Posted by JadeKelly on April 5, 2009, at 21:35:53
In reply to Re: SUGGESTIONS, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2009, at 16:58:59
--
> D/R
> > the current rule system i don't think is optimal for working with how people actually interact, espcially since PB also has people who exists in perpetual unpleasant mood states, are especially impulsive, paranoid, used to not being heard or interpreted charitably, etc., and banning them sucks for the person banned.
> >
> > -PRINCIPLE: less 'civility warning' for honest disagreement, keep it focused to personal disagreements. in policing online fora, CLEAR rules are bad. they need to be enforced with judgement.
> >
> > -PRINCIPLE: punishment needs to be swift and certain for it to be useful. being blocked 20hours later is a long time off, and harsh and not particularly productive since during 100% of the ban time, the person has cooled off, and can't post about things unrelated.
> >
> > -NEW RULE: duputy can tell people who specifically do not get along well to not address each other
> >
> > -NEW RULE: better than 'banning' (the goal is to protect vulnerable, not punish the wicked or 'fix' their cruel natures, right?): let deputy 'edit' the offending post to remove personal hostility, and replace with extra politeness. save the bans for bigger cases.
> >
> > -GOAL: since what the person wants is to express themself, ban doesn't really work well. knowing their communication will have hostility removed, people might self-censor a bit more when they see something that makes them angry.
> >
> > -d/r
>
>BOB
Thanks for giving this some thought and suggesting some alternatives. I do realize that it can be a challenge to be civil when in perpetually unpleasant mood states, etc. And that it can suck to be blocked. REPEAT=NO CHANGE
>
> Disagreeing in and of itself isn't considered uncivil. It can be hard to balance being predictable and using judgment. Blocked posters don't necessarily stay cool 100% of the time they're blocked. =NO CHANGE
>
> Swifter might be better in some ways, but deputies can't be here all the time. And it would give posters less time to apologize or otherwise work things out on their own, which I'd much prefer. REALLY, BOB, CAUSE THATS EXACTLY WHAT JUST HAPPENED TO ME AND I STILL HAD A 2WK BLOCKSORRY, AGAIN=NO CHANGE
>
> Under certain conditions, posters can already be asked not to post to certain other posters:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
>
> I think it's nice when posters themselves replace hostility with politeness. Sometimes friendly input from other posters is more effective than input, no matter how friendly, from the administration.NO=CHANGE
>
> Again, be the change you wish to see. Show other posters how they might interpret things more charitably. Encourage them to apologize. Suggest they not address those they can't get along with. Help them avoid being blocked. A post in time saves nine.=NO CHANGE
>
> Bob"It takes two to tango"...(Fayeroe, out of context)
Bob:
"Hmm, and maybe in addition to hurt and anger, my unavailability also triggers longing?"
You did NOT just say that to Fayeroe. I think I just threw up in my mouth. Dude, you got issues.
-You implied that maybe greenleaf was looking to you to fulfil some kind of "Daddy Issues"?
Are you insane? No really. You are creeping me out. Does it trigger us when you aren't here? He*l no, don't you get it? It triggers us when EACH OTHER arent here.Go far far away Bob please. Just stop the blocks before you go. Bye Bye!
Jade***Jade***Jade***Jade***Jade***Jade***Jade****
poster:JadeKelly
thread:888433
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/888888.html