Posted by pseudoname on March 12, 2006, at 15:36:13
In reply to Re: links, posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 16:06:02
Thanks, Bob, for ruling on two of the questions I raised. I appreciate having a better idea of what you want. I will state the conclusions I drew.
> if it would need a warning, it's better just not to link to it.
> it would be too much to require that pages that that page links to be OK, too
As stated, those rulings allow a hyperlink —without any warnings— to a Google results page (for certain keywords) that itself includes a link to a relevant un-civil page.
I think much better, and also allowed under these rulings, would be to give the same keyword information as plain text so that the reader's independent Google search could find the page. That would be clearly civil under these rules because NO link is involved AND the Google results page itself is civil (even if the link on it may not be).
I will supply warnings anyway — not just about civility, but also for "triggery" content.
This seems much safer for the reader than the Babblemail-request method you suggest. You said
> How about if people ask others to babblemail them if they're interested in something like that?
I can't tell if that's an actual question or just a gentle way of ending the discussion. But I'll answer that some problems in using Babblemail that way would be:
•Interested LURKERS can't use it
•Interested SHY PEOPLE won't use it
•Interested friends who don't want to add to the poster's workload, etc, won't use it
•It doesn't require a warning, so the link could STILL be hurtful to the reader!
•It violates the principle that all posting rules apply to BabblemailLike I said, I appreciate clarity about what's required. Your commitment to civility has made Babble possible, even if the details of policy and enforcement can sometimes be confusing or upsetting. Thanks; be well.
poster:pseudoname
thread:617098
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/619415.html