Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 1:45:57
In reply to Re: wording of public 'rephrasing requests', posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 17:06:23
> > I agree, bullies need to be checked. But here, that's my role. And the role of posters is to support and educate.
>
> I can accept that, but it highlights the different kind of "ownership" you have from the posters here & the way it potentially infantalizes community members, no matter how nice a Mr. Rogers you are. Probably an insoluble problem in a space like this.
>
> chujoe> It would be ideal if everyone who experiences your ostracization turned the situation around to a positive. ... Some newer members may be new and not realize making 'generalizations' in casual speech or pointing out, for example, someone who posts with bullying intent, are uncivil acts.
>
> As for me personally, I'd rather individually address someone directly to settle a conflict or potential conflict rather than asking you or being forced to accept your 'coming to the rescue'. I've done it before and have seen others do it without escalations. I've seen alot of apologies to one another recently-to clarify misunderstandings or perceptions of negative feelings associated with mere disagreements. That seems to work, though I can certainly see how things can progress to greater conflict.
>
> violetteI agree, some community members will feel infantilized if constrained, and that's a problem, since IMO some constraints are necessary.
But I oversimplified. Their *primary* role is to support and educate, but they can also do a lot to help this site run smoothly:
They can help orient newer members. Everyone receives some orientation during the registration process, but it can be a lot to process and retain.
They can encourage others to interpret things more charitably and not to address those they can't get along with. Interacting with others may be frustrating, staying civil may be a challenge, and new skills may be required. They can help others develop those skills.
They certainly can address others directly to resolve (or, even better, to avoid) conflicts (as long as they're civil, since IMO being uncivil increases the risk of escalation).
Before others are blocked, they can show them how they might rephrase or suggest they apologize. After they're blocked, they can try to help them turn it into a positive, for example, by replacing shame with mature guilt.
And of course they can volunteer to be deputy administrators themselves.
--
> I see the manner in which you ostracize a person as shaming.
Why do you see the result as shame as opposed to guilt?
> > Guilt is believing that one has done something bad; shame is believing that one is bad.
http://www.psychsight.com/ar-shame.html
> I am not claiming that bringing this up is all about benevolence...the hypervigilance, trying to 'prevent' harm to others, or whatever you call the behavior - is pretty common for some survivors of childhood abuse. My intentions are generally good, but I do admit I have influential heuristics intertwined with my thoughts - like everyone else on the planet.
>
> violetteI understand you want to make the site better, and I appreciate your input -- and self-reflection. Might heuristics like that also lead survivors of childhood abuse to want to protect others from mature guilt?
Bob
"a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind" -- The New York Times
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:951716
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/952471.html