Sidwell middle school thread comment deletions

[Anonymous]

Why were so many comments deleted from the Sidwell middle school thread? It seemed like a constructive and thoughtful discussion. Was there some policy of this forum that the now-deleted comments violated?

[jsteele]

Multiple guidelines were violated. The thread was essentially hijacked by an off-topic discussion about a former employee. Several messages made negative comments about a current staff member who was identified by name which is bad form when done by anonymous posters. There were probably a few more that I don't remember.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the response. Of course it’s your message board, but those are lame reasons IMO. First, the “former employee” was a senior administrator who made numerous public statements about the middle school, so I don’t see how that aspect of the discussion was off-topic. Second, is it really your view that senior administrators cannot be named in the independent school forum? We are not talking about teachers here; they are leaders and limited purpose public figures—in this instance, the principal of the middle school.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the response. Of course it’s your message board, but those are lame reasons IMO. First, the “former employee” was a senior administrator who made numerous public statements about the middle school, so I don’t see how that aspect of the discussion was off-topic. Second, is it really your view that senior administrators cannot be named in the independent school forum? We are not talking about teachers here; they are leaders and limited purpose public figures—in this instance, the principal of the middle school.

I absolutely think that senior administrators should be named. Just not anonymously. If you have the courage of your convictions, don't hide behind anonymous posts. Similarly, I absolutely believe that in a thread about middle school homeroom assignments, discussion of a former employee who was not involved in assigning homerooms is off-topic.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the response. Of course it’s your message board, but those are lame reasons IMO. First, the “former employee” was a senior administrator who made numerous public statements about the middle school, so I don’t see how that aspect of the discussion was off-topic. Second, is it really your view that senior administrators cannot be named in the independent school forum? We are not talking about teachers here; they are leaders and limited purpose public figures—in this instance, the principal of the middle school.

I absolutely think that senior administrators should be named. Just not anonymously. If you have the courage of your convictions, don't hide behind anonymous posts. Similarly, I absolutely believe that in a thread about middle school homeroom assignments, discussion of a former employee who was not involved in assigning homerooms is off-topic.

Well, the discussion evolved into a broader discussion about the middle school, not just homeroom assignments. But you appear to have deleted those comments as well. Which is odd, since discussions on this message board often evolve in certain ways, without going “off-topic.” If you are going to enforce a view that any comments that are not strictly and narrowly responsive to OP are off-topic, that would certainly be a change for the independent school forum.

As to your view that people should only be able to name senior administrators (which in this instance I did not personally do) if they have the “courage” to identify themselves—respectfully, that makes no sense. As a general matter, this is an anonymous forum. And the forum is going to lose a lot of its value if parents have to identify themselves in order to discuss the actions of leaders in a particular school. Just to take one hypothetical example, what if a parent wants to start a discussion about a senior administrator who is believed to retaliate against parents and/or their kids when the parents are viewed to be “difficult” or “complainers”? How would that discussion happen on this message board when someone has to identify themselves and risk (in their view) the exact retaliation that they have identified? And if they can’t identify the administrator(s), how useful can the discussion be? Are you distinguishing between “naming” an administrator and using that administrator’s initials for identification purposes? Because I recall that some comments with just initials were deleted as well.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the response. Of course it’s your message board, but those are lame reasons IMO. First, the “former employee” was a senior administrator who made numerous public statements about the middle school, so I don’t see how that aspect of the discussion was off-topic. Second, is it really your view that senior administrators cannot be named in the independent school forum? We are not talking about teachers here; they are leaders and limited purpose public figures—in this instance, the principal of the middle school.

I absolutely think that senior administrators should be named. Just not anonymously. If you have the courage of your convictions, don't hide behind anonymous posts. Similarly, I absolutely believe that in a thread about middle school homeroom assignments, discussion of a former employee who was not involved in assigning homerooms is off-topic.

Well, the discussion evolved into a broader discussion about the middle school, not just homeroom assignments. But you appear to have deleted those comments as well. Which is odd, since discussions on this message board often evolve in certain ways, without going “off-topic.” If you are going to enforce a view that any comments that are not strictly and narrowly responsive to OP are off-topic, that would certainly be a change for the independent school forum.

