Posted by Lou PIlder on February 8, 2007, at 15:04:43
In reply to Re: For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 10:41:31
> You know, I can and have explained the rationale for my deputorial thought processes many times over the years. Unfortunately, I don't always find that I possess the ability to answer in a way that is helpful, but I'll give it another shot.
>
> I rarely use the Please Rephrase, and when I do it's because someone's new or someone is obviously struggling to stay within the civility guidelines and has missed the mark a bit. It has nothing to do with favoritism. It is because I consider that in this circumstance, the Please Rephrase is more appropriate.
>
> IMHO, it actually is a more taxing "Please" than "Please be civil." It often requires a lot of back and forthing to get at what Dr. Bob is asking for, and it often requires someone compromising what a poster wishes to say in a way they'd rather not do.
>
> I guess I understand PBC's from both angles. As a poster, I'm terrified of getting one myself, and would see them as punitive. As a deputy, I don't usually see them as punitive at all. I see them more as reminders that a thread has gotten heated and people need to step back a bit or as education as to what's allowable under the site civility rules if that's applicable in any given situation.
>
> Perhaps this isn't a helpful explanation, but I tried.
>
> Dinah, acting as both deputy and as posterFriends,
It is written here,[...the rationale for my deputy thought processes...when I (use the please rephrase)its because someone is new or (a struggling poster)...has missed the mark {a bit}...perhaps this isn't a helpfull explanation...].
The poster that innitiated this discussion asked for {Dr. Hsiung} to clarify what the differentiating aspect is that could be used in a case cited when there are two statements that could lead one to feel put down and one was told to please rephrase and the other to please be civil.The grammatical structure of the above identifies two rationales that the deputy uses to use {please rephrase}.
A.the poster is new
B.a struggling poster has missed the mark {a bit}.
In looking at (A), a new poster, the rational takes into the consideration as to if the >poster< is new. If this is the case, could not there be a statement from the administration something like:
1.>>please rephrase what is *uncivil*<< such as XXX?
2.>>Since you are a new member, *uncivil* statements are allowed to be rephrased, so please rephrase the *uncivil* statement XXX.
If this could be implemented here, could it not be also put in the TOS here in the FAQ? If so, it would let the forum know that the statement in question, if it is uncivil, is still notated as being uncivil, but it is not being accounted to the poster in the same as it would to a non-new poster, if the please rephrases have a different accountability to the member. Does this not then also bring up the question as to what differentiates a new member from a non-new mwmber? If so, could that be defined in the TOS also?
But what if there are statements here that could be deemed to be uncivil and posted to by the administration to that menber to {please rephrase} and was posted by a member that has been here for years?
Now let us go on and look at the grammatical structure of (B), [...a struggling poster has missed the mark {a bit}...] in relation to the post of the member that innnitiated this discussion relevant to [...two standards...favoritism or discrimination...]
Lou
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:730896
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/731153.html