Leaving room for the opinions of others and complete explanations

I recently responded to a post indicating that potatoes were a spreader of disease, and should therefore be avoided, full stop.

I proceeded to offer a more complete explanation of how plant pathogens work. And the girbot, I assume, swooped in to make sure that I rephrased it to allow room for the opinions of others, which I  did. I have yet to receive feedback either way.

These aren't my opinions,  any more than a rough description of cosmology or gravity are my opinion. I have said nothing remotely controversial. There's no edge-case here. Perhaps someone knocked the knob on the girbot to 11 by accident?

-CK

I have not seen the post you mention, but "leaving room for the opinions of others" is part of the publishing standards:

https://permies.com/t/17422/permies-publishing-standards

The staff watch for "the truth" and the four-letter word that starts with f:  fact.

You can state your position, but stating "the truth" makes other positions seem like conflict.

I am quite comfortable with the concept. I can say exactly what I mean to in many different ways.

My concern is that if we get too strict in this way, we may actually end up squeezing out the opinions of others.

But that is, of course,  my opinion.

-CK

I have found that it's best to say a little bit and then wait for it to be questioned, and then say a little more. Because if you happen to know entirety of what you want to say, then you tend to fill up the space, so there's not much more to say on the subject. I have no problem with someone stating their position from all angles, all at the same time, but I know that it is sometimes seen as being pushy or a stage hog or I don't know what.

I know a teacher who has been at it for a long time and has noticed that in the last decade or so, he's kind of expected to gear everything toward the kid with the thinnest skin. So some subjects are danced around and some are not brought up at all. He holds some opinions that he would not even mention in the staff room, because if he does, it could lead to all manner of accusation.

I too haven't seen the post yet.

But looking at this thread, I would be comfortable reading that "potatoes can spread or harbour disease and pests in the soil".  But I'm also pretty sure that I've grown potatoes for almost 40 years and for 35 of those I had no problem with them.  The other two years we had trouble with nematodes already existing in the soil at that location.  So saying that they ALWAYS cause a problem, means that my 35 years experience are a lie.

Chris, I think you've got a lot of people confused here. We obviously don't know what post you're referring do. Perhaps you could share a link to the thread?
.....
.....
.....
.....
I just spent a few minutes researching. Your post is this one, I think https://permies.com/t/124612/garlic-planting-bed-potatos#1007477. It was almost-a-posted at 7:58am (pst) this morning. You edited it at 8:02am. You made this thread at 8:09am. That's not much time to give a moderator to look at the post and take it off "almost-a-post"! We have a lot of moderators, but we do all have lives and even when we're on permies, we're not all just checking to see if people fixed their post every second. Sometimes we like to make posts, or write dailyishes, or adding threads to forums, or making new forums, or squishing spammers, or all sorts of other stuff. If a staff person hasn't taken a post off of almost-a-post in a day, that might be a good time to worry. Usually it takes between 2-6 hours for a normal edit to be looked over.

The one in question was taken off almost-a-post at 8:27am. That's 30 minutes after it was edited!

Maybe next time, wait a day before posting about an edit not having been approved?

I do apologise. My post wasn't intended as a criticism of how quickly mods respond, nor was I trying to jostle anyone's elbow.

I will ask questions in the appropriate forum, politely and respectfully, if I think it warranted, but never to put someone's nose out of joint. If I have been insufficiently respectful, I  apologise.

I occasionally have concerns about the extent of censorship, but if I am misunderstanding inclusive conversation,  again, I apologise.

But if my query helps ensure that the publication standards continue to help rather than hinder, I should think that all this bother will have been worth it.

-CK

Chris Kott wrote:
But if my query helps ensure that the publication standards continue to help rather than hinder, I should think that all this bother will have been worth it.

It didn't though.  Your opening post was worded in such a way that the moderators who read it assumed it was you who was saying that potatoes should be avoided at all cost, so we all thought you were just whining and being a smart-arse by claiming that it wasn't just an opinion. There was no link, so we had to go rummaging to find the thread in question. Then when we found your post it didn't seem to say what we thought you said it said.  Which naturally did most of our heads in as we've been busy doing real stuff all day.  And on studying the whole of the rest of the thread we failed to find any post that seemed to claim that potatoes 'should be avoided full stop' either. Which threw the whole of the first part of your post into doubt to the extent that we were all pretty pissed off and not really in a mood to be looking favourably at anything further you wrote.

I did look at your post that was put on probation.  I might have let it go, others might not.  Bit of an edge case. But I certainly don't think all the bother was worth it.

