Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 11:46:38
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
Sounds awfully complicated and hard to remember since it applies to each poster. It also may be hard to figure out what constitutes an objection. People appear to have discourse with you or with posters on the same subject on different threads as it pops up over time periods that may span years.
I suggest that before anyone leaps to agree that this sounds like a great rule, that they consider that it's three posts about a single posters posts, which still leaves room for a heck of a lot of objecting, but not room for a heck of a lot of replying to objections even over a long period of time under widely varying circumstances. So that if you have EVER said something that could be considered an objection about XXX's posts, and three months later under different circumstances you have a different objection about XXX's posts, and six months later under different circumstances you have a different objection about XXX's posts. And in each of those cases, Dr. Bob has found XXX's posts to be in compliance with the civility regulations. And XXX decides to count. You are now subject to administrative sanction. Before you endorse this rule, you might want to give some thought to who it will really silence.
poster:Dinah
thread:407882
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407891.html