Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 11:28:37
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:08:49
> I can only speak for myself, but the thing that changed my attitude was role inflation.
>
> Originally the civility buddy idea was just that. A public offer to be available for at least some of the traditional role of civility buddy. I had volunteered to do that and to coordinate whatever needed coordinated.
>
> Then all of a sudden, civil buddies were being talked about as something that I had never volunteered to do or to coordinate. And that I had no interest in doing.Those were just ideas. Nothing more. The civility buddy assistance that you were dealing with has already been in place. You were coordinating bringing in more from the community to serve as civility buddies. The definition of that was not changed. I had ideas - but that is all they were. Nobody changed anything. I certainly don't have that power.
> As a result, I not only was upset at the new definition, but I wanted to resign what I had agreed to do.I don't want to feel like your desire to resign was my fault, but it seems that is what's implied. That my ideas upset you makes me feel like it's not okay to have ideas... at least it's not okay to share them. I'm clear on that now.
> That objection on my part could be solved by changing the name of the new position.As far as I know, there isn't a 'new position.' Ideas for possible expansions, but only ideas - which are subject to rejection.
> It isn't really a civility buddy's part to be screening posts as a requirement of posting anyway. That's hardly a "buddy". If the name of the new position were changed to civility screener, or civility checker, or civility editor, or parole officer, I'd quit being upset about that part of it.Please stop being upset. I took your point when you first made it - and since that time, when I've referred to civility buddies, I was referring to it as it currently exists - not with any 'expansions.' All I have are ideas and suggestions. Again.. I don't have the power to make changes. I don't mind my ideas beeing rejected as not practical, or not workable.. but I do wish I didn't feel that shareing my ideas is unwelcome.
> The same thing happened with the Council. At first it seemed that Dr. Bob was describing a parole board. Where after a portion of a block was served, the board could be contacted by those posters willing to take the responsibility of living by site guidelines and arrange for a way for those posters to come back to the community early. I've always thought willingness to abide by site guidelines was a better judge of whether someone should come back than the passage of time.
>
> Then it started to sound like appeals court. Where Dr. Bob's decisions could be overturned and his blocks deemed unjustified. That is something different entirely. The first involves helping posters return in a way where they take responsibility for their posting. The second is about Dr. Bob and his judgments. The second is substituting the judgments of the council for the judgments of Dr. Bob.Some of this may just be semantics. After I boiled my ideas about Council down, I think what I've talked about most recently has been the same in essence as what you're describing. However, in my attempt to include the people who react to some of Bob's blocks as being unjust, unmerited, and using too low of a threshhold, I used similar language - which may have led to it being perceived as different. At the core of it, it would seem unreasonable to believe that it's not possible for Bob to unjustifiably block a poster - to have an error in judgment. If a poster is indeed blocked for something that even folks on Council didn't understand, that poster will be saying "hey - I don't know why Bob took it as uncivil - but here's what I meant.." and Council easily sees that Bob may have misunderstood the poster... so Council remedies that by releasing the block, because they have checked and verified that the poster was not coming from an uncivil place, and clearly does not intend to be uncivil. I don't see it as substituting the judgments of Council for the judgments of Bob as much as I see it as being full recognition on the part of both Council and Bob that there will be times that he has issued a block that is unnecessarily long given the contrition of the justifiably blocked poster, and there are times Bob will issue a block based on a judgment made in haste, or made without enough background information - which Council has better access to. Those cases could fairly be described as 'unjust blocks.'
> I am for the former but against the latter.
>
> I hope that clarifies *my* change of attitude. It has nothing to do with personalities and everything to do with beliefs.And sometimes we misunderstand the beliefs to which we object. That's why talking is what keeps things fluid. Ideas are just ideas - like a smorgasborg of options from which to choose. I never meant for my ideas to be taken as if they were a 'given.'. I think in terms of 'development plans' whereby a developer submits to the planners of a jurisdiction a proposal for a development. It goes back and forth dozens of times for revisions by both the developer's architect and the jurisdiction's planners. Each side tweaking it and making proposals for adjustments. The jurisdiction's planners have the final word on everything.. but it has to go through a bunch of different departments.. signage, parking, landscaping, utilities, transportation, etc. The plans go back to the developer with 'comments,' and after addressing the 'comments,' developer submits it again with 'revisions.' It can take forever to get through the process - and once plans are approved, it's still not over. During the construction phase, the jurisdiction will send inspectors out, and adjustments will continue to be made along the way. Until it's actually built, it's all just ideas, subject to tweaking. I guess my approach to this was like that... but the proposals I submitted were perceived as final development plans that had the jurisdiction's approval (having sent proper notification to adjacent landowners so they could come to the hearing to voice objections).
I don't think it's *me* that's being rejected.. but I do wish my ideas were welcomed as ideas. I'm thinking it may have been better for the community if I had remained a cave-dweller.
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:964630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972423.html