Posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
In reply to So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 7:09:57
There have been questions raised here that have not been answered, and I'm going to add some more.
1. What is the status of old DNPs?
Current guidelines require administrative acknowledgement before enforcement, if I read the current rules correctly. What verification process applies to older events? Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable? Do the new rules apply retroactively?
So, what is the status of other old DNPs? Are they void? What is the cut-off date of the new rule? Why isn't this subject addressed in the FAQ?
2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?I do not read every post on every board every day, and I've seen concurrent threads on different boards between the same two posters, one culminating in a DNP. There is no assurance the DNP was read. Why is there no requirement to post a proper notice of such a request, perhaps in some place specifically designated for these? (Redirect?) Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request? Or for the administrative validation to be posted somewhere special? The way the boards archive, it's quite possible to miss a DNP. Trust me. Go away for a few months, and who knows what's in the archives.
3. Why isn't the harassment issue a required element of the request, in practise?Any dictionary I consult invokes concepts such as "repeated" or "persistent" in the definition of harassment. I do not see this rule being used as a shield. I see it used as a weapon. Two parties engage, and anger ensues. Wham! No evidence of repeated or persistent anything. Just anger.
I believe that if and only if a request to disengage is ignored should a DNP even be considered. Two people butting heads is not harassment, but that's when you see these things flying around. They are tantamount to blocks issued by posters, rather than by administrators. Censorship should not be in the hands of the posting population.
It clearly says that a poster seeking a DNP must demonstrate what steps have been taken to address the situation. I would think, therefore, that those steps must be in the context of the situation, rather than an entire history of interaction. If someone has upset you in the past, then why are you opening their posts? Under the "how can I help enforce these policies" section of the FAQ, it says, "After that, it will be up to you to deal in some other way with those posts, for example, by not reading them." Right there, you have the solution, as a possible "step taken".
Under these circumstances, administratively validated DNPs should be very rare.
4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?Any poster can throw down a DNP. That does not serve as evidence for a violation, but only an allegation thereof.
If a poster continues to post after a request to disengage, *that* could be construed as evidence for harassment. But not the first request itself, surely. Notice must be a required element, but only part of a sequence which culminates in an enforceable DNP. And, if the DNP is not validated, it should be entirely voided.
5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?
6. Why isn't a time limit applicable?Even murderers get out of jail, in real life. Sentences expire.
7. What happens if either of the parties changes posting names?
I saw a justification for DNPs as a coping strategy, one requiring no external validation. Well, that would be fine if that person's coping strategy had no consequences for others. I do not consider an externalized regulation of another's rights as not also requiring external validity. That's the whole thing about an external control of a third party, it always requires evidence. And, notwithstanding what a deputy says, the FAQ requires it.What a person does for their own wellbeing must first depend on internal locus of control. Making choices about environments frequented, posters to avoid, etc. It even says so, in the FAQ: "...since this (a DNP) should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation."
Harassment, and steps taken, are required elements, in the FAQ. I don't see "not liking somebody". The whole rule is so subjective, I cannot see how it can be made to work fairly. Feelings alone are not evidence of harassment. The civility guidelines are our umbrella. If a post is civil, how can a person attract further consequences, absent both harassment *and* steps taken?
I believe the rule itself to be fatally flawed, and all my questions are in the context of, "if we must have this rule, then what are the regulatory parameters?" Calling a rule a shield, then permitting it to be used as a weapon, is the flaw, IMHO. It encourages posters to lash out, and to hold grudges. It externalizes subjective interpretation. The reason there are so many issues is because it's a bad rule.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:752323
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070423/msgs/752692.html