Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2007, at 19:14:16 [reposted on August 6, 2007, at 23:00:23 | original URL]
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
>
> > confuzyq,
> > I am unsure as to what the new rules are. I have followed the procedure here as to what I see in the TOS/FAQ here and what I know concerning those procedures. If there are other rules outside of that, I am unaware of them.
>
> ***** Formerly, people could make a PDNP request for any reason or even no reason. Now, Bob does want there to be a "visible" reason for why one felt slighted, attacked, harrassed, etc. enough to do that, and he will inform the requester of whether or not he will honor the PDNP request. What I don't see is where Racer's post to you meets any of that criteria. Or, that you used the PDNP as a "last resort," which is also mentioned in the FAQ.
>
> http://dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
>
> I believe part of the reason the PDNP revision came to be is that these requests occasionally appeared to be used as simply a way to, shall we say, express an opinion about a poster or make a direct statement to them that would not otherwise be considered acceptable. What could be more "expressive" than receiving a PDNP. Yet they were making it under the civility wire no matter what.
>
> Previously, PDNPs could also be used as more or less a substitute for the "Ignore" feature that many forums have, and many wish existed here. But that wasn't the intended use for them either, and if we don't want to read someone's posts but they haven't done anything "prosecutable" to us, we have to take it upon ourselves to just not read them.
>
> Since Racer did not attack, harrass or accuse you, I think maybe another policy was also overlooked here, the one which says that if you have an issue with someone's post, you need to use the "Notify" button instead.
>
> > You wrote,[...the samr kind of clarification that (I)...].
> > My post is about that I am responding to Dr. Hsiung's invitation for him to hear from others concerning the concept of,[...{good for} the community >as a whole<...] and I am also responding to greywolf's invitation....
>
> **** But that does not address the fact that Racer did not do anything offensive or harrassing here. And we can't ban others from a thread or conversation. That's come up before. It can be requested that only certain subjects be adhered to in the thread (which Racer was doing), but I doubt it would be considered civil to request that someone leave the thread. But even if so, it wouldn't need to be delivered with the big guns of a "PDNP." And Racer would have had no way of knowing that only Bob and Greywolf were welcome anyway.confuzyq,
You wrote,[...Since Racer did not...you need to...we can't ban...Racer would have no way of knowing that...].Friends,
My response to Dr. Hsiung and greywolf's invitations are responses that are open to all to reply or respond to. The PDNP does mean that the one can respond to the {aspects} of the thread and that they are welcome as all are in the thread. Can not responding to the {aspects} of a post be done without responding to the poster of the PDNP?
If anyone would like to see my side of this, they could email me if they like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:754209
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/774478.html