Posted by ElaineM on January 21, 2007, at 17:43:59
In reply to Re: helping, posted by Honore on January 21, 2007, at 16:50:30
>>>>>>I may also be mistaken, but I believe what was pressuring in the situation with Deneb (I'm sorry, but I think this is the only way to make sense of this discussion) was that Happyflower kept bringing up the threats that Deneb had made, and was unable to let the situation go.
I didn't interpret things that way myself - so I appreciate hearing your take Honore. That could be one part of it, but for me personally that's not the only issue that's part of this broad "pressuring" discussion. THe others I know are: As far as I know, I believed HF was upset about feeling pressured herself to interact when she'd already tried to request a DNP. Some of my posts have concerned feeling "threatened" by "if you don't..." suicide posts. Some other posts on Social were about the "pressuring" of repeating suggestions. THat's all I could remember off the top of my head. Though I do think that slightly different ideas are being combined in threads, diluting them all.
To defend HF somewhat, she could only respond, and make a statement after a situation seemed to have blown over cause she was blocked at the time. She *had* to wait that long. I'm not saying I would've made the exact same posts myself, making the same focus, choosing the same wording, but I'd still think that she deserved to have her administrative queries responded to. We've since been informed of the amended DNP rules, the inabilities to list requested post/quotes, and this new idea of getting PBC's for "pressuring", so I'd assume now, all this stuff would be dealt with off-board through emails.
Plus I'd guess that some people would debate the idea of "being resolved", with just "blowing over". And even if it was "resolved", doesn't mean that it was explained adequately for everyone who frequents the board. I just think it seems natural that confusing rules and applications would need to be re-addressed more than once. But in a civil way of coarse. And I'd never want to put a time limit on how quickly one must "get over" something that was personally upsetting - I'd never expect that of someone anywhere else.
Regarding the civilness of addressing suicide blame-threats specifically, it's a type of behvahiour, an action, and to me, the fact that few or many posters are connected to such behaviour is irrelevant. As a comparison, if I was the only one here who posted multiple lewd comments, and consequently someone wanted to start a thread voicing their opinion on such things, then I don't think it should be seen as accusatory, or whatnot, just cause no one else on the board at the time has turned to the same behaviour. Yes it appears to be about only ME, and MY lewd behaviour, but that's only because *no one else is doing it* too - I'm the only one at the time choosing to engage that way. In this case, speaking in generalities will seem connected to one person, how could it NOT be? But then, is one only allowed to talk about a posting behaviour, or type of situation, if *many* posters are doing it, instead of 5 or 3 or 1?
Usually issues of any type are only brought up when they become relevant. Someone gets blocked for typing a questionable statement on the Politics board, people come to admin to debate the fairness of that block, the application of the rule that resulted in the block etc. It's not about the person, but the behaviour, and how that behaviour relates to rule enforcement. Personally, if the topic was somehow suggested to debate (with no real examples prompting the discussion) then I'd still take part and have the same views, and make the same generalized statements.
But apparently now, all this must occur off-board. Which is fine by me. Gotta have precident somewhere. I actually do think some of the situations will be resolved now, or at least closer.
thanks El
poster:ElaineM
thread:724710
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/724909.html