Posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2007, at 23:48:29
In reply to Re: that 'to do' list, posted by muffled on January 30, 2007, at 0:02:05
> So are you suggesting that a "moderator/civility buddy" would screen someone's posts if they get a PBC? Would this moderator/civility buddy have the ability to approve or disapprove the publishing of posts by uncivil people? How long a lag time would there be between initial post and publishing? This sounds like one more job for our overtaxed deputies.
Right, they'd either approve them or not. They'd be "published" as soon as they were approved. I agree, the deputies have enough to do already, I was thinking anyone could volunteer.
> It is hard to get that balance between freedom and civility.
>
> MidnightblueIt sure is!
--
> Depending on the poster etc, it could be alot of work?
> And then remaining neutral could be a challenge.
> And I dunno, but I don't think I could do such a thing cuz I'd get overwhelmed. Its alot of resposibility, and what if you screw up???????
> And then what if someone was gonna get blocked but noone stepped forward to be their civility buddy? How hurtful that would be....
>
> MuffledI agree, it could be a lot of work if they tried to post a lot. If their buddy said something, they might let up a little? Or maybe another buddy could take over after a while.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining neutral"...
If someone would be overwhelmed, it might be better if they didn't volunteer. Approving an uncivil post might be treated like posting an uncivil post, and they might be blocked themselves.
I agree, it might hurt if no one stepped forward. But sometimes people ask questions and no one answers. There isn't *always* support here. But at least there's the possibility.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:596575
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/729511.html