Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 16:15:11
In reply to About that three post thing, posted by Glydin on March 22, 2007, at 14:23:28
> > I am also requesting that I be allowed here to post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
> > Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
> > In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion?
>
> ~~~ I respectfully request Dr. Bob would not make exceptions to the three post guideline based on the discussion would be between Dr. Bob and one other poster. If a "private" one on one discussion is wanted and multiple postings are to serve in the one on one, I believe it should be done via emails as opposed to a board viewable and "open to all registered" for posting.
>
> I have checked the archives and prior to the three post rule, just this Adm. board had several posts per viewable page with 13-15 consecutive followups by one poster. I believe not only does the three post rule aid more timid posters but also is a means to not fill up a viewable page with the questions, comments, diagraming, and breaking down of one issue in which that process has always made me feel annoyed and putdown. I think the three post rule works well to prevent one poster from "hogging" threads - which I consider uncivil.Friends,
It is written here,[...not make exceptions...aid more timid posters..prevent one poster from (redacted by respondant)threads..consider uncivil...]
When this first came up, there were exceptions made to accomodate particular circumstances. The rule here is that it is made so that something like that [the less confident poster} can join in easier.
In my wondering as to what the rationale could be for the exceptions that have been made to this rule , I guess, are that the need for the poster to post more than 3 consecutive posts was more important to support and education than the need for the {less confidant poster} to have it easier for them to join in?
If that be the case here, then I think that an administrative discussion about the {action taken by the administration} and the policy here could be a discussion that could have a need for the discussant to post more than 3 consecutive posts in order for them to bring out the aspects of what they think about the action tsken by the administrator or the policy here, to have the potential IMO to be like the other exceptions that have already been made here.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:742078
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/743264.html