Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:21:10
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by Dinah on July 28, 2006, at 8:14:04
> >
> > What about just trusting people to excercise "common sense" and "common courtesy"- allowing them chances to excuse and to try to correct their own errors as they might come up in civilized discussion,I think people are trusted to do this, and when someone apologizes for a behavior there's usually no action taken by admin. Unfortunately, this trust is broken at times.
> Or, taking a moment to consider, "did that person say something "off" because they are sliding and need help, not more punishment or embarressment?" What's the goal? Humilate the real sufferer, or reward the person mildly or righteously offended by what might even be a rather trivial rule infraction?
I don't see how giving a PBC or block for *behavior* precludes understanding about a person's *state* or need for compassion. I think it's possible to admonish a behavior while still maintaining empathy, compassion, and positive regard for the person as a whole.
If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger, does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger? What if they do something such as breaking a valued object, hitting someone, or yelling obscenities and insults to someone? Does that go unremarked because you can understand their anger or even if not, because you can see they are "in a state"?
> I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".I agree.
gg
poster:gardenergirl
thread:670602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/671376.html