Re: Another 3-post rule?

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 19:27:56

In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Noa on October 27, 2004, at 19:08:58

> I'm uncomfortable with any rule that keeps track of the number of posts in reply to another's post.
>
> partlycloudy
That's the other 3-post rule:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396704.html
--
> I can see an end-run around the rule. Once you've got your allotted three complaints from poster A you can *carefully* continue what you were doing and just keep on bugging poster A.
>
> AuntieMel
No, that would be the rule working. If what you're doing is OK, you *should* be able to continue without being complained about...
--
> Are these to be 3 consecutive posts, or are they cumulative? If after 2 consecutive posts by A, you sanction B, does the clock start over for A relative to B?
Consecutive posts is the other 3-post rule. This would be cumulative. If A complains twice and I sanction B once, then that would be 1 cumulative "false positive".
> > 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.
>
> What if B does something horrendous, and you haven't caught it?
>
> - Scott
1. Other posters can let me know.
2. A can always "save" a complaint for a situation like that.
--
> I just ask that everyone think of the poster who nettles them most. Now imagine you have done something that could be considered a complaint twice in the past, but Dr. Bob (perhaps incorrectly) has decided that the posts were within the guidelines of the board. This rule effectively disenfranchises you from speaking.
>
> Dinah
Sorry, I lost you there, why would you be disenfranchised?
--
> I thought the perfect solution would be for people with concerns (including "requests for determination") to email Dr. Bob privately, rather than making a public comment on the Admin board. However, Dr. Bob recently wrote: “Thanks for the suggestion. I know it has its downsides, but overall, I think it's better for this to be out in the open.”
>
> Better for whom?
I think it's like having PBCs out in the open:
> When posters are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by email, and that would have the advantage of being less embarrassing. If done with sensitivity, however, posting offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity “behind the scenes,” and allowing others to contribute to the process.
http://www.dr-bob.org/download/CP_3_6_p935-950.pdf
--
> Teachers and managers don't generally feel that they need to have specific rules for any possible situation that arises. They understand that their job is to maintain order and foster the atmosphere to work or learn. I think we should empower Dr. Bob to feel a similar ability to be flexible in the face of unique challenges. To not feel that a rule needs to be in place for every possible contingency.
It started that way, I wanted to be able to be flexible about what was considered civil -- and look where we are now! But I do think it's better to have it spelled out:
1. It's more predictable for posters.
2. And it's also easier for me. And for substitute teachers.
> Dr. Bob, you have a general mandate to moderate. You don't need specific and byzantine rules to do that. Your authority is sufficient. So if you find a behavior disruptive to the stated objective of the board, you can ask the poster to contact you by email to discuss it, or you can use every ounce of creativity you posess to balance appreciation of the poster with a request to change a behavior in a public request.
>
> Dinah
But if I can articulate what's disruptive, why not use my authority (and creativity) to make a rule? This may now be more like a company than an office, and companies have policies and procedures...
--
> Too many rules start to make me want to flout them just because thats the way I react to what I consider 'arbitrary' rules.
>
> alexandra_k
But these aren't arbitrary! :-)
--
> Would I get a warning the first time I violated it?
Sure, like with all the other ones.
Bob

Thread

Another 3-post rule? Dr. Bob 10/27/04
...
Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dinah NikkiT2 10/27/04
Re: Another 3-post rule? yes please- good idea (nm) » Dr. Bob Fi 10/27/04
Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dinah AuntieMel 10/27/04
Re: Another 3-post rule? SLS 10/27/04
Re: Another 3-post rule? coral 10/27/04
It's a two edged sword Dinah 10/27/04
Re: Private Emails vs Public Posting Mark H. 10/27/04
Lou's rsponse to some of this thread Lou Pilder 10/27/04
My alternate suggestion Dinah 10/27/04
Re: My alternate suggestion Dinah 10/27/04
Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dr. Bob alexandra_k 10/27/04
Re: Another 3-post rule? Noa 10/27/04
Re: Another 3-post rule? Dr. Bob 10/27/04
Re: I can see it's a done deal » Dr. Bob Dinah 10/27/04
Re: Another 3-post rule? » alexandra_k Dinah 10/27/04
clarification of 'arbitrary' » Dr. Bob alexandra_k 10/27/04
and yet I liked the last 3 post rule... (nm) alexandra_k 10/27/04
I was following until now...Now I'm lost » Dr. Bob gardenergirl 10/27/04
Re: I was following until now...Now I'm lost » gardenergirl alexandra_k 10/27/04
Lou's response to gardengirl » gardenergirl Lou Pilder 10/27/04
Can I try some CBT here with this issue? gardenergirl 10/27/04
Re: Lou's response to gardengirl » Lou Pilder gardenergirl 10/27/04
What about... SLS 10/27/04
Re: What about... » SLS gardenergirl 10/27/04
Re: What about... » gardenergirl SLS 10/27/04
...
Re: I withdraw my offer » Dinah gardenergirl 8/13/06

Post a new follow-up

Notify the administrators

Start a new thread

poster:Dr. Bob thread:407882
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408096.html