As to your view that people should only be able to name senior administrators (which in this instance I did not personally do) if they have the “courage” to identify themselves—respectfully, that makes no sense. As a general matter, this is an anonymous forum. And the forum is going to lose a lot of its value if parents have to identify themselves in order to discuss the actions of leaders in a particular school. Just to take one hypothetical example, what if a parent wants to start a discussion about a senior administrator who is believed to retaliate against parents and/or their kids when the parents are viewed to be “difficult” or “complainers”? How would that discussion happen on this message board when someone has to identify themselves and risk (in their view) the exact retaliation that they have identified? And if they can’t identify the administrator(s), how useful can the discussion be? Are you distinguishing between “naming” an administrator and using that administrator’s initials for identification purposes? Because I recall that some comments with just initials were deleted as well.

I removed the messages for the reasons stated. You can accept those reasons or not. It makes no difference to me. I'm sure that if our users were criticizing you by name, you would be glad that I stopped it.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t choose to take a job that impacts hundreds of children, families, teachers, and staff. And I’m not a public figure. Within their community, school leaders are. Surely as a website administrator you appreciate these distinctions.

[Anonymous]

What is your beef, OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t choose to take a job that impacts hundreds of children, families, teachers, and staff. And I’m not a public figure. Within their community, school leaders are. Surely as a website administrator you appreciate these distinctions.

This is silly - it does appear that PP has an ax to grind but is afraid to stand by her comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t choose to take a job that impacts hundreds of children, families, teachers, and staff. And I’m not a public figure. Within their community, school leaders are. Surely as a website administrator you appreciate these distinctions.

This is silly - it does appear that PP has an ax to grind but is afraid to stand by her comments.

Well, I didn’t make any comments about the middle school head in the said thread that I am “afraid to stand by,” because I don’t have kids in the middle school at Sidwell. But as the parent of two upper school kids I did find it an interesting and important discussion as it was also addressing the resulting negative impact on the upper school and some of its leadership. And I don’t think that discussion should have been deleted. If I have an “axe to grind” it’s about the uneven moderation on this forum that is protective (or needlessly fearful) of school leadership.

As an aside, it’s funny to see people (anonymously) taking shots at other posters for asserting that they think anonymity is important. I haven’t taken a personal shot at any other poster here. So, what’s your name?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the response. Of course it’s your message board, but those are lame reasons IMO. First, the “former employee” was a senior administrator who made numerous public statements about the middle school, so I don’t see how that aspect of the discussion was off-topic. Second, is it really your view that senior administrators cannot be named in the independent school forum? We are not talking about teachers here; they are leaders and limited purpose public figures—in this instance, the principal of the middle school.

I absolutely think that senior administrators should be named. Just not anonymously. If you have the courage of your convictions, don't hide behind anonymous posts. Similarly, I absolutely believe that in a thread about middle school homeroom assignments, discussion of a former employee who was not involved in assigning homerooms is off-topic.

Well, the discussion evolved into a broader discussion about the middle school, not just homeroom assignments. But you appear to have deleted those comments as well. Which is odd, since discussions on this message board often evolve in certain ways, without going “off-topic.” If you are going to enforce a view that any comments that are not strictly and narrowly responsive to OP are off-topic, that would certainly be a change for the independent school forum.

As to your view that people should only be able to name senior administrators (which in this instance I did not personally do) if they have the “courage” to identify themselves—respectfully, that makes no sense. As a general matter, this is an anonymous forum. And the forum is going to lose a lot of its value if parents have to identify themselves in order to discuss the actions of leaders in a particular school. Just to take one hypothetical example, what if a parent wants to start a discussion about a senior administrator who is believed to retaliate against parents and/or their kids when the parents are viewed to be “difficult” or “complainers”? How would that discussion happen on this message board when someone has to identify themselves and risk (in their view) the exact retaliation that they have identified? And if they can’t identify the administrator(s), how useful can the discussion be? Are you distinguishing between “naming” an administrator and using that administrator’s initials for identification purposes? Because I recall that some comments with just initials were deleted as well.

NP here. The point Jeff is trying to make is that type of discussion is not welcome here. If you want to have a forum like that to give anonymous posters places to vent against school leadership that they feel may be retaliative, you are welcome to start that type of board. But Jeff does not want any type of discussion here, like what you've suggested, that could get the forum and Jeff into trouble. If you have such a discussion and the person in question believes that the comments are libelous, Jeff could get into legal trouble for allowing such comments.

