Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:31:51
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:22
>
> I don’t know about anyone else, but the queries I've been talking about are the ones that include identifiable quotes from and/or links to the poster and posts being challenged, thereby drawing attention not only to whether or not what was said is "OK", but also asking (even if indirectly) if said poster is civil. I don't think I'd object to someone asking "Is it within the guidelines of this forum to use the phrase ‘beating it [a subject] to death’?" But I do object to queries that point very specifically to what I or someone else has said. I object to it especially if the person asking 1) Has not asked the poster what he/she meant, or 2) Is not the subject of the post or thread, or 3) Is not actively participating in the thread, or at least the part of the thread being challenged. (Some threads here go on for years, with different posters entering and leaving along the way.)
> If I’m following you right, I agree with some of what you've written here. But I would be very much interested in your opinion on my proposed variation on the 3-complaint rule. (I had problems with it, too, as I saw it proposed.)
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511068.html
>
I think we're fairly close in our opinions, though my recognition of any merit in the proposal is not based on a personal recognition of the merit, but rather, recognition that others consider it to have merit. I don't agree with the use of the word "civil" as a synonym for "compliant with terms of service" so of course I have concerns about anyone suggesting anyone else is not civil.I have no problem wording querries without citing the basis for the querry, and in my estimation based on archival reading, the practice of citing a post might have evolved from the administrator's request that such citations be included, after some people offered general querries that seemed to better serve the intent you seem to express in your proposal.
Otherwise, my critique of your point #3 is that some people, myself included, might avoid participating in threads where it appears there is confusion over what language will be deemed acceptable.
For example, I have stored on my hard-drive a message I wrote that suprises even myself, wherein I describe the health risks associated with inhaling tars, carbon-monoxide and pyrobenzines associated with a titration of a particular substance, laws against which were called, apparently with the administrator's endorsement, "hypocritical" "pathetic" and "a joke." I will not publish the accurate and potentially life-saving (or at least life-extending) information until and unless I believe the thread is moderated in such a way that I can consider internal inconsistencies in my own behavior, values and judgements without one aspect of my potentially changed behavior or judgements being considered "hypocritical". I am not even certain I could, within the tolerance of administrative practices here, call my own shortness of breath, possibly shortened lifespan or occassional dullmindedness pathetic, in the way policies protecting others from realizing similar conditions have been called pathetic. I can say with certainty that an environment that discourages self-criticism is generally recognized as not condusive to self-improvement, and an environment where one's self-criticisms are associated with policies deemed to by "hypocritical" has presented to me such a situation.
Therefore, a requirement that a person participate in a thread before requesting clarification about the contents of a thread would seem counterproductive to me. If people want the three-complaint policy, I'm sure those seeking clarification can find general ways to seek clarification IF the administrator will afford time to offer such clarification and IF the administrator will allow citations of posts, or quotations from posts in the context of asking why he ruled one way on some occassions and another way on others and especially if the administrator does not then request people to post links to other's posts then use compliance with his request as the first, second or third expression of a complaint contrary to his proposed new rule intended to reduce inquiries about his definition of something even he could not define until he saw it.
poster:so
thread:511073
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511756.html