Acronym

There was quite a conversation about this during the #assnchat on Twitter today. You can see the whole conversation at the What The Hashtag web site (search for #assnchat on 3-30-10) or at this link - http://bit.ly/9mnJTE.

I thought the post was fair--maybe the title was a little strong, but that's what I love about Scott's posts. He's provocative, and you can bet there would have been some intense discussion in the comments of that post.

I'm a consultant, too, so go figure.

I think I can read Scott's mind. I know where he was going with it but it was a little 'wandery' with a sensational title. The blog post needed lots of finger quotes to put all of the "consultants suck" talk in to perspective. I don't think it was offensive as the moral of the story was not too deep below the 'offensive' surface.

In hindsight, perhaps ASAE and The Center should have distanced itself from the blog officially as a comment or preamble to the post, but removing it has created a cry of 'censorship' among ASSNCHATers.

Never write an email, or post or delete a blog post while angry or emotional and you've won half the battle.

Social Media is not just this grand idea and then when someone disagrees with another, it's this thing to be stifled. You take the good with the "bad" (if you want to call it that). The good is the UNTECH conference. I don't think Scott's post was 'bad'

Listen to the underlying message, even if the bullhorn is a bit "static-y"

This disappoints me pretty deeply. I am guessing that you guys had tons of complaints from consultants who were offended. Like Lindy, I personally was not offended at all, but that's cool. I get that what Scott wrote offended a group of people. Not an "entire" group, mind you (assuming you were referring to consultant members), but a group nonetheless.

But I don't get the response. When you offend people, the response is to remove the whole conversation? "The post" was inappropriate for acronym? As if all acronym is a series of "posts." Acronym is a series of conversations involving actual people. People are bound to hurt each other's feelings and get into conflict when they have conversations. You don't resolve conflict by erasing words from the transcript.

I would rather we stand up and be an example of how to handle disrespectful behavior effectively. Change the conversation, don't pretend it didn't exist. Scott could apologize for offending people, and then re-frame his main points which were about consultant-client relationships, fear, and the contracting process. John Graham could apologize and reiterate how important consultants are to our community, etc. ASAE could stand behind their employee and say Hey, people make mistakes, but we know we share a collective good intention to make the most out of this community, so let's push through this.

Move towards the conflict and focus on relationships, not posts.

I'm with Lindy - I think it would have been better to leave the post up.

It inspired conversation - an open conversation that needs to happen, I think.

I can see how the "powers that be" pressured Acronym to remove the post and I will bet money that it was against Scott and Peter's better judgement. Censorship is NEVER a good idea, in fact it is a crushingly bad idea. You want to live life never offending anyone? Good luck with that. Be happy wallowing in your mediocrity.

I read all the comments on the original post at least through a couple of days ago, and if anyone was really offended, they didn't state their case in the comments, that I saw. They didn't post a rebuttal - which I am 100% sure they could have, happily, either on Acronym or some other blog. That's cowardly - and as a result, the post has garnered widespread attention (it's still in everyone's Google Reader and on Buzz (right here as a matter of fact - http://bit.ly/info/cpOn7h) and many of us are pretty shocked and disappointed in ASAE's actions in this regard.

I get Jamie's point that there were lots of other options for dealing with the situation other than censorship and Scott could have apologized (publicly or privately) to whoever was offended, but many people including me thought the post pointed out some real truths about the consultant-client relationship. We consultants ARE often called in to reveal truths about the inner workings of an organization and to cut through the political bullshit. Often we DO make clients squirm and feel uncomfortable. And maybe sometimes clients don't actually like that and fire us. But that doesn't mean we haven't helped in some way anyway. That doesn't mean we didn't do our job. Why run shy from this analysis?

Total #FAIL.

