Posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:42:42
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:04:41
> > Lar's last block was for a completely different sort of violation of the civility rules. Surely that makes a difference?
>
> In general, some difference, yes. Because they might be unaware. But Larry wasn't unaware.That seems like something of an assumption. I realize you have to use assumptions all the time. But being aware that a civility rule exists doesn't mean you understand the permutations of its applicability.
>
> > He misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
>
> Even after it was clarified?You mean my post explaining common useage? I'm not sure he saw that as definitive. He was going by the FAQ. Perhaps if you saw my post and agreed with it you could have put a more official stamp on it.
> > How about a compromise that will suit everyone?
> >
> > You can change the FAQ on the DNP to state that a DNP is an option that you prefer people not to use, that you would prefer that they first try to work out their differences, but that if a DNP is requested it should be honored. And it should not be perceived as an endorsement by the administration of the idea that the receiver of a DNP has done anything wrong.
>
> The difference is that anyone could request a DNP for any reason? That came up before. I'm afraid there would be too many then.I doubt that anyone requests a DNP for no reason at all. Desiring to disengage or trying to avoid blowing up and being uncivil is an internal reason (having to do with the requestor rather than the requestee), but it seems valid. Even if it is later rescinded. After all, the whole thing is somewhat subjective anyway. Since if you consider that someone is harassing another poster, I imagine you act under the civility guidelines.
>
> > For example, which of the following would be considered violations of the DNP?
>
> This one:
>
> > "You have always preferred blue while I like green for walls."
>
> Not these:
>
> > "I disagree with XXX's statement, and I think that green is the best color for walls."
> >
> > "I regret that XXX and I have never agreed on wall color."
> >
> > "It has been stated that blue walls are best. I personally prefer green walls."
>
> And this one I think is ambiguous as it stands:
>
> > "I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."Yet this is the one that Lar was blocked under. The use of "we" in context of the rest of the post. As you said, it is ambiguous. Wouldn't a clarification that it was not acceptable or a short block have been sufficient? A second post of the same sort would have brought longer consequences.
>
> > a poster violating the DNP should be given a Please Honor the Do Not Post, and a statement of the consequences of future DNP violations.
>
> So "no" wouldn't mean "no"? That would be fine with me, if that's what everyone would like...No would mean no. It's just no with a warning. Especially in the early stages of a rule which is still being worked out. I advocate the same thing for some of the other new rules. The three post rule, the three complaint rule, etc.
>
> > I still believe different violations from normally guideline abiding citizens should start over from scratch as far as block length.
>
> How would "normally" be defined?Careful Dr. Bob. You don't want to be uncivil here, and if I were Lar, I think I'd take that personally and feel a bit put down. Given the number of posts that Lar so generously makes, and his overall attempts to not only live within the civility guidelines, but to help clarify them to others and help maintain the board stability, I think normally would fit this situation.
>
> > As far as people being willing to help others before being blocked, I am always willing to try to help as best I can by Babblemail, if anyone has any questions about posts. But the trouble comes when they don't realize their post is questionable, don't you think?
>
> I agree, what could be done then?
>
> BobI don't know that anything can be done, except requesting rewordings, if that is applicable. Or explaining the rules, if that is applicable. Before lengthy blocks.
I am aware that you value Lar's input as much as anyone, and I appreciate your recent expressions of that. I hope that Lar understands that as well, and can find it in his heart to come back to Babble. I know all of us, you included, would feel the loss.
Just as all of us, you included, would feel the loss of Emmy, or any of the people involved in and hurt by this administrative discussion. And I appreciate your recent expressions of that as well.
poster:Dinah
thread:523749
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/526592.html