Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2009, at 15:47:31
In reply to Lou's reply- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on May 7, 2009, at 22:39:11
> > I think that posters certainly can propose systems to Dr. Bob. Your proposal calls for suspensions (blocks) and mandatory civility buddies. I don't think Dr. Bob is opposed to either of those.
>
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[...Your proposal...blocks...mandatory civility buddies...]
> The system does have two blocks in it, but that is all. That could be substituted with instead of the two blocks that the poster goes to the submitting of all future posts to a deputy and coupled with that, a fine of $50.00 U.S. would need to be paid to continue to post. As to where that money could go would be to a charity of the member's choice .
> This IMO could be another way to enforce rules that leaves out blocking.
> The psychological/emotional aspects are that the member does have an incentive to be in accordance with the rules or his/her rating will be evident. The rating number could also be used as a guide for other posters in relation to having dialog with them. The rating could also be reversed by another system to restore a member's standing.
> This is not all my idea, but I think it could go a long way in relation to the issues expressed here to help this community by shifting to my system. After all, shift happens, does it not?
> Lou
>
Friends,
You have seen that I have another way to enforce the standards in this forum without blocking. There are other variations that could be used without having the member pay a fine.
For instance, when the member reached the first level of points deducted, that member could be limited to posting only, let's say, one post in a thread each day for a week. They could post in any thread, but only one post a day for that thread for a week. Then at the second level, they could only post one post in any thread each day for ten days. This limiting the volume of posts by the member could be an incentive to abide by the rules of the forum, yet the member is not blocked from posting, only made to be more judicious in their only post in a thread that day.
Now the rating number could be handled by clerks from members that would like to do that. And the rating number after the member's name could be to some a very strong incentive to abide by the rules of the forum, for I would not like the number 925 after my name when the base number to start is 1500. I would think that the number could indicate the credibility of the member and serve to deter uncivil postings.
Now my way may not be your way, but my way is another way that I think could stand the test of psychologists/psychiatrists and members of this forum to be a sound mental-health practice in relation to another way to administer this forum. I invite any criticism here to be posted and I will answer your posts concerning my way, if any
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:888433
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/894789.html