Posted by Lou Pilder on May 7, 2009, at 22:06:04
In reply to Subject line change » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 11:17:10
> I don't see those examples as being the same of Dr. Bob asking that we be respectful of each other and at least minimally respectful of him.
>
> I'm not sure I'd want to be somewhere where that wasn't expected. Isn't it what everyone deserves, everywhere? For myself, the rules seem closer to "Don't ask someone to sit on the back of the bus because they have a different color skin. Respect that person, and treat them as you would wish to be treated yourself. If you do ask someone to sit at the back of the bus, you will be asked to leave this bus. You are welcome to return when you agree to ride in accordance with bus rules."
>
> I understand that people don't see it that way, but for the life of me I don't understand why. What is so bad about Dr. Bob wanting people to be treated respectfully on this board, and asking people, if they choose to post on this board, to please post respectfully.
>
> I also don't think we're victims here. We can protest, to an amazing degree really. Dr. Bob can and does change his mind, if appealed to in such a way that he comes to agree with what posters are saying. I think that's not unreasonable. Dr. Bob listens to posters. Sometimes he agrees. Sometimes he doesn't. He has that right. And he has that responsibility. And yes, with that responsibility comes power.
>
> However, we do have power here. When I was growing up, my mother was more an explainer than a punisher, and with a few memorable exceptions, when I received consequences for my behavior, they really were consequences for my behavior. But when I did have to go to my room, or wasn't able to do something I wanted to do, I was expected to verbalize what I had done and take responsibility for my choices. We all, as adults, have choices. Once we have knowledge of the guidelines of any situation, it is our choice to follow them or not. If we choose not to, there are consequences. If we choose to, there are consequences. It's up to us to choose the consequences we prefer.
>
> I suppose it could be said that I'm just saying this because I agree with Dr. Bob. In this case, to an extent, I do. I do believe we should be respectful to each other, and minimally respectful to Dr. Bob. I do recognize that there is no other way, on an internet bulletin board, to enforce site guidelines. And I don't think we're passive victims, whatever choices we make here. We're adults. We can choose to follow site guidelines, possibly while simultaneously trying to change them. We can choose to not follow site guidelines, and accept the consequences of that decision. Even wear them as a badge of honor if that is our choice. Or we can choose to leave. What we can't do is choose to change site guidelines without Dr. Bob's consent.
>
> I do realize that there are times when the consequences do not seem to be in line with the choices we've made. I think Dr. Bob is aware of that and does try, to the best of his ability, to improve that. I know deputies do as well. I am also aware that sometimes people don't understand the guidelines well enough to recognize that they are not complying with them. Perhaps there could be better ways to explain them, including posters reaching out to fellow posters.
>
Dinah,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in that you wrote,[...there is no other way on an internet bulletin board to enforce site guidlines...]
I had suggested a way that used a rating after poster's names that reflected enforcing of rules and such. My way was to start each member with a 1500 rating. Then infractions of rules could be weighted and deducted accordingly from a poster's rating.
For instance, suppose a member broke the accuse/put down rule. I would then deduct 50 points from the member's rating. Then let's say a member posted more than 3 consecutive posts. I would deduct 1/2 of one point from the member's rating. Let's say a member used a word that was for flatulence. I would deduct 1 point for that.
Now as time ran, the deductions would be accumaltive. And let's say that a member reached the low rating of 1200. I would suspend the member for 10 days. Thwn let's say the rating fell to 900. I would suspend the member for 2 weeks. The let's say that the member's rating fell to 750. I would appoint a deputy to have all posts from that member reviewd before it was posted, and not permit a post by that member unless it was acceptable.
Now there are good psychological/emotional reasons IMO for my way that if one would like to have dialog by email, I would like for them to email me.
Let;s consider a dialog between two ficticious posters, Helen Weilz and Seymore Hienz. Helen has a rating of 760 after many altercations with members. Seymore has a 1495 rating.
They both are in a contentious, heated dialog over the merits/demerits of as to if heredity or environment is the cause of particular disorders.
Helen does it again and insults Seymore by calling his position xxxxx. This is a 50 point deduction per the put down/accuse rule. Helen now must submit all posts to a deputy for approval.
Now I think that this is another way in particular for a mental health forum. Could you agree? If not, could you list the reasons that it is not another way?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:888433
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/894713.html