Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS

Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 12:53:03

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but....., posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 10:09:04

I'll answer you so you can be freed for three more. Although I could effectively cut you off by NOT answering:)

> > > How many people here have commited murder?
>
> > I think this is a bad example.
>
> I would have chosen tax-evasion, but I feared it would have included too many people to make my point.
>

Well, actually either one makes a different point. If only one person had ever committed murder or tax-evasion, there would be no need for a law, would there?


> > Murder does actually hurt another person. Multiple posts to admin hurt nobody.
>
> I disagree. I find it disruptive to the flow of discourse and makes it much harder for me to read about issues that are important to me. I feel that unlimited consecutive posting deprives others of screen space and causes the board to turn over more frequently than I can follow. Anyone who *does* want to hurt the community could do so under this circumstance.
>

I would be more inclined to agree if the multiple posts were in the middle of a thread AND had nothing to do whatever with that thread. But in the case of one poster starting a thread and adding to it? I can't see a disruption.

It would be nice, though, if things could be archived thread-by-thread according to posts, and *then* look at the size of the entire board. This would help many, many cased, not just multiple postings by the same person.

It's not the goal I disagree with, just the way of achieving it.

And I can't see how a rule with an arbitrary number that is also considered case-by-case (allowing for exceptions) could be enforced fairly.


> > Besides, I prefer to think of babble as NOT being a democracy (majority rules.)
>
> Me too.
>
> > I prefer to think of it as a place where the rights of the minority are protected against the majority.
>
> I prefer to think of it as a place where the protections offered to the one are for the equal protection of all.
>
> > But how much has flexibility been used in other cases? Every time I've stood up for someone, I've been told that 'rules is rules' and intent is too hard to determine to be able to take it into account. NO EXCEPTIONS, I've been told. Why is this different??
>
> It may not be. I don't know what are the intentions of the moderator. I think any new policy or regulation is to suffer growing pains - perhaps even repeal.
>
> > Question: what do you consider 'settle down' to be? Give the new rule time to gel, and those of us that have a problem with it shut our trap?
>
> :-)
>
> (Just kidding)
>
> > Or chunk the rule completely?
>
> I don't know what "chunk" means. Repeal?
>

For those that don't speak Texan, chunk sort of means throw away - with force and without aim. You can chunk rocks.

>> So, while theoretically it applies to all, in practice it only applies to one.

> I disagree. In reality, it applies to all.
>

Ok, a bit of hair splitting, but true. It applies to all, except for the exceptions. But it's much more likely to be used on only one.


>
> > > This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive.

I didn't answer this one before, but it sounds like you are attempting to protect Lou from himself??

>>I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.

I can see that, but creating a rule for personal pet-peeves isn't necessarily the answer either.


> I don't want to have to leave this one. Unlimited consecutive posting could easily cause this to happen. I wouldn't want to be here if there were continual filibusters and endless pontificating. This is personal - to me.

Perhaps I don't see why it is personal to you.


>I also believe that posting limits are in the best interests of the community as a whole. It's nice when the two coincide.
>

I (personally) see it more like the Patriot Act - where the rights of the few are trampled in the name of safety for the many. "Trampled" here is the wrong word - too extreme, but I see the concept as the same.


Mel

ps - it was nice having lots of time to reply, you being stuck at two and waiting for another post......

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:AuntieMel thread:394224
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396324.html