Posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » mair, posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:13:29
I believe some of the above posts are more unkind and more of a putdown than anything Zen has posted lately. I find it interesting in researching people's posting histories, that many who have spoken out against Zen have at one time or another, done as much, if not more, actions that could be considered unkind or offensive (by an objective group) than Zen's posts were. From reading Zen's posts for the past month or so, it is EASY to see that she is having a bad time right now. Does this excuse her (or anyone) else from repeatedly "breaking the rules"? No. However, it would be nice if some mitigating circumstances were taken into condideration. E.G. in Zen's post that she got a warning for her language use (written in response to one of my posts)directed at anyone else? No. It was actually the use of a word that best described to Zen what she felt. Was it directed at me offensively? No. Did I complain to her or Dr. Bob that I didn't appreciate her response? No. Does she has a "right" to complain to or about Dr. Bob's meting out of blocking or warnings or requests to be civil? Well, we all had to sign away our rights, per se, to have the "right" to post on a board owned and operated by Dr. Bob, so in many ways, none of us has a "right" to challenge Dr. Bob, or openly offend or attack others. But this is where I would apply some objective form of thought to correct actions rather than removing people from posting. I don't think any of us are here to "just shoot the breeze" (although this IS the social board), we all obviously have problems. So the goal should be to find ways to be as supportive as possible of each other. This doesn't mean there should be no rules for posting, etc, but they should be objective. I could not prove or disprove that Dr. Bob "doesn't like" certain posters, and is "out to get them", but there *could* be a question about objectiveness. The HARD thing is, that Dr. Bob pretty much has to shoot from the hip in order to pull some people back in. He doesn't have the excess time to go back and check everyone's posts for the past three years to see how THEY may have been treated in a similar situation. However, if a live, and heated conversation or exchange of posts suddenly breaks out, he is obligated to stop it using the rules we all agreed to. Now, I agree with some of the things you have posted about there being a cap to the blockings. I don't personally agree with the exponential compounding of blocking. But it is Dr. Bob's site, and that is his prerogative. I would suggest that it *might* be possible for Dr. Bob to set up a group of people,chosen randomly from active posters, who could rotate every few months (to change participants, and remove any thoughts of only "favorites" being selected). Dr. Bob (or perhaps posters themselves) could refer minor infractions to this "counsel" for their collective response to what is necessary to correct an action, without causing the person who has made the post to feel singled out by him. This would be much like a judge and a jury, with the judge ultimately responsible for telling the jury what the rules and laws are, and what corrective actions can be taken. I think direct attacks on a site's host is not the best action one can take. On the other hand, if one calmly and objectively sends email directly to Dr. Bob (or to this proposed counsel) to help him/them to consider something that might have slipped by him , this might be a way for that person to have their grievance heard in a manner that does not reflect blame upon anyone (or generate futher angry exchanges on the board), and gives time for the situation to be fully considered. As I mentioned previously, Dr. Bob has to act quickly to defend an obvious aggressive attack from one poster against another. So maybe a "temporary block" of a day or two until he or the counsel has an opportunity to investigate the germane data would be an option to doling out compounding weekly blocks. The bottom line is: this board is Dr. Bob's, he can't watch it 24/7, we can help by monitoring ourselves using the above-mentioned counsel approach. Personally, I think this would remove, or at least greatly reduce the amount of perceived hostilities and the perceived subjective actions taken by these board's host, Dr. Bob. So...........whatcha all think?
8
poster:8 Miles
thread:297006
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/298839.html