Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 15:23:20
> It is nothing at all like an apology. It is pretending after the fact that something didn't happen. It is trying to distort everyone's sense of reality into believing that what they see is not actually what they see.
>
> I proposed that the original post be available by a link. That would be closer to a formal retraction of words that can't be taken back. It's a way for administration to avoid acting on incivility, like an apology, and like urging others to convince people to apologize. But it would not mess with people's reality. The reality of what actually happened. *Again, this is particularly important because you introduce the measure as a way to deal with incivility.* I think a good many of us are familiar with spouses or parents or others who act one way in private and another in public. People who harm us then deny that it ever happened. People who try to tell us that whatever we think happened didn't really happen.> You seem to see this as a face saving alternative to an apology to those who do not wish to make the concession of apologizing.
>
> I'm ok with that. I'm ok with considering a retraction as a statement that someone realizes they oughtn't to have posted something.
>
> I'm certainly ok with people editing technical issues in their post. Putting in their real name, correcting medication names, grammar or spelling errors, or clarifying something that seems difficult to understand on re-reading.> Admin or other posters could even notify people privately about posts that are not direct attacks on others and suggest ways to amend them. That way those who feel humiliated at on board pbc's would be able to save face by amending their posts
>
> Dinah> Referring to the original post assures that I can restore my sense of what I read-- and thus check my reaction ( to correct, change or confirm it).
>
> I find this distinctly supportive of my sense of continuity and my ability to depend on either my perceptions, or on the record of what was written. This is the huge advantage, to me, of the non-editing protocol.
>
> On the other hand, people can speak impulsively and then regret that they've posted their immediate reaction. So there's value in letting them revise, and giving them a chance to come to a more considered response.
>
> These values are obviously in conflict and I suppose it's a question of which is more important. Or how to meet both needs of the community-- for a stable reality and a chance to be their best self, and to be protected from each other's--and their own-- momentary outbursts.
>
> I'm not personally worried about bullying or gaslighting-- imo, anyone who's doing that could be identified and actions could be taken to protect everyone. And I also find myself believing that most, if not all, posters here really are struggling with many issues and, when hurtful things are said, people often don't do it with a bad heart, even if they're upset at the moment.
>
> I also see that we don't really have any current deputies, and that this might permit babble to be self-sustaining, ie to function more smoothly with minimal moderation. So, perhaps it's a modus vivendi. Since people have said it would help them feel more safe, more in control, and less vulnerable to being banned, it again might prevent pbcs and blocks-- which, of course, have always been the greatest source of conflict here.
>
> Nadezda> At first, I admit, I was kind of fussed to see edits etc.
> But then I became accustomed to them and trusted why they edited. I generally have only used the edit function for when I have accidentally sent a post B4 I'd thot it thru or finished correcting it.
> Also, this site is a mental health site, and has many w/dissociative issues, so the edit, delete function is much appreciated.
>
> muffledDinah, thanks for explaining more. I think I see now, one concern is that people might deny what they originally posted. My intent isn't of course to facilitate denial, but I see how that could happen. And how it would be crazy-making. And how keeping the original text available would protect against that.
Since this is a support group, I do think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for revising. But as a backup, deputies and I could access the copy of the original saved by the server (it would be available to us, but not to everyone) and see if false information was posted about it, which would be considered uncivil. (At the same time, it would also be considered uncivil for other posters to post anything that could lead the original poster to feel accused or put down.)
I think that would be a reasonable way to rebalance how the needs of this community are met. Babble might be more self-sustaining, and if necessary, administrative actions could still be taken.
--
> For me, 24 hours seems to much, mostly because it creates the time for many people to read the post, who aren't yet intimately connected to the conflict, but who may be drawn into the swirl of emotions--but who don't post. So the post could remain unanswered, even though many have read and reacted to it. This seems unhelpful, as it creates a confusion and contradictory experiences among potential responders-or even non-posting readers--about what was and wasn't said.
>
> NadezdaThat's true, those who didn't see the original would have an experience different from those who did. To some extent, those who didn't would need to try to accept not knowing something. OTOH, the more people who did see it, the easier it should be to find out, so maybe there's the possibility of *less* confusion, too?
--
> bringing in the community-- whatever its potential for creating more uproar, which I think is substantial-- might be worth it in the long run.
I agree, and that's why I started this discussion.
> One other important thing-- I do strongly stress that if you do make a change, it would be best to explain in greater detail than you have a habit of doing, why you're doing it, and the effects you hope to achieve. Perhaps a session on the chat one evening for interested parties to talk with you in person would be productive-- and would give people the sense that you're acting in their and babble's best interest, not arbitrarily imposing rules from above.
>
> NadezdaI agree, and I'm trying to explain now. I'd be open to a chat, too, but people would have to be available at that particular time, and it wouldn't automatically be recorded like this thread.
I hope you all had a good Thanksgiving. Sorry about not replying sooner. I'm thankful for your trust and patience,
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:660662
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/927248.html