This is not a public forum, you have no right to have any type of discussion that you want on this forum. You can abide by the rules and his moderation or you can leave to find another forum to have your discussion on. Those are your options. But trying to criticize Jeff for trying to prevent what could be libel is not productive. Jeff has often removed posts of discussions that will not go over well with his advertisers, e.g. the people who actually pay for us to have this wonderful free forum for random discussion. So, just note, that your negative comments about the school administrator are not welcome here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the response. Of course it’s your message board, but those are lame reasons IMO. First, the “former employee” was a senior administrator who made numerous public statements about the middle school, so I don’t see how that aspect of the discussion was off-topic. Second, is it really your view that senior administrators cannot be named in the independent school forum? We are not talking about teachers here; they are leaders and limited purpose public figures—in this instance, the principal of the middle school.

I absolutely think that senior administrators should be named. Just not anonymously. If you have the courage of your convictions, don't hide behind anonymous posts. Similarly, I absolutely believe that in a thread about middle school homeroom assignments, discussion of a former employee who was not involved in assigning homerooms is off-topic.

Well, the discussion evolved into a broader discussion about the middle school, not just homeroom assignments. But you appear to have deleted those comments as well. Which is odd, since discussions on this message board often evolve in certain ways, without going “off-topic.” If you are going to enforce a view that any comments that are not strictly and narrowly responsive to OP are off-topic, that would certainly be a change for the independent school forum.

As to your view that people should only be able to name senior administrators (which in this instance I did not personally do) if they have the “courage” to identify themselves—respectfully, that makes no sense. As a general matter, this is an anonymous forum. And the forum is going to lose a lot of its value if parents have to identify themselves in order to discuss the actions of leaders in a particular school. Just to take one hypothetical example, what if a parent wants to start a discussion about a senior administrator who is believed to retaliate against parents and/or their kids when the parents are viewed to be “difficult” or “complainers”? How would that discussion happen on this message board when someone has to identify themselves and risk (in their view) the exact retaliation that they have identified? And if they can’t identify the administrator(s), how useful can the discussion be? Are you distinguishing between “naming” an administrator and using that administrator’s initials for identification purposes? Because I recall that some comments with just initials were deleted as well.

NP here. The point Jeff is trying to make is that type of discussion is not welcome here. If you want to have a forum like that to give anonymous posters places to vent against school leadership that they feel may be retaliative, you are welcome to start that type of board. But Jeff does not want any type of discussion here, like what you've suggested, that could get the forum and Jeff into trouble. If you have such a discussion and the person in question believes that the comments are libelous, Jeff could get into legal trouble for allowing such comments.

This is not a public forum, you have no right to have any type of discussion that you want on this forum. You can abide by the rules and his moderation or you can leave to find another forum to have your discussion on. Those are your options. But trying to criticize Jeff for trying to prevent what could be libel is not productive. Jeff has often removed posts of discussions that will not go over well with his advertisers, e.g. the people who actually pay for us to have this wonderful free forum for random discussion. So, just note, that your negative comments about the school administrator are not welcome here.

As I said already, I myself did not write any “negative comments about the school administrator” that were deleted. Do you actually read what other people write before you criticize them? Or, do you just not believe me?

As to your supposed libel concerns, my critique is that moderation here is incredibly inconsistent and appears to be—at least potentially—biased. Which is why I asked about what the standards were. From a libel exposure standpoint, there is absolutely no distinction between a comment that criticizes “the middle school head” at a particular school and a comment that criticizes “Jane” (not her actual name) so again, if “naming” the administrator is what gets posts deleted, it’s not premised on any reasonable legal exposure concerns. And comments that criticize schools and administrators are made—and not deleted—routinely on the independent school forum.

Last point is that this forum is protected from libel exposure under Section 230. I am fully aware that this is not a public forum, and nothing I have written suggests otherwise. I just believe that moderation standards should be consistent and rational. Even there, I recognize that Jeff can apply whatever moderation standards he wants, even if they are entirely irrational. But if that’s the case, he should be clear about it. Which is what I was attempting to draw out in the first place: Is naming an administrator forbidden? Naming a head of school forbidden (this happens frequently by the way)? But critiquing an administrator “anonymously” (e.g. Hogwarts headmaster) is OK? Seems like a nonsensical distinction to me, but at least we should know what the standards are.

[Anonymous]

Were posts deleted on the two Whittle threads? Just curious.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Were posts deleted on the two Whittle threads? Just curious.

I believe there were a lot more than two "Whittle" threads. Regardless, I have removed countless Whittle posts.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were posts deleted on the two Whittle threads? Just curious.

I believe there were a lot more than two "Whittle" threads. Regardless, I have removed countless Whittle posts.

Oh Whittle, never change.