In short, if you feel the need to complain, please do so accurately, make it clear who said what, and post links to what you're talking about. I did post a reply to this thread once before, which I then removed as I realised I'd misunderstood what you were trying to say.  My reply was basically 'WTF do you expect if you post that potatoes should be avoided full stop' and then try to claim it wasn't merely an opinion.' .

Clarity is called for in these things else confusion wastes everyone's time and energy.

And here I thought that my initial statement, that I responded to a post claiming that potatoes were a spreader of disease with a more complete summation of plant pathology, was pretty clear. How should I have worded it otherwise?

Next time I shall endeavour to make my english less ambiguous. I didn't think it was problematic, but if I am being understood in a way different from how I had intended, surely I am the one whose communication skills failed.

Let me be clearer: I offered a newer poster a more complete explanation of plant pathology than was available to him from those knowledgeable people around him. Though I skirt these issues regularly, the girbot, or else one of the mods, felt that I had overstepped.

Honestly, I just want to know if the goal posts are moving again so I can recalibrate, if necessary. I responded in an effort to help a new member understand a plant health issue. I wasn't trying to be controversial, and I wasn't so specific in my answer that I obviated any other or more complete answer.

Anyone who remembers having conversations with me about this issue in the past knows that I typically try to be helpful with my posts in most cases. I am not some troll, and the suggestion that I would post in this matter,  or about this matter, maliciously is frankly insulting, and a little worrying. How controversial is a statement explaining that not all plant pathogens affect all plants? That is the source of my irritation with this. I am sorry if I was in any way unclear about it.

And if it was only my irritation, I would have edited and let it be, but any time a post I think was beyond reproach gets flagged in that way, I need to reassess my communication skills. I felt this post, a recommended action at the bottom of the moosage that asked me for an edit, was an appropriate place to honestly inquire about changes in the policy standards. I post quite regularly, and so for something so bland and technical to receive a flag seemed in error.

As to response time, if I ever feel like my post edits have been overlooked, I use the Report button to send a reminder, and just once. It's rarely a concern for me, and I really like the almost-a-post feature, and the other layers of review.

But hey, I guess I wasn't leaving enough room for the other explanations about how plant pathogens work. How, I am not exactly sure. But I am sure we'll get to talk about it if it happens again. I will eventually find out what word use triggered what, and I will adapt.

Thank you all. Sorry if you feel your time was wasted. I will be more careful with my word use.

-CK

I read this and was almost immediately offended:

"I recently responded to a post indicating that potatoes were a spreader of disease, and should therefore be avoided, full stop."

The reason for this is, I have a thriving farm now, with organic matter that many people only dream of, with worms and thriving plant life, yet we were a 400 acre potato farm from 1838-1988, and still grow potatoes today...but not on that scale. So to read what you wrote, really is offensive to me, and what is our heritage. It also goes against a Permicultural law: What is the most difficult to do, also yields the greatest reward."

I will readily admit that potatoes are very difficult to grow; they are hard on soil fertility, but they also produce an amazing amount of food to the acre and are 100% sustainable because a person can make their own potato seed from last years crop. AMAZING. So when I read your post, and read "Full stop", how can I explain all this to you without starting a flame war? You just insulted my farm, my heritage, and a crop that I truly feel has merit for being the staple of international diet.

I know you did not mean to say that, but you did, in a single sentence, muddying the waters between what you perceive as "fact" when really it is just a pet peeve.

This is why the moderators did what they did. It is called "tone". Let's change up your sentence by changing just one word that I will highlight in bold.

"I recently responded to a post indicating that stinging nettles were a spreader of disease, and should therefore be avoided, full stop."

Can you imagine the outcry if someone said that? Why would potatoes be any different? Consider this, 99% of the world thinks that dandelions should be eradicated from the earth, but I kind of like them. I like dandelion greens, and my sheep loved their high protein content, they break up compaction, etc, etc, etc.

I have all kinds of pet peeves...Ash Trees, socks with holes, even big croutons...oh how I hate how croutons are the size of Texas, but hey, if you like one crouton being bigger then your salad, all the more power to you. The point is, moderators have done well to spot a pet peeve from a stated fact. I realize you do not see that, but it was a rather offensive post to those of us that love the challenge of growing the lowly spud.

Well shit. I'm sorry.  I should have said, "I had recently responded to a post that had indicated that potatoes were a spreader of disease, full stop."

It is a clarity issue, and my fault. Sorry, all.

-CK

I'm going to lock this thread.

Chris - it was a very simple problem of a slightly poorly worded sentence at the start of the thread.

Don't sweat it!