Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
Hi, everyone,
Sometimes someone posts something and someone else objects.
> If I see a problem with something someone posts, I usually try to explain what it is I see as the problem. If it's the first time for them, I usually just ask them please to be more careful. If I've already done that, I may block them from posting for a period of time.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
OTOH, sometimes I consider the post OK, and one suggestion is:
> it may be best just not to respond
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
-- or not even to read more posts by them.
So here's an idea, what if we adopt another 3-post rule? In this case, a limit of 3 objections per poster -- to posts I consider OK -- per other poster.
Say A objects 3 times to posts by B. If I see a problem with those posts, then I'll enforce the rules, and A has helped me administrate. B may feel angry, but that would be considered an acceptable tradeoff.
If I consider those posts OK, however, it would then be up to A deal in some other way with posts by B, for example, by not even reading them.
A could still object to posts by C, and the 3-post "clock" would start over.
And it would go both ways, B could object to posts by A, but subject again to this 3-post rule.
Any questions? Let me know what you think...
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:407882
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407882.html