[violaine]

[QUOTE=christie0918;155636]
I do think, however, Belle brings up an issue that I, too, think is problematic in two ways: (1) What if the DA person having an issue doesn't feel a rapport with SF? In following that train of thought, to me, having the hierarchy or next step in the process, what if the DA person doesn't feel comfortable in speaking with a moderator or administrator? These persons, while active, participating community members also have a position of authority and I think something to think about is how that might not feel safe.

(2) Its also been my observation and interpretation that most of the neuro DA's might not see that they even need to ask for assistance. Most of the times when Bratboy has gotten into sticky communication issues, he doesn't see that his behavior is the problem or how what he said/did is offensive/crossing a boundary. How can we, as a community, expect a neuro DA, especially those with communication differences, to have the capacity to know that they need to ask for help? I have issue with expecting a neuro DA person be accountable when they might not have the cognitive ability to look outside of self to see where their part of the issue is the problem.

Its also why I thought that a peer system of folks who aren't dual-roled as both moderators/position of authority and community members might be a viable supplement to the current process. For instance, Belle might be more comfortable in reaching out to me to ask for clarification of a post rather than having to ask a Moderator, whose role as Moderator is one of "task master". I'm just an equal. I think sometimes, even the NT folks have trouble seeing a Moderator as also a peer - I know I do in spite of the additional efforts the Moderators go to in clarifying from which position they are speaking.

Again, I hope that everyone understands that I am not saying there is anything wrong with, nor am I being unsupportive of the DA Ambassador role/process. I just see how we might be able to supplement it so that we can further dispel the mythical pass perceptions.

Christie, i could not agree more with your post, and selected the paragraphs above, because of my own thoughts with regard to a peer system/equal for issues perhaps in need of clarification. i would feel comfortable reaching out to you or Cyclopea, for a lot of reasons, but mainly fair-mindedness. i'm thinking about something SuperFemme wrote to me in an earlier post about being able to separate sites- and just briefly wanted to add that i do understand there are some differences, but basically, the people are the same, and my processing operates on 'patterns and connections' to experiences. in other words, if Cyclopea and Christie have interacted with me in positive or neutral ways for years, do not skip my posts, or ignore my contributions - rep notes, quotes, pms, and/or posts, on a regular basis [because i do notice things], and i can see that Christie and Cyclopea seem to be like this with people across the board, have a solid awareness of AT/AS processing- then i'm going to feel a lot 'safer' with approaching for clarification. i would rather honestly know what / whom i'm dealing with online out in the open, rather than my being here and simply 'tolerated', because away from the computer, i enjoy challenging conversations without so many areas of confusion.

probably another reason i'd chose a peer is that person may not be very 'popular', and if she [or he] happens to be an aspie, and/or creative type with sharp ideas for important discussion, though topics might get frequently misunderstood / read as being somewhat trouble-making, and if the peer can be found dwelling a bit on the fringes of online communities, i'm pretty certain i'll relate to a few of the reasons why.