Can we be more inclusive?

Question

Have any of you listened to the podcast, "The Longest Shortest Time"? The main theme of which is, I think, let's embrace lots of different ways of parenting, because parenting, especially in certain places in this country, has gotten pretty darned judge-y.

Is it possible to interact here with a bit less judge-iness and a bit more diversity of thought?

If a moderator has extensive experience working in a health care field, perhaps the medical pedigree could be mentioned a little less often. This could help with the imbalance of power I sometimes see.

Also, could we have more teaching and patience from the moderators? Recently, another moderator made an abrupt comment to a newcomer about "reframing" or something like that, with no explanation or link to an explanation. "Take time to teach," please, Moderating Team!

A lot can be accomplished in terms of shaping people's posts through voting, both up and down. Also, there's a classic SE comment that comes across as encouraging: "This post could be strengthened by adding reference."

When a bunch of strangers comes together to share ideas and information and curiosity and --you name it-- can we leave space for a variety of points of view? When my post gets edited to the point that there's nothing left but the reference, then it doesn't feel like my post anymore.

If a moderator doesn't understand an author's attempt to connect two ideas, can the moderator recognize that this is a communication problem, and ask the author to try to make the connection clearer?

If a participant feels their words have been twisted, that is worth listening to and hearing. But if a moderator insists, "I'm quite sure of it. I'm certain you stated that growing beards promotes cannibalism," what is gained?

Can't it be okay to let a post sit, even if a moderator disagrees with the ideas expressed, or find it sloppily written? Don't worry -- in the big picture, less than stellar posts will get downvoted, and the cream will rise to the top.

In short, I am making a plea for a lighter, more supportive approach to moderation. One thing my kids taught me as they were growing up: If I breathe down their neck, ready to jump on the slightest mistake they make, they're going to lose their motivation.

Answer 1

We are very inclusive, and in fact @anongoodnurse has gone out of her way to be inclusive to you, however you have been a recurrent troublemaker on this and other sites for a number of years.

You consistently pretend not to know the rules you have had explained to you numerous times by moderators and CMs. You take offence when you get suspended yet again for the same deliberate rules-breaking you were suspended for the previous time. And you try to point the finger at mods who try and help you, by misrepresenting the entire thing on meta, again.

Answer 2

TL:DR: Moderators don't make the rules, we just follow them.

First, to address a few specific points:

"If a moderator has extensive experience working in a health care field, perhaps the medical pedigree could be mentioned a little less often. This could help with the imbalance of power I sometimes see."

This strikes me as ironic, considering how often you claim authority on a subject (most recently, nutrition) based on the medical/other problems of your children. I am a physician; I don't go out of my way to hide it, but I try not to use it as an argument from authority. You, on the other hand, often claim argumentum ad verecundiam, citing all the experience you've had in medical/nutritional/other matters because of your children. When I answer, I use the literature to support my answers, not my degree. You have clearly learned a lot whilst dealing with doctors, therapists of all kinds, nutritionists, etc. on behalf of your children, and have a lot of good information to share. Arguing that your answers should go unchallenged, however, because of said experience is an argument from authority.

"Take time to teach," please, Moderating Team!"

We do a lot of teaching, guiding, recommending, referring, and even hand-holding with users. You don't know all that goes on behind closed doors, except for what you yourself have experienced.

When a bunch of strangers comes together to share ideas and information and curiosity and --you name it-- can we leave space for a variety of points of view?

When I first ran for pro-tem moderator, one of my expressed reasons was to be inclusive of other cultures and ideas. All of the moderators that I have seen in action have been much more aware and protective of differing cultures and viewpoints on everything save dangerous practices (e.g.spanking/genital mutilation/etc.) I believe we are very inclusive here.

...But if a moderator insists, "I'm quite sure of it. I'm certain you stated that growing beards promotes cannibalism," what is gained?

This is what's known as a straw man. I'm pretty sure no moderator on any SE site has ever written, "I'm certain you stated that growing beards promotes cannibalism." If you want to raise awareness of moderators twisting words, please use actual, unedited examples in context.

...in the big picture, less than stellar posts will get downvoted, and the cream will rise to the top.

This is indeed the SE model. The problems come when readers don't understand an area of study or misrepresent sources. In that case, people upvote based on their cognitive biases. That is one reason Health.SE (now Medical Sciences) was such a problematic site. Biases aren't facts. If someone believes that because alcohol is a diuretic (which is true) a few beers will cause dehydration, they aren't seeing the big picture. Everyone has experiences with medical problems and cultural beliefs thereof. It leads some to believe they know more about medicine than they actually do. Health/medicine is a fertile field for mining examples of A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That's why Medical Sciences requires reputable sources to back up all answers.

This is parenting, not medicine. When I see an answer with medical misinformation, I will ask for sources to back up the questionable statement. If reliable sources are provided, great! If I feel strongly, I'll post my own answer (with sources).

To address your post in general, I would say simply that moderators don't make the rules, we just follow them. People dislike a particular site's culture for any number of reasons, and a comment can be interpreted as an insult easily, especially on stricter sites than ours.

If you're asking that moderators relax the rules adopted by the community (e.g. If your answer disagrees with the premise, also include an an option the OP can work with which does not disagree with the premise.), then meta is the right place to do it, but until specifics are worked out by the community, moderation will continue as it does now. But a proposal needs to be more specific (and more factual) than "Let's relax the rules more, because I think the site is too strict."