Posted by alexandra_k on January 8, 2006, at 15:45:06
In reply to Re: Too bad attending no longer appeals to me. » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on January 8, 2006, at 14:58:58
i guess my understanding is...
(though maybe people will tell me to check my facts and read the archives lol)
i guess my understanding is...that there never used to be civility rules.
but then people did start posting stuff...
and dr bob did start stepping in and saying 'hey lets try and have a civil discourse here people'and as the boards got bigger...
there was a need to do that more often.
and so the civility rules have kind of evolved in response to that need...
rather than having been all worked out before hand and then imposed onto the community as some kind of social experiment...i mean...
yes there are borderline grey cases where it can be hard to know what to say...
but i think there are also cases where by far the majority of people would agree.
and the civility rules do seem to capture the latter cases.
and i guess what people dispute is the grey ones.
where it might be acceptable to one board...
but not acceptable to another (ie this one)but...
do you think there should be rules in the first place?
that is a question that i have for people.
if i were to say
'i think you are a stupid person and i wish you would just go away'
would you want that to be acceptable to the forum?
would you want there to be complete freedom of speech?because if you don't think that it acceptable...
if you don't think we should have complete freedom of speech (to attack or accuse another)then how are you going to systematise that so that you can apply it consistently to everybody?
because i guess... that is the dilemma that dr-bob was faced with...
how to decide what would be blocked / warned and what wouldn't...
i think he is doing his best...
that he has done his best to devise a fair system...that isn't to say that there are no instances of unfairness.
he isn't perfect.
but i believe he is doing his best.
i also think...
that the civility rules have evolved a little over time...
and that the block length thing has evolved a little over time too...regarding who gets to decide...
i really do believe...
that he does want our input
that he is interested in what we have to say.there was a thread a while back...
i do think you would have liked it zeugma...about plato and leaders...
in the beginning people live happily enough...
then chaos starts to ensue...
one leader rises up...
there is a rule by one
the challenge is for that leader to act in the interests of the group
but over time...
inevitably
(plato thinks)
that rule will be challenged...
and it will move to a rule by a small group.so...
if plato is right...
i guess thats where things are headed.
but what that means... is there needs to be some people who are prepared to accept that yeah he is doing his best... which isn't to say he might not be misguided at times ;-) but yeah he is doing his best... but that there might be a better way... and to make those suggestions. of a better way. if you don't like the present system with determinations on 'grey' cases then what would a better one be?
i think people will have more luck with jumping on board and trying to change from within than trying to overthrow...
cause if we overthrow him then what are we going to do????
in case you are interested...
the small group is supposed to evolve into a large group...
then the large group...
is supposed to grow in number unti the community internalises the rules and nobody needs to enforce becasue people self regulate
then eventually chaos
and one leader emerges.
and round and round it goes.
just my mangled memory...
(and there is no law to say plato must be right)
:-)
but thuso was going to tell us about different structures of management...
:-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:5509
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/596672.html