Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2008, at 20:52:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-ranel » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on May 11, 2008, at 19:40:44
> In the time I've been around the civility rules have changed in response to the situation here. I feel reasonably sure that much of that is an intuitive response to the situation on the boards. Therefore there may be no rationale or criteria that fit well over time. Even at a given time the rationale and criteria may be less than transparent. But if you ask those in authority to give rationale and criteria you back them into a corner of having to pretend there is more logic to it than there actually is. Then they have to respond with a ruling that is defensible and therefore not neccessarily the best ruling you might be able to get.
Sigismund,
You wrote,[...civility rules change...There may be no...if you ask...you back them into a corner...having to pretend...they have to respond..defensible...not..the best you might...]
In respect to the requests of mine to Mr. Hsiung for his rationales and criteria used in what he writes here, I am responding as a guest here to the invitation by the way of his terms of service here to ask him for those as he writes to please ask him if one here wants to know his rationale.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/715371.html
The TOS here also states that Mr. Hsiung writes that he takes responsibility for what he posts, and I agree with him in that as the administrator here, that IMO the administration has that obligation to take responsibility to in what an administrator writes just as Mr. Hsiung has posted here.
In regards to my requests to Mr. Hsiung for his rationale, my requests IMO are in the time frame at hand and that there has not been a change that I see and in fact, he posts the guidelines of the faith forum again here on this board that IMO means that he is still holding to his rationale for, in that case, writing that some foundations of some faiths put down those of other faiths and I am asking him for clarification/criteria/rationales to what he wrote, for what he wrote has not changed.
There is a statement by Mr. Hsiung that he sometimes gets busy as a response to my requests to him. I think that that is his reason, for thta is what he wrote and I am taking him at his word. If there is a reason other than that, I do not see him writing that here in this particular discussion now.
I do not believe that by requesting from Mr. Hsiung, let's say, that he list his criteria used to determine how a foundation of a a faith puts down those of another faith, or for him to list the criteria here that he uses to make a determination as to what kind of requests for clarification or guidance concerning site rules could or could not be good for the community as a whole or not, is {backing into a corner} as you have stated here becuase he has posted for members to please ask him for his rationale if one here want to know. He also writes here that it is fine to discuss actions that he has taken and to discuss the administration of the site which there is this adminisrtrative board for that purpose.
You wrote that[...they have to respond to a ruling that is defensible....]. I ask as to if there could be a ruling that is not defensible? If so, what in your opinion could that mean if there was a response that was not defensible?
You wrote,[...they have to pretend that there is more logic to it than there actually is...]. Could you post here what authority you could use to say that? For if one has to pretend something, then could that mean to you that a false assertion could be made as an answer to the request for criteria/rationales/clarification? If so, why? For could not a reply be the honest criteria/rationale/clarification?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:808496
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080424/msgs/828595.html