Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 12:09:47
In reply to Clarifications and explanation » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 8:48:49
Hi Dinah,
Thank you for the long and detailed explanation. And for the support. I mean that.
Perhaps I am confused as to which post of mine was being flagged. Because what I said to garnet was more in line with the "correct" forms of support that you wrote as examples. Perhaps it was in my post to Birdsong that I had deviated from the guidelines? That is likely true.
I do not believe in tough love at all (what I said, in fact to Birdsong). At its worst, it is an awful, and awfully transparent, attempt at pushing someone to do something (I am not referring to anything anyone here has done in espousing that view).
However, in the end, it doesn't matter what post you were referring to. These are always teachable moments. I can see that after cooling off, and reading other responses.
I'm sort of exhausted on the subject, so will leave off here.
Thanks again,
Amelia> > I am still baffled by what about my original post to garnet was challenging in a supportive way, yet not really in accordance w/civility rules.
>
> Dr. Bob is clear that not all types of support are compatible with Babble civility guidelines. The civility guidelines state:
>
> "Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place."
>
> If you think about it in wider terms it may make more sense. Tough love type support generally involves attempting to bring someone to acknowledge something you think they ought to acknowledge because it would be good for them. But it all revolves around the poster's notion of what would be good for another poster. For a couple of examples that may clarify,
>
> I am fat. It would be healthier for me to not be fat. It would be civil under site guidelines to say something like "Dinah, I'm concerned that you have been having health problems lately related to your weight. It really worried me because I really would hate to lose you or have you suffer because of it. If there's any way I can help you improve your wellbeing in this matter, I would really like to try." It would not be civil to say "You're always grousing about your health. The fact is that you are fat. Look at you. Under your skin is pounds and pounds of gelatinous fat. You will continue to be sick until you get off your fat rear and start exercising and watching your weight." The poster may well see that as objectively true, but it is not civil under site guidelines.
>
> Another example would be "You are suffering pain because you have not allowed the Lord into your life. You will continue to be in a hell of your own making until you accept him as your savior." The poster may well see that as being objectively true. But it is not civil under site guidelines.
>
> Site guidelines are widely applied. It would be impossible, and wrong IMO, of Admin to decide that a statement of tough love was or was not civil based on whether we thought the poster was correct.
>
> > Is it because I am not putting all of my statements in the form of "I feel..."? --because at least I have done it once or twice...which is more than the number of times it was done in the posts I have responded to (and I have to say that I am really against using "I feel" statements, so it's a big deal for me to accept the guidelines in that regard to the degree I have).
>
> The civility guidelines give guidance on "I statements".
>
> "It's fine to give others feedback as long as it's constructive. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what the other person might do better rather than what they did "wrong". And it tends to be more conducive to harmony to talk about how you feel than what someone else did, for example, to use an I-statement like "I feel put down by what you said" instead of a you-statement like "you're so arrogant". But don't just word the latter as the former, as in "I feel Dr. Bob has gone overboard". :-)"
>
> Dr. Bob also links a post that explains it further, in that paragraph. However, the link did not work for me. I think this is the post linked.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
>
> Be aware that procedures for reporting an uncivil post have changed since that post, but the parts about I statements are still accurate.
>
> > I am very proud of how I have handled myself, despite what I feel to be some unreasonable and defensive, if not attacking, replies.
>
> It is against board guidelines to call posts "unreasonable and attacking". If you wish to discuss this matter, please use true hypotheticals or discuss it only in generalities, so that you will not be violating site guidelines.
>
> >I have given support to others, set boundaries for myself, stood up for myself and, I might add, stood up for others, and have said that I wouldn't reply to accusations so as not to further escalate the blame game.
>
> It would be better under site guidelines to say that you do not wish to continue this as it does not seem to be productive, for example, rather than calling other posts accusations or referring to an exchange as a blame game. It's great to stand up for others, but doing so in positive terms "I have found xxx's posts to be very informative and helpful." and then notifying administration (which admittedly sometimes involves a bit of patience) about posts you find uncivil is the procedure Dr. Bob asks us to follow. This makes sense if you think about it in global terms, since if everyone characterized others posts in negative terms in an attempt to be supportive or to defend themselves, the sort of situation that you are objecting to tends to happen, and that makes it difficult for Babble to be a place for support and education. I hope that makes sense.
>
> > I feel that the feedback I am getting is not quite fair. I also feel that I deserve positive feedback.
>
> You do indeed. If you believe you are getting feedback not in accordance with site guidelines, please let us know.
>
> > I do, however, really appreciate that you wouldn't want to block me. It is coming to the point where I will make the decision to walk away. I feel I am a valuable member, but I am also feeling like I have to walk on small, very fragile eggshells. I had to do that for a significant portion of my life. I am not interested in doing that any more.
>
> You are a valuable member, and I do appreciate your point of view. I think it adds to Babble. I hope you make the decision to stay at Babble and abide by the civility rules. But if they are not to your taste and you think it would be healthier to go elsewhere, I totally support what's best for you even if I am sad that Babble will lose your voice.
>
> I'm guessing that if you ask, someone will offer to be your civility buddy and help you learn the ins and outs of the rules. The deputies would also rather help you in babblemails than see you blocked, so please feel free to ask us before you post. And if you don't understand the purpose of this or that rule, we'll be happy to explain that on board, as long as you ask in neutral, general, or *truly* hypothetical terms.
>
> I hope this helps. And I strongly suggest you read the civility guidelines, since repeated violations of the civility guidelines will result in a block of one week, with escalating blocks thereafter.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
poster:Amelia_in_StPaul
thread:902064
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902618.html