Posted by Jost on August 3, 2006, at 20:18:44
In reply to Re: not liking deputies, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 7:32:27
> > 1) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Poster B".
> >
> > 2) Is it ok for poster A to post "I don't like Deputy X".
> >
> > 3) Is it ok for Deputy X to post "I don't like Poster A".
> >
> > 4) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like deputies" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones).
> >
> > 5) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Social Board posters" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones)
> >
> > 6) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like posters who post that they eat cheese" as long as more than one poster has recently admitting to eating cheese?
>
"> Deputies need to be able to take some heat, so I guess my feeling right now would be that 2 and 4 would be OK, while the rest wouldn't. Since they are, after all, I-statements. What do you think?
>
> BobJust taking (what I think is) Bob's attempt to capture the rules in terms of logic (which I don't really think works--but that's me), I'd ask:
what's the distinction between Propositions 2 and 4 and the others?
On one level, all six statements have the form,
"I don't like person(s) x."
On the other hand, the person(s) designated in 2 and 4 is (are) a Deputy.
So you have,
1. "I don't like person x, who is a deputy." and
2. "I don't like deputies."
I see some difference between #2 here (which is #4 in the original list) and 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, since it could potentially be making a more abstract point, ie that I don't like authority figures (or making some protest against authority). The person would be personifying the idea of Power (presumably abused power, which is often what people mean when they say Power), or Authoritanianism in the word "deputies."
The other category words (posters on the social board and posters who eat cheese, when someone has talked about eating cheese) seem to define groups of people who, in fact, do things here. They refer more to specific people than to an idea --so I don't include them separately.
So at one level, only one type of meaning for No. 4 doesn't seem quite the same as all the others, and seems to qualify for different consideration from that perspective.
....
I'd like to add that I personally wouldn't reject the idea that attacks on (or personal statements criticizing) the deputies were acceptable, within limits. This could be within Bob's idea of "taking some heat." That would be because the deputies have power, and are secure in their roles, acceptance, respect, and personas on the board. Beyond certain limits, though, it would be unacceptable.If I were a deputy, I would give posters much more latitude for making personal statements against my actions or even myself, because of that position.
But if the deputies are uncomfortable with that, their feelings matter. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of fundamental fairness, though, because of the power and position differences. It's more a practical thing right now.
I generally don't like absolute bright-line rules, because the meanings of situations are so context-dependent, and I prefer there to be lots of room for judgments that respond to that. But again, that's me and I'm not a deputy.
(Sorry this is so long and hard to follow.)
Jost
poster:Jost
thread:666864
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/673382.html