I had just featured the original post in my weekly "What I'm Reading" blog roundup. I'm sorry it got pulled. As a former consultant, I found it provocative but far from offensive. I also, like KiKi, think it's a conversation that needs to happen. Association execs need to stop muzzling our consultants by demanding they give us political cover, and consultants need to stop muzzling ourselves for fear of not getting 100% love for all our recommendations. If you always do what you've always done...

This stirs up quite a fire in me about freedom of speech and censorship. I saw the original post last week and even featured it in the Splash blog's "Friday Top Five." I loved seeing a great discussion in the comments, and I don't think there's anything wrong with people disagreeing with others' blog posts. I don't recall thinking that the post was disrespectful toward consultants, and I don't recall any of the commenters saying they were blatantly offended. (I don't claim to know if ASAE received any angry calls or e-mails.)

Sure, not everyone agreed but that's no reason to delete the post. From what I've seen, its removal has created even more of a discussion than the original post.

Many of us espouse the merits of social media and I've always thought ASAE does a great job leading by example, so it saddened me to see this post yesterday.

I'm with Lindy, Jamie, Kiki and Maddie. I am unsure how ASAE can continue to foster a vibrant community if censorship is standard procedure for a "controversial" blog post. Very disappointing.

I find it ironic that ASAE stated, as a reason for deleting the post, that the post was "inappropriate for Acronym" because it "was blatantly and unnecessarily disrespectful to an entire group of ASAE members." In deleting the post, ASAE is, in fact, being blatantly disrespectful to an entire other group of members: 10 of us right here commenting on this post and who knows how many others.

So does this mean that some ASAE members are more important or valuable than others? Is it a financial thing--e.g. the post got pulled because maybe the person/people who complained represented some kind of financial partnership that they were threatening to pull--in which case this turns into a whole new debate about ethics?

How is it that almost every ASAE event prominently features social media sessions and idea labs--yet when when it comes right down to it, ASAE finds it acceptable to totally flout anything approximating social media best practices by deleting a blog post? How many ASAE members have volunteered their time and expertise to lead sessions, webinars, idea labs, idea swaps--you name it--promoting social media best practices--only to now totally disregard those same practices?

What I'm most disappointed by about this whole thing is the unsaid part: that, as Maddie said, I'd be willing to bet money that the Acronym staff were forced to do this by someone else within ASAE. Traditional hierarchy trumps new-fangled media, which, to borrow a word from the banned post, sucks.

I was deeply saddened to see ASAE do such a knee-jerk reaction.

I don't get it. Why?

If you read the post backwards did it say the name Satan several times? If you squinted your eyes, could you actually see the word sex in his writing? If you used the secret ASAE leadership decoder, did you find subliminal messages that all associations were evil?

When was the last time we saw such blatant censorship in the name of not offending some that don't want to engage in dialogue. Yep, that's what always works. Stop the discussion, don't let anyone come to the table and voice their opinion. Because of course, we as members don't matter. It's all about control again. But wait, they are allowing us to discuss it right here except we are having to use conjecture.

I don't think Scott or Peter had a choice and once again ASAE demonstrates that they don't believe in authenticity and transparency. Why would anyone want to continue to be part of an organization that does not believe in an open, honest dialogue?

As a consultant, I did not find the title of the post, Consultant Wasteland, offensive. The opening sentence struck a nerve and I was willing to give Scott a chance to hear his point of view before crying foul. I ended up agreeing with most of what he wrote.

What a blow to open communication and democracy that the largest association for association executives models old-school censorship. So what's next, book-burning at the next annual conference?

I too disagree with ASAE for pulling the post. Surely you all know when something is posted to the web it is never really gone. While not a consultant, I think the only ones that complained either: 1) didn't read the whole post or 2) saw them selves in the post and not in a good way.

Not a good example of how to deal with negative feedback.

As one of the 4 or 5 folks who got to comment on the original post before it was withdrawn, I certainly wasn't offended or felt that is attacked the consultant community. In fact I think Scott tried to disarm the fact that anyone might take the post personally in the way it was written. The removal of the post almost begs disclosure of how many people complained and what clout they carry to get an Acronym blog post removed, something that I think is precedent setting if not extremely rare.

