Posted by gardenergirl on April 24, 2007, at 16:07:52
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » Racer, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 18:22:06
Lots and lots about this in the archives, just waiting for someone to use their time to search...
> > > 1. What is the status of old DNPs?
> > >
> > > Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable?
> >
> > All she'd have to do is to post the DNP request again, and inform Dr Bob and the deputies. It would be helpful to have a link to the offending post in the private message to Dr Bob and the deputies, but it needn't be posted on the board. In fact, it really shouldn't be posted on the board.Yep, private.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/717905.html
"If you do feel harassed and see this a last resort, could you let me know, **by babblemail or email**, what it is that makes you feel that way and what steps you've already taken to address this? Then I'll post something if I'm going to enforce this."
>
> I still am not clear on the status of old DNPs. I take it that all are unenforceable, unless renewed under the current guidelines?I can't find my notes about this, but I believe the idea that prior PDP's might not be enforceable came out during a deputy chat with Dr. Bob. We were trying to get clarification from him about his statement regarding possibly not enforcing a PDP. I believe Dr. Bob affirmed that *potentially non-enforceable* applied to old PDP's as well, meaning he would want to know the circumstances surrounding the request before deciding about an enforcement request. Essentially, he is applying his newer, "I may not enforce it" standard retroactively. Here is when the "I may not enforce it" concept came into play: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/718115.html
Dinah may remember this more accurately than me or have better access to notes from that date. I think Racer's recommendation of reaffirming a past PDP if one wants it to still be in place and enforceable is a good suggestion. That way you will know one way or another, though probably not in a timely manner the way things stand.
I also agree with Racer that for those who are under the condition of a prior PDP, it would be safer civility-wise to continue to refrain from posting to that person, especially if the PDP was enforced in the past. Dr. Bob may enforce an old PDP if it came up. That's what I plan to do, anyway. Of course what others do is up to them.
>
> > > 2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?
> > >
> > >Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request?
> >
> > Only Dr Bob has access to registration information for people who post here. The deputies cannot email anyone, we can only use Babblemail if it's turned on. Therefore, while it would be nice to have notifications sent, we do not have the ability to do so.
>
> I was just trying to make suggestions. I understand that this one may not be feasible, but that does not mean that a more formal process is unreasonable. Clarity is an important issue, for some.And perhaps someday you will get one: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685870.html
"FYI, an overhaul of this system is also on my to-do list. The idea will be to standardize and centralize requests by having them posted by the server to a single thread here, to notify the other person by email, and to require them to acknowledge receipt.I've also been thinking Please Don't Post would be preferable to Do Not Post. Maybe we could start with that change now?"
and http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686320.html
Of course I'm not holding my breath for this one or for trigger flags.
However, according to the FAQ, admin will post a response to the PDP request if it's going to be enforced. Frankly, I think one should be posted either way, especially given the time it takes to get a response. I assume that response would be posted to the message where the PDP was issued. Personally, when I was active as deputy, I did not take on deciding about PDP's because I didn't feel clear enough about the rule to administer it properly. I left the few we've had this year for Dr. Bob.
>
> > >
> > > 4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?
> >
> > I think it's probably worth erring on the side of caution here, and just not posting to someone who has asked you not to.I agree.
>
> Circular argument. If the former is false, the latter is moot.But you won't know if the PDP is going to be enforced. Anyone is welcome to gamble on "testing it" in the intervening time, but there are risks to acting on that need. I do think that these requests should be answered by admin in a timely manner to minimize "limbo" time.
>
> I was considering the case where a DNP lands out of the blue. It could be perceived as, "You shut up, or else!" "Forever, if I so choose." There could have been a misunderstanding. There could yet be no evidence that someone is even becoming upset, to that point in time. If a DNP is to be a last resort, and open communications is to be encouraged, how does jumping to a full blockade serve these ideas?That's what Dr. Bob wants to assess on a case by case basis, apparently.
>
> First one to push that DNP button gets all the power.If you let them. I believe it was zen who posted recently not to borrow anyone else's pain. I would add to that, don't hand them your power.
> And, as I've raised repeatedly, without verification of harassment and alternate efforts to settle things.
That has not been a consistent requirement.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685870.html"Harassment hasn't needed to be "proven":
> > If it's not clear to me why their post makes [might make] you feel harassed, I may ask."Dr. Bob's new procedure seems to be a way to assure (himself at least), that the PDP is indeed a "last resort" as he calls it.
> > > 5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?Improper as in not following the procedure, or as in making a request that Dr Bob decides not to enforce should someone decide not to honor that request?
> > I think this has been addressed, although I don't recall what the official penalties might be.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/684701.html
"Would a DNP that isn't requested for the purposes of harrasment pretty be covered by civility standards?
---Not if the reason were a mutual desire to disengage..."Mutual desire to engage...another sticky wicket.
>
> It should be the same as everything else. One warning, then you're blocked.
>
> > Generally, there are limits here regarding complaints of any sort against other Babblers. There are rules regarding how many times you can report another Babbler's posts, if those posts are found acceptable. I'm not sure what Dr Bob has decided on regarding DNPs, but I'm sure he has limits on them, as well.(Anyone want odds on a limit of 3?) ;)
>
> It would be nice to know. And, as the DNPs themselves are public, so should disciplinary acts related thereto.
>
> > It is his hope that a DNP is the last resort, and is only used if nothing else has resolved the conflicts between two Babblers.
>
> Last resort. Exactly. The first notice of a problem should not be a DNP. That should be punishable, as uncivil.....Punishable? Sheesh. There's no punishing in baseball! ;)
> there *is* an implication that the recipient of a DNP has conducted themselves inappropriately. The allegation should not be a "free shot".
Implication or inference?
Reminding someone of the rules and asking them not to break them would be perfectly appropriate for a first time. Making it so that can't break them for a period of time is also appropriate if it continues.
I think the whole, "I might decide not to enforce it" pretty much set this rule up for failure. But that's just me.
gg
poster:gardenergirl
thread:752323
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070423/msgs/753067.html