Posted by Larry Hoover on June 14, 2006, at 17:41:26
In reply to 3 post rule---What do you think about it?, posted by gardenergirl on May 12, 2006, at 13:26:40
>
> > did he ever get blocked for flouting it?
> >
> > would he have?
>
> To the best of my memory, Lou was never blocked for breaking the 3 post rule, and I think he worked very hard to follow it. His most recent block was for a different "rule of 3", which was about asking admin to review more than 3 posts by a specific poster after having been asked by Dr. Bob to find an alternate way to express his concern.
>
> But about the 3 post rule. I think it's making more than 3 in a row on a thread that are not directly replying to different prior posts. I also think, but I'd have to search the archives, and I'm not willing to do that, that it's also starting more than three threads on one board in a row.That's how I recall it.
> What do folks think aobut this rule? Is it still a good rule (or I suppose you could ask was it ever a good rule)?
It was never a good rule. It was a desperate rule. It was a custom rule. It was a Lou rule.
> Is it effective in allowing everyone into the dialog who wishes to be? Should we do something different? If so, what?
>
> ggIf it forced Lou to hear other's feelings about all the questions he asked, it was a good rule. I got very uncomfortable with the questions. Their number, and frequency. It was stifling conversations because older stuff never got finished.
But is that fair to Lou, to make *him* change? I say it's not, yet I was glad to see some changes being made.
I wish Lou could speak here, now, about this. We're all talking about him, and I don't think that's fair. Again, a board for this purpose, to allow blocked posters to speak, would be very helpful to healing wounded feelings. All around.
Reactionary law is bad law. Almost always, it is bad law, unless it's drafted by extraordinary people, who can see past the people and the feelings that are provoking the drafting in the first place.
It was unfair to make Lou change for us. To *make* him change, rather than to persuade him that there was an effect of his interaction style that was also worthy of expression, and thereby allow him to adapt and compromise with all of us. He did all the compromising, this way.
I'm sorry, Lou.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:642738
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/657001.html