Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2009, at 5:05:32
In reply to Re: What we hope to see....(long!), posted by muffled on December 9, 2009, at 15:41:58
> How would a reader be alerted when an author has edited their posts?
>
> - ScottFor example, the original post is 1234.html and says:
> > You're offensive!
The poster decides to edit that. In the meantime, 3 posts have been posted elsewhere. The original post, 1234.html, becomes:
> > revised, see: 1238.html
The new post is 1238.html and says:
> > I feel offended!
> this would be a way to lessen or avoid hurt feelings. I don't even understand that.
>
> DinahThe idea is the latter is an I-statement, so it would avoid hurt feelings if the other poster hadn't seen the original and lessen them if they had.
> Aren't you assuming that the author will edit their posts before the reader can have their feelings hurt?
>
> - ScottNot necessarily, revising could be a face saving alternative to an explicit apology and an implicit acknowledgement that what was originally posted oughtn't to have been.
--
> Deletion/amendment *is* a denial. Not a verbal one, but a denial.
I don't see revising as denying. Revise: 1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript>. Deny: 1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>. Maybe we should agree to disagree?
> You ... reject without explanation a proposal that actually does give posters significantly more control over what they post
In your proposal, the original isn't revised, so how does that give posters more control or lessen or avoid hurt feelings?
> > Where did you get the idea that my goal was avoiding administrative consequences for incivility?
>
> Because you proposed it as a way to deal with incivility. Not as a way to correct technical issues, but a way to deal with incivility.Right, with the goal of lessening or avoiding hurt feelings.
> Disappearing posts (or disappearing them and substituting them with other posts - per your own description of revision) does not represent reality.
It would represent an incomplete reality. I do see now that for some people representing as much reality as possible may be more important than whether what's represented is civil.
> I don't think I'll ever understand *why* you would mess with reality, mess with something that made Babble special, for the reasons you have given.
I've done my best to explain. You don't understand or you don't agree?
> Even if they regret it later, there is damage in the meantime. An ice bullet causes just as much damage, even if it later disappears. IMO, the wound is harder to heal if it is hidden. At least it is for me.
Yes, there's damage in the meantime. But a bullet that melts wouldn't keep causing pain like a bullet that stays solid. Which is why they take out bullets.
> Incivility by one person is less painful to me and more easily forgiven than incivility facilitated by others, in particular the authorities.
>
> DinahPeople may speed more if they wear seat belts. Would you say seat belts facilitate speeding?
--
> It may be that as a long term, if temporarily inactive, deputy, it's easier for me to remember the times when people were less than supportive, because my attention was drawn to those times.
>
> But it may be that as a long term deputy, if temporarily inactive, I have a greater understanding of what does happen and the potential for how things can be used by those who don't wish to be supportive, or who in anger or under the influence lash out at others and connect.
>
> The fact that other former deputies have contributed to this thread with their own reservations may possibly be because we are aware of what has happened here. But *you* should also be aware of what has happened here. Do you have reason to believe that these things are no longer an issue at Babble?
>
> Dinah> on the site I post on, I think people edit their posts ... cuz we post it and we feel dumb for what we said, or upon re reading the post a little later, we realize it may 'sound' wrong.
>
> seems noboddy here so far is really even interested in editing...so WHY are you persuing this????
>
> muffled> Wouldn't it be better to just let the author submit a follow up post with an automatic "New" flag available for the reader to see? Feelings are bound to be hurt with or without a retro-editing function. Someone can always post an apology. Allowing people to make mistakes and rectify them after the fact is a learning experience. Either allow posts to be deleted or fully editable, or just leave them alone.
>
> Are you trying to eliminate cross-posting and prevent the escalation of conflict? Placing the words "Sorry" or "Apology" in the subject line of a follow up post should do the trick. What do you think?
>
> - Scott> At the moment, it seems as though he is working hard on a solution to a "problem" which only he thinks we have- the need to erase or amend posts. ... Leaving original posts, and adding modified ones, which may include apologies or modified thoughts, seems to have worked just fine.
>
> What is making people feel unsafe? The thing I would put first is the sense of not being heard or understood by Dr. Bob.
>
> twinleafI believe the potential for posters to be less than supportive, or to feel what they say is dumb, or harsh, are issues. How heard or understood by me they feel is an issue, too, but a separate issue. People can already submit a follow-up post and apologize. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't, which is why I believe there's a need for something else. Revising could also be a way to rectify and to learn. It would be a compromise between making posts fully editable and leaving them uneditable.
--
> we would like to hear from Dr. Bob something along the lines of. "yes, I do understand that there are things which I have done which have caused many of you to feel unsafe. I understand that you will not feel safe if I continually misinterpret what you are telling me. I understand, also, that you will feel unsafe if I take actions, without consulting with you, which may result in a loss of your privacy, and which could affect your jobs or personal life. And, finally, I understand that you do not think there are any appropriate reasons for long blocks, and that the fact that I continue to use them causes you to feel unsafe."
>
> twinleafYes, I understand that I and other posters may do things which cause you to feel safe or unsafe. I understand that you may not feel safe if you feel misunderstood by me or other posters. I understand that you may not feel safe if your privacy, your job, or your personal life could be affected. I understand that you may not think there are any appropriate reasons for long blocks, and that the fact that I continue to use them may cause you to feel unsafe.
I join muffled in feeling glad your son respects your privacy. I'd like to redirect discussion about the buttons to that other thread, which I do intend to return to.
--
> I am hoping he could get some help in running this site. Non babbler help. It is not fair to ask babblers to be admin, deps maybe, but not admin.
> IF he would be willing to let them be a full partner and not override their decisions etc.
> Maybe someone else would be willing to take over this site if Bob was willing to let go of it, just kinda be a silent partner or something...
> Then we can get rid of the darn buttons.
>
> MYou'd like a parent on your side?
--
Would any of you be interested in having a babblechat about this? If so, when would be a good time for you?
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:660662
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/928715.html