While I am as disappointed by the posts removal for the reasons others have articulated, I'm more offended that we no longer get to be challenged by our colleagues' perspectives and challenge the assumptions in the post, some of which I think were overly broad and not completely accurate. We've lost a good learning opportunity by not being able to continue the give and take among the author and the commenters.

At minimum, I think ASAE should try to reanimate that conversation either in this forum or perhaps an educational session or article/case study.

I understand the sentiments, but see a whole lot of sometimes extreme rhetoric and rash conclusions leapt to based upon a whole lot of facts not in evidence.

The prevailing assumption (and it is only an assumption) seems to be that Big Bad ASAE acted unilaterally to censor free speach, creating a chilling effect that threatens the very continuation of existence on this planet as we know it. (I over state, but only a little. I mean, go back and read some of the hyperbole early in this thread.)

There are at least TWO equally plausible and far less sinister explanations:

ONE: It wasn't ASAE that decided the post needed to be pulled. It was ASAE's consultant members. They were offended. They voiced their concerns loudly. And ASAE responded to their members.

TWO: ASAE chose to try and establish a minimal level of civility and common courtesy in its online space. There are plenty of places on the web where "You suck" is not only appropriate professional language, but is even considered a profound insight. Does EVERY blog have to be one of those places?

Rather than pile on based on speculation, did anyone think to merely ask the question directly of Scott or Peter?

First, I want to thank everyone for caring enough about ASAE & The Center to express your opinions in this space. I think that you have made some valid points, and I want you to know we are listening.

The original blog post we're talking about - and Scott agrees with this assessment - made two important mistakes. First, it was intended to be a provocative post, which isn't bad. But by far and away the most provocative part of the post was the inciting language in it, not the actual content of the post. As a result, the post provoked for the sake of provocation not to foster debate, which is not where we want Acronym or any of our media to be.

That just made it a less-than-ideal blog post. The more important mistake is that the post disrespected a group of people and disrespect is not what we want in ASAE & The Center forums. Disagreement, discourse, passion: all good, but only when all parties are being respectful.

I can tell you that it was a team of ASAE & The Center staff that discussed this matter, deciding the post was disrespectful, and ultimately deciding to archive the post so it was no longer visible on Acronym. We understood and talked about the competing principles of transparency and the developing ethics of social media. Other important factors we considered were that it was written by a staff person and that the primary provocation in the post was the disrespectful language, and that the actual content itself was much less provocative.

We are still exploring the implications of these decisions and discussing how we need to approach these things in the future, discussing such things as what if this had been a member guest blogger and not a staff member post? What if something similar was written in the comments section? What if it was in other user-generated areas of the site, such as an article review? Ultimately, we know we're talking about judgment calls on things. Did we make the "right" decision in this case? We will continually assess our approach to issues that arise from our social media work, knowing that each case will have its own unique factors. These comments as well as other discussions within our community will help us as we make difficult decisions in the future.

Peter - Thanks for sharing the "behind-the-scenes" situation. This whole scenario strikes me as a great interactive session idea... either take actual or made-up examples of problematic posts and/or comments, break the room into groups, have the groups discuss how they would handle the situation, then share and debate as a whole. And if that's already been thought of, then someone point me to it 'cause I'd love to attend. :)

I accept the notion that a healthy community (online or offline) develops a basic code of conduct and respect. Sometimes it happens by trial and error - that's what happened here.

My only lingering concern is that this episode doesn't result in all ASAE staff posts being reviewed and vetted with a legal or political lens.

That would kill this blog in no time.

I still think this situation raises serious questions. I am a dues-paying consultant member. Whoever caused this might have felt personally disrespected (and, by the way, we don't know if that reaction was addressed appropriately directly to them) but they do not speak for me. They do not speak for many other dues-paying consultant members.

