free speech and open access you and the Slymepit made, I had to access it behind a proxy. And give you my IP address? Nah mate, I read enough of your comments to realise that there is precious little the Slymepit can offer me if you are the representative.
And I read your commentary on there. What must I do? Show up there to call you a cunt? And show how dedicated to free speech I am without the underlying responsibility? Your attempts to denigrate my qualification to detract from my statement are noted.
PTSD is not a comparison game. You would know it if you read anything I have written. Every single one of the things you bring up has been dealt with by “me”.
Oh, really? You’re a psychologist, then? You’re an expert on PTSD?
The term is “Psychiatrist”. The clinical application of psychology is psychiatry.
A small educational break. PTSD is found frequently in soldiers who experience combat. It is also found in anyone who experiences a traumatic incident or a series of them. Not JUST soldiers.
When establishing the diagnosis of PTSD it is important to bear in mind that people with this disorder find talking about the traumatic experience very upsetting. They may find it hard to disclose the exact nature of the event and the associated re-experiencing symptoms and feelings, In children this is complicated by the lack of understanding of what is being asked or being experienced.
Patients may initially not be able to talk about the most distressing aspects of their experience. This may particularly be the case for people who experienced the trauma many years ago or have a delayed onset of their symptoms.
The ICD–10 diagnosis of PTSD requires that the patient, first, has been exposed to a traumatic event, and second, suffers from distressing re-experiencing symptoms. Patients will usually also show avoidance of reminders of the event, and some symptoms of hyperarousal and/or emotional numbing. The ICD–10 research diagnostic criteria for PTSD are as follows
(A) The patient must have been exposed to a stressful event or situation (either short or longlasting) of exceptionally threatening or catastrophic nature, which would be likely to cause pervasive distress in almost anyone. The key stress here is pervasive distress. While the individual harassment of Melody is not sufficient, the sum total can cause pervasive distress particularly considering not every anti-Melody person is making pithy and poignant statements under the restriction of Twitter. This is not diagnostic but people involved in psychiatry widely agree that bullying is a stressful event even if it is not life threatening or physical and can lead to PTSD. This includes cyberbullying particularly via social media since social media is inherently personal.
(B) There must be persistent remembering or ‘reliving’ of the stressor in intrusive ‘flashbacks’, vivid memories, or recurring dreams, or in experiencing distress when exposed to circumstances resembling or associated with the stressor.
(C) The patient must exhibit an actual or preferred avoidance of circumstances resembling or associated with the stressor, which was not present before exposure to the stressor.
(D) Either of the following must be present:
(1) inability to recall, either partially or completely, some important aspects of the period of exposure to the stressor
(2) persistent symptoms of increased psychological sensitivity and arousal (not present before exposure to the stressor), shown by any two of the following:
(a) difficulty in falling or staying asleep
(b) irritability or outbursts of anger
(c) difficulty in concentrating
(d) hypervigilance
(e) exaggerated startle response.
(E) Criteria B, C, and D must all be met within 6 months of the stressful event or the end of a
period of stress. (For some purposes, onset delayed more than by 6 months may be
included, but this should be clearly specified.)
The DSM–IV diagnosis of PTSD is stricter, in that it puts more emphasis on avoidance and emotional numbing symptoms. It requires a particular combination of symptoms (at least one reexperiencing symptom, three symptoms of avoidance and emotional numbing, and two hyperarousal symptoms). In addition, DSM–IV requires that the symptoms cause significant
distress or interference with social or occupational functioning. Several studies have found that trauma survivors who experience most, but not all, DSM–IV symptoms of PTSD show significant distress and need treatment (e.g. Blanchard et al, 2003b).
In contrast to the ICD–10 definition, a DSM–IV diagnosis of PTSD further requires that the symptoms have persisted for at least 1 month. In the first month after trauma, trauma survivors may be diagnosed as having acute stress disorder according to DSM–IV, which is characterised by symptoms of PTSD and dissociative symptoms such as depersonalisation, derealisation and emotional numbing. The ICD–10 diagnosis does not require a minimum duration.
No, I am not an expert in PTSD. I recognise that I am not an expert. I am however educated enough to be able to recognise it’s shadow and triage people to the experts.I also am capable of reading medical literature and understanding my limitations with regards to them and what an expert would do and am capable of utilising these guidelines to encourage a patient to seek help through the appropriate specialist.
