Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2007, at 14:52:45
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing--Meri, posted by Honore on February 24, 2007, at 12:52:37
> Meri, I agree with you on the fact that I often don't want posts xxx'ed out or pbced etc.
>
> That's why I see selective enforcement --or, actually, selective or, simply, limited attention-- as beneficial.
>
> If I don't want a post or poster pbc'ed-- I'm glad it/they aren't.
>
> Consistent enforcement is an ideal notion; it's not possible to have it in the real world of pbabble.
>
> Why regret that, when the plus side is that each of us, with our private standards, can see things that might, in the "ideal" world of consistent enforcement, be blocked, etc, left to stand?
>
> ie there are pluses and minuses to all things: the plus of consistent enforcement is intertwined with the minus of sacrificing posts or people or people's equanimity to various sanctions;
>
> the minus of inconsistent enforcement is uncertainty or sometimes a feeling of anxiety about fairness, or discomfort with some posts, but the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied.
>
> You can't have it both ways: you can only have the plus of each side of the either/or, not the plus of both sides at once, without any minuses.
>
> So be happy that the unxxxed post is there if you're okay with it, even at the cost of some falling away from the ideal enforcement-- even at the cost of seeing some posts that you're uncomfortable with left also.
>
> HonoreHonore,
You wrote,[...I see selective enforcement...as benificial..consistant enforcment is an ideal notion; its not possible..in pbabble...the plus side is..things that could be blocked are left to stand..the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied...].
The grammatical structure of your post leads me to have a want for clarification. Could you clarify the following?
A. In your saying that you think that selective enforcment is benificial because things that could be blocked,(uncivil posts) are {left to stand}, is it benificial to the welfare of just the ones that want the (uncivil) post to stand, that could have been blocked if the enforcement was not selective, or do you think that it is benificial to all the members to let an uncivil post to stand?
B. If one match could start a forest fire, could not the (uncivil) post, that is selectivly allowed to stand, cause a forest fire? If not, why not?
C. In a mental health community, could you agree that having two standards could cause the one that is subjected to discrimination to be led to feel inferior? If so, could allowing an uncivil post to stand, while sanctioning the same type of post to another, have the potential to foster emotional harm to that other member as to be led to feel inferior? If so, is it , in your opinion, a sound mental health practice to have selective enforcment?
If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:735638
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/735801.html