Posted by greywolf on March 27, 2007, at 20:31:29
In reply to Sorry, forgot to change the header, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2007, at 9:51:01
I took the time to read the thread where this administrative discussion originated. It brought a thought to mind about the whole concept of blocks grounded in the "I statement" rule.
I imagine that a rule like this is particularly difficult for Dr. Bob, Dinah, and the other deputies to enforce with consistency. While some violators are unquestionably way beyond the line, others seem to have edged a toe over it, at most. It's the latter category that seems to create the most vigorous administrative "discussions," and it must be somewhat frustrating for those who are genuinely trying to enforce the rules in a fair way.
On the other hand, when the reason for administrative action is not clear cut, we often have instances where the poster sincerely tried to fit his or her response within the rule, but failed in the eyes of the rules administrator. This is particularly frustrating in those cases where even the casual observer recognizes that the errant poster made an effort to moderate his response to a provocative message.
Without directing my comment to the language at issue in this administrative thread, I would like to say that the "I statement" rule can be finessed to the point where it creates frustration and bad feelings even in situations where the poster and the deputy are both acting in good faith.
I sometimes take a few months' break from Babble, only to return and see the same debate occurring over this type of civility dispute. The deputy's still doing her job without intending to be overbearing or unfair, and a poster is still trying to respond to an implicitly derogatory message without being overtly offensive.
Perhaps the focus should be on the message that could be reasonably considered unfairly provocative or derogatory, even if only by the implication of the words used. While overtly offensive, contentious, or confrontational responses to such a message would still be out of bounds, obviously restrained responses that might skirt the line would be given a pass. Forbearance in such circumstances does more to diminish the hurt that some well-intended posters appear to feel when blocked or warned for relatively benign violations than it does to actually eliminate the instances of any actual harm stemming from the minor violations.
It would be nice if we could always articulate our thoughts perfectly. But that is generally not reality, and it may be that an attempt to abide by the spirit of the rule is more important than an inconsequential violation of it.
Whether that's the case in this instance is for better minds than mine to decide. I just wanted to give my thoughts after once again returning from an extended absence to see the same debates continuing.
poster:greywolf
thread:744313
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/744805.html