As a matter of fact, I hereby state that censorship offends and disrespects me, a dues-paying member who has been led to believe that Acronym is a place for debate and discussion between ASAE members (and the general public, for that matter). So what are you going to do about that? Are the feelings of those of us who are offended by censorship less important than those of people who apparently have friends in high places?

If so, THAT sucks.

I also find censorship troubling, but more troubling is my sense that the next time Scott (or any staffer who writes for Acronym) has a highly unorthodox or potentially controversial idea for a post, we won't see it at all because it won't be written. Not necessarily censorship, but self-censorship and efficient time management: Why write something that the audience will never see? As readers, we'll lose more than just one post, I fear.

I completely agree with Kevin. ASAE may not ever delete another Acronym post, but how are we to know that? Controversial topics deserve discussion as much, if not more so, than others. I wouldn't blame other writers for being afraid that their sensitive posts may never see the light of day, resulting in some serious self-censorship. I'm just afraid this incident is going to lead to people in the community not wanting to speak up or contribute for fear of receiving the same treatment.

My question remains that if it's Acronym's policy to not provoke, incite or use "offensive" language, why was it posted to begin with?

Add me to the list of members who are thoroughly unimpressed with and offended by this whole thing.

So removing the post isn't seen as an act of disrespect to those of us that read it, RT'd it and were referencing it? We thought it was healthy dialogue. Rather than feeling the tension the post caused and welcoming it as a means to move forward, once again you've embraced a big brother action. Censorship, loud and clear.

Your reasoning smacks of the fact that ASAE employees are not allowed to have opinions and use language that they want. I have images of parents washing their kid's mouth out with soap. Instead of allowing everyone to benefit from your concerns and adding another post to discuss openly with your readers those concerns, you took the conversation internal, removed the readers from that discussion and acted in the name of your view of rightness.

Regardless how you frame it, your action causes us to distrust you. It was not transparent and your reasoning for taking it down is flawed and polarizing.

Now, I'm just plan angry. Before I thought it was ignorance on the behalf of ASAE leadership.

Add my name to the list of consultants that feel your actions were disrespectful.

I re-read the original post and all the comments here, and I'm still dumbfounded regarding removal of the post. I do appreciate the staff conversations and considerations that provoked removal, but, with that knowledge, I still come to the conclusion that removing the post was dramatic and unnecessary.

Yes, there was strong (to some) language included, but I dare say it was not offensive. Inciteful, provocative, borderline? Perhaps. Offensive? No way. Prime time television and even morning radio use more offensive language than this. I can't help but think, "give me a break."

This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. And that is precisely the point. From the original post: "Real change will make us squirm and feel uncomfortable..." Does the elimination of the post indicate that we do not value change?

The incident has us talking, and that's a good thing, so maybe all is not lost. Yet, the fact that the incident happened at all points me back to the original post for summary: "But we have to learn to get beyond this, to have the courage of our convictions and exercise our will in the politics of our organizations."

Does the ultimate decision to remove the post demonstrate that we do not, in fact, have the courage and will to follow through?

Dear blog owner: Funny - the "preview" button actually functions as "submit."

I value change, and I learn from those whose opinion differs from mine -- and sometimes these other opinions cause me to change. If I cannot listen and then decide about the validity of a comment, I am not using my own thought processes correctly. Please allow me the right to hear other opinions.

Thanks Bill. Just tested and saw the same error. Will alert our web team to investigate and fix.

I read the original post and many of the comments on it and it was taken down before I had the opportunity to weigh in on the discussion. I found this disappointing.

The title was written to grab attention and while I may not have agreed with every point in it, I valued the discussion. I saw nothing disrespectful in the original post, nor the comments (some of which rightfully pushed back - again, in a respectful way). In fact, I was actually amused with the title in the manner of, "Oh, yeah....?!?!?!"

