Posted by pegasus on July 7, 2004, at 13:36:33
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2004, at 20:03:04
>
> So wording that could imply put downs would essentially be considered uncivil?Yes, please. I think that's what we've been asking for. Of course, it's only considered uncivil after they've been warned and have gotten help, and continue to use wording that implies put downs.
>
> And posters could just deny intending to put down?
>Well, that's the way it is now, only they don't even get a warning about it. In the new plan, they could only deny implying put downs at first. Then if they keep it up and get advice, and still can't help it, then they get blocked.
>
> 2. Maybe posters could help each other out regarding this? Be "civility buddies"?
>
Well, we were certainly trying, but it wasn't working in the recent case. As I remember it, when people tried to help, they just got responses alleging to be baffled by why people were upset.> 3. Sometimes it may be better not to be "assertive".
>Hmmm. I would say this is rare. But I think it is possible to be assertive and civil at the same time, which some people were doing beautifully, and others of us struggled with. Personally, I have no issue seeing PBCs handed out to responses to marginially uncivil posts that themselves cross the civility line. It gives us all a challenge to learn how to disagree civilly. Although, maybe some extra slack in those cases could be helpful, as we learn.
pegasus
poster:pegasus
thread:359804
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/363762.html