Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:08:19
In reply to Re: Sorry to interupt -- any chance we could... » Racer, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 15:13:25
I want to emphasise that I object in the strongest way to the so-called three complaint rule being used to restrict general querries about particular phrases.
For example, if a person writes "UserName X was mean to me here" and another posts to the admin board "can a person write on Psycho-Babble that a particular member 'was mean to me'", thereby making the querry without citing a particular post where the statement was made, that is not a complaint -- that is a request for information. Otherwise, the so-called "three-complaint rule" would exclude anyone from the administration board who posts twice but does not win the approval of the administrator.
And if a person finds cases where similar statements are treated differently and cares to inquire about why such statements were treated in the way they were, instead of complaining specifically that they feel hurt or put down, again that is a question about administration and it is part of the accepted ethical obligations among professionals studying this new venue for medical support and information that such questions, when submitted, be made available for review by professional peers. Any effort to hide from any reviewer the scope or nature of questions about administration of a group such as this raises questions about whether a particular forum intends to follow particular ethical guidelines.
All the while, if this is a forum where it is acceptable to call the policies of the majority of the people of the nation where the forum is hosted "hypocritical" "pathetic" and "a joke" it will likely always be difficult even for some long time members to understand why it is okay to call most people's opinion "pathetic" etc. but it is not okay of some people to write the same thing about other matters.
If in fact the administration is enforcing his opinion about the value of posters rather than standard terms of service, any effort to restrict feedback is likely to serve the purpose of discriminating against individuals in favor of preferred individuals and not further even-handed enforcement of standardized, consistent terms of service.
Generally, the three-complaint rule seems contradictory of the published purpose behind publicly admonishing those who post things the administrator does not want to see posted. The stated reason for that policy is that he believes it leads people to a better understanding of what is acceptable. If people are prohibited from inquiring about what is acceptable and why, such prohibition would seem contrary to the purpose of public admonishment and he would do as well to delete posts he finds unacceptable with no public comment.
poster:so
thread:511073
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511580.html