The post inspired one important thought for me personally. I think we all need to honestly assess our abilities and thoroughly investigate each new gig. We have to listen carefully to ferret out the actual intent on the part of the people retaining us in order to ascertain whether we will actually have a positive impact or not. When we look at what we provide as consultants (in my case have provided in the past and getting ready to provide again) we need to recognize we will not be the perfect choice in every case. In that case, if we proceed anyway we will let ourselves, our clients and the association volunteers in question down. We will, in fact, suck.

What I don't appreciate is ASAE setting a bad example for other organizations in the association community. We have been fighting paranoia about open communications whether in the social media arena, cultural/LGBT diversity or a million other sticky areas in our own organizations for years. As leaders in this community, giving off even a whiff of that false, insincere desire to engage only until things get slightly sticky and then bailing has the potential unintended consequence of undermining progress being made in those other arenas.

I really like you guys and I encourage you to stand by your staff - even when some feathers get ruffled. I encourage you to avoid allowing this incident to be a precursor to operating from a position of fear - sanitizing, second guessing and relentlessly focusing on the positive, banal and ego-stroking vernacular we have all gotten so used to spewing over the past decade.

Are there posts that will go over the top? Are there instances where comments may get out of control and people begin to be hateful and vitriolic? Will there be instances where a post needs to come down? Sure, I can see that. But this? This wasn't that.

Shelly

Add my name to the list. It's sad to see this kind of self-censorship, regardless of the intent.

Wes

===
Wes Trochlil

Author of "Put Your Data to Work: 52 Tips and Techniques for Effectively Managing Your Database," published by ASAE.

I have been reflecting on this discussion. One of the things I love about our beautiful country is our Freedom of Speech. We don't have to agree with what another says, but every person has a right to speak their mind (respectfully of course) and share their thougths, their opinions.

I am also recalling how pearls are made. Without some discomfort, some irritation, pearls would not become a reality.

In the absence of knowing the full details and therefore don't want to jump to any conclusions, I personally strongly feel the post should not have been taken down.

Scott has the right just as anybody else to share his views. By taking his contributions down like, we in essence havea squashed his voice and that's just not right, in my opinion.

Secondly, what message have we sent to the community by taking such an action? I can't help but question the long-term impact of this on our exchanges.

If I may, I like to suggest the original post and the conversations that followed be put back up. We don't have to agree with everything but then we are truly blessed to be living in America where we honor our righ to Freedom of Speech. And if for no other reason, we need to honor our forefathers and what makes this country and our people so beautiful.

Thanks for consideration.

Perhaps this is an example why having an organization facilitate a community or conversation can have a downside. It seems to me that is making an argument against the value of associations. Subtle, but powerful problem.

Today's biggest competition to associations is the ease with which people can self-organize. Bloated association organizational structures that cost more than the additional value they provide are under severe pressure.

A censorship move like this seems to be adding to the reasons for flight from a centrally controlled organization of professionals.

To me, this is not a censorship issue -- it's a quality management issue. What offended me was that such a poor quality piece of writing was even allowed to be published in any ASAE forum. I'm not against discussion or controversy but I am *completely totally against poor quality work.* That's what this was and it was a good management decision to remove it for that reason alone.

Behind every great writer is an editor. It's not looking at work through a political or legal lens to have someone review it for quality and clarity. It's called taking pride in one's work by taking the time to do it right.

And, if enough members complain and are offended, some action needs to be taken. Maybe not completely deleting the post, but more explanation and some apologies go a long way [here's an idea: rewrite it so it makes sense and then repost it]. ASAE is, after all, a membership organization and its member service should reflect that.

As an ASAE member who pays my dues and contributes many volunteer hours, I don't want time and energy (our most precious resources) wasted on something that is subpar.

This was a conversation that could have been interesting, and is necessary, but instead, the real issue -- this was poorly done work poorly executed -- is buried under the need to create conspiracy and controversy.

This post has been defended when it didn't deserve it.