Posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 7:55:10 [reposted on September 13, 2006, at 14:47:26 | original URL]
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 7:40:41
> > THAT A POST REMAINS UNSANCTIONED DOES NOT DE FACTO INDICATE THAT IT IS CIVIL.
> Friends,
> It is written here. [...that a post remains unsanctioned does not de facto {indicate} that it is civil.Yes. I believe I may have inadvertantly proposed a doctrine. Perhaps it should be included somewhere in the mission statement or FAQ of this website. Perhaps not. Perhaps a doctrine stating the opposite is indicated. I think this issue should be addressed, though.
> But, is there not some type of convention here that if Dr. Hsiung makes a pass and no sanction is made to a post, that some people could IMO think it is considered to be civil?
This is why it would be helpful for a doctrine to be formulated and included in the verbiage of the civility guidelines.
> And also, does not Dr. Hsiung write in his FAQ that he would like us to trust him that he is doing what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole?
> Also, there is the potential for some others,IMO, to consider that what is left unsanctioned is considered to be civil by the nature that uncivil posts are sanctioned. In other words, the owner/moderator does not put either {civil} or {uncivil} after each post. Could that not have the potential, IMO, for some others to think that posts left unsanctioned could be considerd by the administration to be civil?
> Then there is the aspect that requests for a determination as to the civility or not of a post are not answered by the administration. Could that not lead some others to think that those statements in question are civil?
Yes. Things become complicated without a stated doctrine.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:682301
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685636.html