Posted by so on May 24, 2005, at 13:25:38
In reply to Re: ... » so, posted by chemist on May 24, 2005, at 11:41:10
Chemist, I'm simply going to mark your entry as "read" and let it be for the most part. I could correct some of your assertions of my views, but I'm not sure there would be much value to the exercise.
In summary, the theme to which I responded in this thread involves the balance of administrative duties vs. joining in the process. I advocate an administrative role that does not rely on emotional interactions, and cite emoticons as evidence of emotional interaction on the part of the administration. Oddly, Dinah seems to advocate for the latter, but through hours of correspondence, we found several major points of agreement.
I advocate more clearly codified rules, and rules labeled as terms of service (or alternately as site guidelines) rather than presented under a double-entendre of "civility", which to some, perhaps yourself included, not only implies performance expectations for this site, but is consistent with widely accepted rules of behavior in society at large.
To look forward a bit, I posit that since communication at this site is limited to linguistic symbols, mathmatical algorithms such as that supporting Eliza softwares, could eventually be written to measure the consistency of administrative interaction and to actually perform much of the administrative work, if only as a filtering device at first to sort potentially problematic messages. I posit that one doesn't need a personality, and perhaps would do better not to present one, when administering a site such as this. Perhaps one area in which we can find agreement is that an administrator would do well to remove as much as possible any implication, even wrongly perceived, that administration or personal involvement at the site offers benefit of some sort of medical capacity in this context. In my opinion, the capacity for scientific understanding gained by medical education would be best applied developing methodical algorythems to consistently steer the site in a preferred direction.
The opinions regarding the extent to which this setting is clinical and what are the legal or ethical obligations of a person who administers a quasi-clinical setting are those of courts, primarily in the United States because of the location of hosting servers for this site. Your opinion or mine on that matter, no matter how well informed would likely be irrelevant without a case in controversy from which we could find facts that support one judgement or another on a narrow aspect of the question. For the most part, courts are working on other matters regarding propriety of networked communication, and even if you have the time to compile a relevant case list, I would need probably need some sort of compensation to analyze the information to satisfy your level of interest.
I am somewhat appreciative of your interest in this administrative thread, but would probably offer more interest in matters in which you can offer unusual professional or academic knowledge, particulary biochemistry.
poster:so
thread:491889
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502253.html