Posted by ksvt on December 12, 2000, at 12:52:11
In reply to labeling, posted by concerned on December 11, 2000, at 13:58:54
>
> "The point is that "civility" is an ambiguous assertion, and calling people uncivilized, based on one individual's or group's ambiguous definition might not serve the purpose of defining the boundaries in effect here."
>
In the first place, you've used a poor choice of words. "Civil" in the way most of us use it means mannerly or polite. It's opposite is "uncivil" not "uncivilized" which means wild or perhaps barbarous. When people are blocked for lack of civility, no one is branding them uncivilized.I have been as critical as anyone lately about an inconsistent application of a standard for civility, in reaction to what I perceived to be a hasty trigger finger on the part of Dr. Bob. However, we are talking more on the lines of the classic quote about pornography ("I know it when I see it") than we are the difficulties of a standard for discerning the intent of the Florida voter. It's how people say things and not what they say unless what they say is clearly insulting to a targeted person. I usually isn't that difficult to tell when someone has crossed the line from being creative or imaginative or having a unique sense of humor to being hurtful or deliberately confrontational in a way designed to provoke people. I agree with Noa that the warnings are there and that anyone who comes on should assume that they have to be careful about what they say. I expect that most people who find this board scope it out for a bit anyway to get a feel for how it works before posting. I seriously doubt being blocked came as a shock to anyone to whom it's happened. Chagrined? maybe, but not shocked. I'd prefer not to imagine a situation where you have to more explicitly warn people from the start that the kind of posts that have been blocked here are not okay. Wouldn't you rather assume the better intentions of participants?
As Cam pointed out, many of the people who regularly visit this site have mental health issues, and can be easily hurt. That this board is monitored ensures to a degree anyway that it's a "safe" place to be. ksvt
> It is apparent, from a review of about two years worth of posts, that there have constantly been individuals who introduce subjects and dialogue styles that are sooner or later prohibited here. The majority style here is a product of repeated prohibitions, and not a product of what would otherwise develop as a cross section of internet users openly relating their various experiences in their own unique styles.
>
> Layers of portal software have been effective at other sites in part because they serve to establish the unique boundaries in effect at that particular site. They protect the site, they protect the preferred users of the site and they protect, in some ways, those excluded from the site. The current headings on these pages tend to imply that whatever is not accepted here is not supportive or educational. By saying "If you don't agree to X,Y and Z, do not enter," net users who would otherwise feel invited to the site as a result of a link, a search-engine connection or information found on shared equipment are forewarned unique rules and information available at the site which they might find offensive.
poster:ksvt
thread:106
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/111.html