Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2010, at 16:08:48
In reply to uncivil posts....., posted by twinleaf on December 4, 2010, at 9:00:21
> :
> "Remember, a block can be the result of a minor infraction, but if it's long, that's the result of a long pattern of uncivil posts".
>
> Bob
>
> All of the posts for which I have received blocks were about changes which might make Babble more vital and thriving. I was about to receive a block of one year for using the word "outlandish" to describe a block given another civil protester. All of my blocks were given because Bob found some word in my posts that he claimed made him feel "put down". No other posters were ever involved; I could never know what he would happen to find uncivil. I finally felt so hounded and unfairly singled out for punishment that I could not stay here.
>
> I'm here right now because I thought some of the administrative changes spearheaded by Solstice were very promising. I noticed that Bob, far from punishing civil protesters like me as he has done in the past, was showing interest and responsiveness. I think it is wonderful that he is willing to set up a Council which would review and modify blocks, and I hope there will be enough community interest to make it a reality.
>
> I am definitely willing to let bygones be bygones if we are moving into a new era where Bob shares some responsibility with us in the running of the community. But I did want to remind those who think the present block system is fair of what happened to me. I will never be able to believe that I have ever been uncivil to Bob, even though he apparently thinks so. ; No amount of lengthy blocks can change my mind on that point. There is no point blocking me for a year could serve other than inflicting emotional distress and punishment on me, While in the past Bob has cited punishment as one of the legitimate reasons for long blocks of repeat offenders, I doubt that he would want to give it as a reason now. I think my situation is a very powerful example of the dangers of one-person rule, and also of how much harm long, idiosyncratic blocks can do, and why the blocking system urgently needs changing.
>
> As Bob, Solstice and others move ahead, I want to give my strong support to their efforts.
>
> twinleaf,
You wrote,[...a word...he (Mr. Hsiung) claimed made him feel "put down"...emotional distress..one-person rule...harm...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. Let us look at Mr. Hsiung's TOS here in relation to what could be considerd to be a foundation of his thinking that he uses to administer the community here. It reads:
**** I want to be open to feedback, but if you could also please try to accept what I decide and trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for the community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks
****
Now if you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
1A. Do you have the knowledge of the historical significance of the statement here?
2A. Do you know the names of the people who said what could be considerd to be the same thing?
1B. Do you know what happened to those that led their country under the foundation that the statement has the potential to purport?
2B. Do you know if there is a country or community today that has the same type of thinking from it's leaders that is stated here? If so, could you post the name of it here?
1C. If he is open to feedback, does that mean that he {will} reply to the person requesting the feedback? If not, what in your opinion could be the purpose of the statement and is that a sound mental-health concept?
2C. In regards to doing what he thinks will be good for this community as a whole;
1. do you see that the statement says {will be} and not {is}? You see, what {will be} good for this community as a whole could mean that in the future it will be good for this community. That means that one can not determine until then as to if what he does was good or not untill that time happens. This gives people a hope that what he does will be good. For time will be the judge as to what he does was in fact good or not for this community. Historically, leaders used this gramatical structure to offer a dream or hope for good to result to them from the leaders policy. People then could have a hope, or a false hope. They could not know the future, could they? So the leader then says to try and trust him for that hope of what he does will be good. If the hope was a false hope, based only on trusting the leader, then historically, we could look at those leaders that used the same gramatical structure in what they told their people to see what happened to the people, and the country, that embraced the hope. When that happened, their minds could be molified to think that they to do whatever they wanted to do because they thought that at the end, the ends could justify the means. (let the reader understand).
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:971091
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972479.html