Posted by Larry Hoover on March 18, 2006, at 8:38:11
In reply to My brain hurts, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 22:54:56
Sometimes the pain is so bad, I can't think. I'm on nine meds for pain, and it's not working. Last night I couldn't string two thoughts together, and I'm sorry to anybody who tried to make sense of what I was rambling on about.
I can't apologize to that other party, because that's illegal here, but I would if I could. I am concerned about her, not about me.
I intended to post a post more like this one, last night, but I found myself incapable of doing so. Again, mea culpa.
The points I was trying to bring out:1. Hair-splitting arguments indicate bad rules have been made. I intended my first post re: violation of the DNP to draw attention to the hair-splitting issue.
2. In cases of hair-splitting, I would hope that the penalties incurred, if any, would be equally as thin. 24-hour "chillin'" blocks ought to be invoked, if any penalty is to be invoked at all. Anything more than that, is uncivil. (More on incivility in a later post, Bob willing.) So, I meant the two posts to be considered together. One, the rule is bad. Two, the usual penalties are unfair.
The first resort ought to be clarification. Civility is about manners. An opportunity to clarify is mannerly. Clarification can be invoked by either party, in a mannerly discussion.
3. For clarification's sake, my subject line which included the phrase "saved me the trouble" contains ellipsis, and ought explicitly to have said, "that saved me the trouble".
4. I had intended to impose a "cooling off" DNP of my own (my only option, presently), and only upon a moment's reflection did I realize that by not explicitly asking for a mutual DNP, I was not going to obtain the results I desired. So, I clarified in the next post, made immediately following the former one.
Why is all this even at issue?
I've been studying the administrative procedures at great depth, because even though I consider myself to be an intelligent and well-read person, I struggle to comprehend the implementations used here. I read a lot of law. I read a lot. And nowhere on the planet am I more mystified, generally, than I am here, when I try to negotiate *these* administrative matters.
I'd like a second look at pretty much everything we do, with respect to blocks. I'm not asking to change everything. I'm asking for another look. I saw my opportunity to use an example right before our eyes. I didn't anticipate a bad drug reaction, and my subsequent incapacity. I'm sorry (Babble at large).
Back to DNPs, explicitly.The rule was originally drafted to specifically address harassment. As I recall, one poster felt that another poster was "following her around", and commenting on every post she made. All were civil posts, but they became unwelcome.
Since that time, I have clear recollections of the rule being used only twice in that way.
There were discussions about whether a DNP might be a reasonable way to deal with hurt feelings, too. Civil posts can still be provocative, after all. I've studied the discussions in absolute thoroughness, and: a) I saw no evidence of a concensus; b) I saw no evidence that the matter had been properly drafted as a proposal to put to the members of Babble overtly, for further discussion; c) the FAQ was not ammended; and, d) I saw no evidence that Bob had even made a final decision, unless he wishes question marks to become a mark of certainty.
In brief: a) cliques ought not to change rules, and not tell anybody; and b) if (a), nobody should be penalized because of (a).
Apart from all of those issues, using DNP requests to create "chillin' zones" is bad policy. I think it fosters unhealthy coping strategies, and serves to create mountains out of molehills.
A better alternative, to manage these episodes of hurt feelings, would be to implement an ignore function. Here's why.
1. Under the current policy, the only way to create a cooling off zone is to make a public scene out of the situation. That is the antithesis to civility. An ignore button strategy would be invisible to other people. Respecting privacy is a major component of civility.
2. It requires the externalization of locus of control. An external locus of control is other people or outside agencies being responsible for a person's well-being, or absence thereof. It's like laying blame, or showing fault. In contrast, an internal locus of control places the individual himself as the primary agent of responsibility. Crudely, it is "I'll be happier if that other person doesn't do X" vs. "I don't want to see any of that person's posts".
3. People may simply disagree on any topic, but that's nobody's fault. However, managing one's feelings about a disagreement is one individual's responsibility. DNP, used for chilling, reverses the onus. E.g., the fact that I have external plumbing does not make ME responsible for another individual's reactions to men in general. Yet, a DNP could do so.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/621616.html