Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:27:11
This is following the post at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512950.html I hope you don't mind that I started a separate thread on the subject, since it seems to be referenced in numerous places and the discussion is therefore hard to follow.
Here is the last suggestion for a 3-complaint rule (that I know of) that you’ve posted:
One possibility might be to accept complaints that are "upheld", but to limit those that aren't. What if a 3rd (about a particular other poster's posts) that isn't were considered uncivil?
And here’s what I described as an unintended consequence of the rule as suggested.
> > For instance, after the third time I asked you if a particular posters' habitually questioning others' posts was uncivil, and having you say "I think it's acceptable," I could no longer try to change that habit, without getting blocked... Even if that was only my third request in a year and the habitual questioner was questioning others' posts every day!
Your response to this was “Right.” But has anyone else got an example of an unintended consequence that concerns them?
Anyway, I was talking about trying to change a behavior that some feel is uncivil, and not necessarily about posts that are about me or something I’ve said. This scenario is a little different. What would happen under the 3-complaint rule as proposed? I am Poster A. Twice I have asked Administration to make a call on Poster B’s posts – that weren’t about me or something I’d written. Twice Admin has ruled that his/her posts were civil. Would I ever again be able to question a Poster B post? Even if it’s about me or something I’ve said? Would I need to be 100 percent sure (if that’s possible) that he/she has been uncivil without risking a PBC or block?
> > He/she [a person habitually questioning other people's posts] would only have to make sure he/she never questioned a particular person's posts more than twice.
> That still would be an improvement, wouldn't it?
It depends on your point of view.
Let’s assume there are 1,000 members on this site. Let’s say that Poster A questions each member’s posts two times. That would be 2,000 acceptability requests. If Poster A only made one request a day, the site would face them until about January 2011. Then again, if he/she decides to question only half of the members’ posts, at the same rate, the site would only face about 32 months of such requests. Of course, that’s only if Poster A alone decides to exercise this right, at this rate – and assuming no new members join.
> > I see a rule like this as having a more conditions on it, like:
> >
> > If a particular poster *habitually questions (any) others' posts
> > And he/she does so without first asking the other to clarify
> > Or he/she was not even an active poster on that part of the thread
> > Or he/she is not the subject of the post or thread
> > Then that poster can be warned and/or blocked.> I understand the potential benefit of asking for clarification, but in practice, that hasn't always been welcomed, either.
>
> I don't think someone needs to be active or the subject to have a valid opinion about the civility of a post.
>
> And the more conditions there are, the more complicated the whole thing gets...OK, I’ll drop the first two conditions and reformat the suggestion. The following is less complicated and allows people to publicly question as many posts as they’d like that are about themselves or something they’ve posted, or even posts that they just perceive to be about themselves or something they’ve written.
If a member makes habitual, public requests to Administration about the acceptability of others' posts, then that member is subject to a warning or a block, unless the member perceives that the posts are about himself or herself, or something he/she has written.
“Habitual” here means x times in an x (day/week/month) period. (Whatever Admin thinks is fair.)
BTW: What would the proposed 3-complaint rule look like when formally written? Here’s what I came up with:
If during “a calendar year” [substitute whatever Admin thinks is fair] Poster A questions Poster B’s posts two or more times, and those requests lead to two judgments by Administration that the questioned posts were civil, then any subsequent request by Poster A about Poster B, which follows with a judgment that the questioned post was civil, shall result in Poster A being blocked.
Of course, if there are any other conditions that you think would make this fair, they should be written into the rule. (For instance, what if Poster A makes a request for a ruling about a post that he/she perceives to be about him/herself?)
> > whatever we do, I think the person whose post is being questioned should be notified they're being scrutinized, so that they may defend themselves.
> If the complaint isn't upheld, then do they need to defend themselves? If it is, then they'd be notified and could respond (either here or by email)...
I’d like to. And I think others would like to as well, though some may not. Maybe that could be part of the registration process. A question like, “If your posts are brought to the attention of Administration for a ruling on their acceptability would you like to be notified?” If I got a notice, I could defend myself, and I wouldn’t have to keep an eye on Admin to make sure my posts haven’t been challenged.
poster:Minnie-Haha
thread:423270
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/513188.html