Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's response to aspects of NikkiT2's post

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 10:06:21

In reply to Re: Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by NikkiT2 on October 12, 2006, at 0:53:02

Friends,
It is written here,[...It is not saying a problem will be *ignored*. It is saying that x and y don't have to deal with it, but that z will...]
I have read the FAQ regarding the policy in question here and can not find where it says that if z is the owner/moderator here, that he >will< (deal with it) in the same time frame as the deputy as being then and not, let's say, a week or two later.
If the policy does have that in it, that could make a huge difference, but I can not find a statement in that policy that says that z (will) deal with it in the same time frame as the deputy.
This could bring up some aspects of this policy here. For instance, the polcy has a title,[...Why do you have depuuty administrators? What do they do?...]
The function of the deputies is then defined as;
A. they keep an eye on what's going on
B. they intervene by sanctioning in 3 ways
And an impotant aspect IMO of this polcy is that it is stated,[...their actions are subject to review by the owner/moderator {and could be reversed}.
So by the nature of the defining of the functions and procedures of the deputies, it is plainly visible that they can use their discretion, and that if they are wrong, then the owner/moderator could could reverse their sanction.
The function of the deputy administrators is to keep an eye on what's going on and sanction uncivil statements in one of 3 ways as listed in the FAQ. By leaving a statement that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings unsanctioned, there could be that others could have the potential to think that the statements are civil during the time that the deputies are posting without sanctioning the statment in question, yet leaving the statement in question unsanctioned and the owner/moderator is in a place where he does not have consistant internet access that could keep him from posting for a week or more. The time that it could take for z to intercede, if z is the owner/moderator, could be weeks, and then could not z also let the statement stand? I think that this could be prevented by the deputy sanctioning the post on the basis as to if the statement in question has the potential to lead Jews to feel accused or put down as per the past practice where it has already been determined that the statemebnt in question is uncivil. Then letting z reverse the sanction if they are wrong.
If anyone would like to email with me to see the posts in question where the issue as to if they are civil or not had already been determinad in the past practice, you could email me if you like at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:693800
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/694111.html