Posted by Mitchell on March 12, 2002, at 19:50:50
In reply to Re: policies, posted by Dr. Bob on March 12, 2002, at 17:54:51
> Hmm, I see what you mean. I don't remember that situation, but I guess I think posters should be given the benefit of the doubt, and speculation about two posters being the same person tends to make for a more suspicious and less supportive atmosphere. But in this case, I had already blocked them, and it was more a discussion was about whether I was right or not. Does that make any sense?
>
> BobAnother instance was the response to a Sept. 15 post I referenced above, in which a writer not only speculated about the identity of another discussant, but also labeled the other as cowardly if they were indeed using two identities.
My observation of some casual, open, scientific discussion groups, in which the debate often becomes much more heated that it is allowed to get here, is that members tend to agree that the identity of a discussant is irrelevant, unless perhaps a person uses multiple identities, in a specific debate, to bolster an argument. The consensus in those groups, more or less, by my observation, appears to be that discussions are about ideas, not about identities. If a person cannot criticize or comment on an idea without discrediting the author of the idea, many conclude that the person has no valid criticism to offer of the idea. I think that tendency is a product of group members training in formal logic, which recognizes ad hominum arguments as fallacious.
I endorse the "no guessing about identity" policy. I tend to frown on admin efforts to publicly identify handles that might be in use by the same person. By using information provided in confidence, such as registration info, IP address or cookie information, admin can, perhaps inadvertently, defeat an individual's effort to distance themself from posts that could tend to personally identify them. Some people, perhaps naive to the nuance of on-line communication, post information about themselves or about family members or friends. Some later decide they would like a bit more privacy, and register under a new handle so readers cannot connect matters discussed in new posts with personal information posted earlier about them or their friend. I think the best policy would be that if someone were blocked for suspicion of reregistering after they were blocked, the new suspected new identity would be blocked without comment.
The other problem with admin speculating about identities is that admin could be wrong. In such case, it might be better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and erase all doubt.
The easiest way for me to rest with apparent administrative inconsistencies is to simply acknowledge that the administration is sometimes inconsistent. From there, I can contemplate the reason and the effect of any inconsistency, and perhaps offer recommendations that would facilitate administration that is more consistent.
From what I know of people who have interacted here, inconsistent administration can be frustrating and potentially painful. But I also know it is a fact of life, perhaps resulting from the limited administrative capacity of the site. They say you get what you pay for. Sometimes you get more, even lots more - especially if one is paying nothing.
poster:Mitchell
thread:3354
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/3464.html