Posted by gobbledygook on June 17, 2009, at 14:33:02
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by twinleaf on June 16, 2009, at 22:52:13
At this point, I am more concerned about the rules/guidelines for the administrators. What are the current rules in place for the administrators?
I bring this up not to throw accusations at anyone here, but I find that I'm not able to separate the issue of the "rules for the posters" from the
"rules for the administrators". Obviously there are basic rules of civility that each poster should abide by, but the real issue for me is the rules
for the administrators in policing these interactions.The real hurt I've experienced in myself and observed in others has come from the way the rules are interpreted and carried out. Sure I've been
hurt here and there by certain posts, but honestly, I have felt much, much more pain when I have watched certain posters receive what I felt was
unfair and excessive punishment for posts that were benign or misinterpreted.My perception is that the rules have been carried out inconsistently and subjectively, with one person having the power to be "judge, jury, and
executioner" when the warnings/blocks are issued. Even though the warnings/blocks are issued with the statement: "The administrator is always
free to override deputy decisions...feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error," how many cases can Bob actually review
with his busy schedule? And when he does review a case, Bob is not around enough to keep up with and understand all the dynamics of the boards
to know the details of who and what led to the warnings and the blocks - leaving him to rely on one person's judgment.Consequently the current mechanisms and rules in place make me feel fearful and distrustful of the admins judgments - whether they're trying their
best or not under difficult conditions, etc. I sympathize with their position as they must make judgments on posts that are not always clear cut,
but open to interpretation. However, it is ultimately the poster who suffers through the humiliation and rejection in the end, whether misinterpreted
or not. I understand that we are all human and errors will be made, but when the consequences of these errors result in painful psychological harm,
I have to question whether giving one person all of this authority is wise.So, as I'm writing this, Twinleaf, I'm thinking this is where your ideas regarding guidelines would work well:
"If you felt hurt by this comment, you could say so, and ask the person who said it to make amends so that you no longer felt hurt. This might take several tries back and forth, as well as maybe some cooling-off time. The deputies could just observe while this gets worked out. I know there would be some instances when the deputies would need to take a more active role, but having them jumping in all the time to tell us when we are "wrong" and what we should do to make things "right" can be quite a put-down in and of itself. If the deputies do get involved, I would like to see them help the posters work out their differences, not by telling them what to do, or by administering PCBs or blocks, but by giving friendly reminders of the importance (necessity) of working things out.
If we leave the posters at the center of conflict resolution, each one will, hopefully, eventually get what they need from the other. If the administrators take over, we will get odd situations, like the ones in some of the older threads here, where Bob asks poster #1 to apologize to poster #2. The first poster does so, but the second poster says that he does not feel hurt and that no apology is or was necessary. Errors like this illustrate that the posters themselves know what is needed in a given situation better than the administrators possibly can." -Twinleaf
Ava
poster:gobbledygook
thread:901329
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/901548.html