Posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 2:09:52
In reply to Dr. Bob, here's what I think, posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2003, at 10:46:03
> 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.
> 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).
I agree, it would've been better if I had announced the general block-reduction policy (and the specific block reduction). That was a mistake, sorry. Better discussion late than never?
> 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.
> 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.
Policies tend to be prompted by specific cases. But hopefully are written in general terms...
> 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.
>
> 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.It was without precedent (was itself a precedent). And without input from the group. But in "general terms", I still think some sort of block-reduction policy makes sense.
> The banned poster *did* violate parole, Bob.
>
> > her block ... expired on 7/2, but since she did take a new name, she was able to start posting again on 6/29...I'm surprised that hasn't been commented on until now... Technically, yes, it was a "violation", but my inclination was to let it go because:
1. Usually, someone who's blocked tries to post, finds out they're (still) blocked, re-registers under a new name to get around the block, and posts. But that's not what happened in this case.
2. She was only off by a few days. I don't expect people to keep track of exactly how long they're blocked. I don't even keep a list myself anymore. It's all automated. But that automation isn't perfect.
> 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."I'm sorry you were so hurt. You may not be able to go back, but I hope you can go on. And remember, you can report an adverse event at:
https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/advent.pl
> This may be a deal-breaker for me, Bob. I'm serious.
I understand. And see that my whew! above was premature. I do hope you stay, but do what you think is best.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:273904
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/274149.html