Posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2003, at 10:46:03
Dr. Bob,
I've had to think for some time about what to say, and how to say it. My anger has dissipated. I know what it is that troubles me so. When I registered at this site, I implicitly accepted certain rules which were to govern my conduct, the conduct of others, and *yours* as well. Refinements and adjustments and clarifications aside, those rules have been seriously compromised. That is unacceptable.
In your paper discussing Psycho-Babble, you have this to say:
"One of the primary functions of a group therapist, and one shared by a group host, is to manage the boundaries of the group. The primary boundary is who may stay and who must leave. In the case of Psycho-Babble, this is determined by whether the one rule, to be civil, is followed.
When posters are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by email, and that would have the advantage of being less embarrassing. If done with sensitivity, however, posting offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity "behind the scenes," and allowing others to contribute to the process."
See: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
The complete article can be downloaded in PDF format.I'm going to emphasize two points. 1. Civility is the only rule. 2. You imply that you believe that activity "behind the scenes" is detrimental, and is to be avoided.
If any decision is ever to be made that does not adhere to the publicly acknowledged rules, it is essential that others contribute to the process, or justice is not seen to be done. In fact, behind the scenes decision making is always a display of favouritism. Such ad hoc modification of the rules should never occur, if the rules are to be respected. Not only have you made an ad hoc decision that clearly violates standards expressed in the FAQ, you have modified a public ruling retroactively. It is an axiom that neither government nor the courts should ever be seen to act arbitrarily or capriciously. You have made two errors, and I am asking you to correct them both.
At the end of March, and during the first two weeks of April, there was significant drama enveloping the Babble community. Some of the
postings were so egregiously inappropriate that you have seen fit to simply strike them from the record. Entire threads have disappeared. I would make explicit reference to events at this point, but I cannot do so, as the evidence is gone.At this point, as an aside, I want to express that I am not in any way meaning to trivialize the emotional impact of the harm inflicted in such an assault, but I'm going to use a word now that is powerfully evocative.....
At that time, I was emotionally raped. My trust and faith that my boundaries would be inviolate has been stolen from me. I will never forget what happened, and the pain is with me still. It will not heal. I am scarred by it. I am forever changed by those events, and I cannot go back to 'before'. As they say in legal circles, "You can't unring the bell."
So, what do we do about it? Imperfect as they may be, we turn to the Rules. Unfortunately, once again, the details appear to have been stricken from the public record, but you have confirmed that a poster was given a block of 16 weeks duration. And, furthermore, that you secretly and arbitrarily reduced that to 12 weeks.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/266887.htmlOn the face of the facts alone, I am asking you to reverse that decision, as it was apparently made without precedent, and in the absence of any input from the group.
If you choose not to do so, I would then ask that you act both in accordance with the generally accepted rules governing parole, and the Rules expressed in your FAQ.
As you yourself suggest your willingness to accept parole as a concept ...then let's apply that concept forthwith.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/273007.htmlDinah:
> create specific criteria for eligibility for parole and include it in your blocking notice.Bob:
Parole is a good analogy. If anyone would like to suggest more specific criteria, I'm open to suggestions...
When a person obtains a reduced sentence, when they are paroled, it always carries with it one strict and inviolate provision. If you 'mess up', you go back and complete your sentence. Moreover, the authorities always tack on a penalty for whatever it is new that you did wrong. Clearly, "Finish the first sentence. Add the second sentence."The banned poster *did* violate parole, Bob. You don't even question that. And, in the same sentence, you reveal knowledge of a new violation of the rules.
From:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/266887.html"Also, I reduced her block at the time from 16 weeks to 12. Hmm, that expired on 7/2, but since she did take a new name, she was able to start posting again on 6/29...
Bob"
From the FAQ:
"If someone's blocked, they can still read what others post, since what's posted is public. If they try to get around being blocked by posting as someone else or having someone else post for them, I block the other posting name, too, and extend the duration of the block."I don't see *any* room for discretion here, nor have I ever seen you fail to apply that rule before.
Also from the FAQ:
"If I see a problem with something someone posts, I usually try to explain what it is I see as the problem. If it's the first time for them, I usually just ask them please to be more careful. If I've already done that, I may block them from posting for a period of time. How long? Usually I start with a week and double it each subsequent time."And, doubling is the norm.
So, applying general standards of parole, that poster should receive the following:
A block of four weeks and three days (the original uncompleted sentence), plus a minimum additional block of thirty two weeks (the normal doubling of the most recent penalty). I'd argue for triple time due to what can only be seen as an intentional circumvention of the rules, but I won't push that (this time).
Fair's fair, Bob. Rules are rules. At least, until such time as we all come to an agreement about what the rules are, or are not.
I'm not arguing that you ought not to have discretion. Nor am I arguing that the rules are written in stone. However, at the time the "offenses" occurred, the rules were clearly those that I have expressed in my post, not the ones you have demonstrated.
If the rules are to have any meaning, they must be consistent, overt (public), subject to public debate (preferably not on a case-by-case basis, but instead, in general terms), and fairly applied (to everyone the same way).
When law is written to suit the particulars of a specific case, it is invariably bad law. It seems unfair, because it is. It always exhibits bias.
If, after debate, we decide to change things in for the future, that's fine with me. However, changing the past is not.
This may be a deal-breaker for me, Bob. I'm serious.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:273904
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/273904.html