But if you want to pretend that I cannot read or understand the ICD or DSM then go right ahead.
Your criticism is not valid. Your criticism has ranged from “What if she is faking it! Would not the glory that is PTSD be sullied!” and “WHY DOES SHE NOT DO WHAT I WANT”?
Oh, he bloody well has not. This is such a pathetic strawman, even from you.
The entire dialogue is about whether or not Melody has PTSD, ergo the notion she is faking it. And Steersman bemoaned the unwillingness of Melody to engage with people like yourself because such is stressful and pointless.
You have been warned way way back. You have to be pretty spectacularly bad to trip my ban hammer. And you are getting very very close to it. I suggest you leave this topic. Go tell your slymepit buddies that I am “teh bad” and silencing your free speech. You know that you were given more freedom here than your charming Slymepit afforded me with their pre-emptive ban.
This is so fucking stupid, it’s unreal.
No it’s not, you had already received one warning on this issue before. This is you not listening and not learning.
And no, I know for a fact that none of the anti-FTB/Melody lot would have responded with anything else.
Anything else what, you incoherent blob?
Because calling me an incoherent blob really speaks wonders for the notion that somehow any of the questions that come from you are coherent, productive and designed to encourage dialogue, debate or progress.
Melody is in the right here.
No, Melody can do no wrong. She’s pure and innocent. Always. Even when she told a survivor of rape and sexual abuse to make herself scarpers, before she called her an harasser and blocked her.
Which part of “Here” did you not understand?
1. You know nothing about her case or her PTSD, everything you push is based on boundless assumption
2. You have no idea about PTSD itself or it’s treatment
3. You are making grandiose speculations about her.
4. Your friends have already started sending me some rather choice hate mail.1. Nor do you, genius.
Yes, but I am not the one making speculations about it. My statement is “we don’t know anything about her history so we cannot make a statement about her PTSD”. This is a statement of understanding of the complexity of PTSD and a recognition of my failings.
Had Melody come to me with a broken leg, I would have less qualms about treating her but frankly this is out of my capacity. I can offer kind words and direct her to someone better. This isn’t Schrodinger’s cat’s equally dual state. One of our statements has an understanding of the limitations while the other is a reckless statement based on nothing but assumption.
2. Because only those who personally experience PTSD knows about it.
Wasn’t that the original argument for harassing Melody? That “Real” PTSD sufferers think she’s full of shit.
That was the entire pillar that the original rehashing of this idiotic and wasteful argument stood on. And I never attacked that.
You did.
3. Look who’s talking.
My grandiose speculation is to accept that she possibly has PTSD and she has given me no reason to doubt it any more than all the veterans who claim to have PTSD too.
4. Of course they have. Because there’s nothing to doubt when you say you receive hate mail. Except for that one time when you copy-pasted a comment about you on the Slymepit and labelled it hate mail in your post.
Someone sent me a video of people popping balloons. It’s one of my triggers. Since we are discussing PTSD, I decided to be frank about it. This is one of my triggers as the sound of an exploding balloon reminds me of the explosions of my childhood.
Well except for the fact that tinny video doesn’t translate the whole horror of the noise and I had to endure worse. It was still a dick move even if it did not work.
That doesn’t put a cloud on your honesty at all. In fact, just yesterday, I received a sleugh of hate mail from your buddies. Telling me to die by immolation, and forcibly shove sharp utensils up where the sun doesn’t shine. Are you calling me a liar?
Is that so? Are you telling me that my readers have been harassing you and making life unpleasant for you because you post here? Why! I must treat you as you treated Melody!
Consider yourself banned. It’s for your own good. We wouldn’t want you to get harassed by your presence here. Consider this a service! #sarcasm
Actually? Do you want to know why you really got banned? What rule you broke? That article was specifically designed as a safe zone where people can discuss their traumas.
Instead you posted this. You couldn’t follow the rules. So you are banned. I have no qualms about you swimming about slagging me off on other posts. Just that you didn’t follow the simple rules.
Put it this way, I was courteous enough to explain why you were banned. You were given a chance, you blew it. I am sure you will bemoan my tyranny but the irony is the rules apply to all. Even the A+ lot know the rules. Even Oolon knows the rules and abides by them.