Posted by Toph on March 25, 2008, at 15:36:03
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 1:20:18
> > A system which involves posters policing themselves is more complicated than rigid rules, but better, IMO. It may also be too idealisic and unmanagable, sadly.
> >
> > Toph
>
> This is actually the direction I was moving (prematurely). Why do you think it might be too idealistic and unmanageable? Let's try to come up with a way to make it work. It does depend on posters notifying us of "fouls". Is that a responsibility posters will be reluctant to accept?
>Idealistic, because it assummes that we all have the well-being of this community and each member at heart. Unmanagable because precident seems to be a valued aspect of fairness here - at least I see people comparing former decisions with subsequent ones. Consistency and equal justice under the law would appear to be sacrificed here, not by design but because some speech will be found objectionable while later similar speech may be overlooked. This is fine with me, but I can envision a lot of complaining about inconsistency.
I don't think most participants will have a problem with the responsibility of policing the site, especially if buttons allow anonymous objections. It may be tougher for moderators who may have felt that they were merely upholding a rule in a sort of impersonal way, but under the new system inarbitrating an individual's greivance it might seem that they are more personally involved when justice is more selective.
poster:Toph
thread:818822
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/819848.html