Posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2000, at 8:47:23
In reply to Re: Civility and fairness » Dr. Bob, posted by Oddzilla on August 14, 2000, at 20:01:34
> > I think it's a significant problem, the real possibility of multiple identities. The most effective way I can think of to address it is to require not just email addresses, but also credit card numbers. But I'm not set up for that yet...
>
> > Wouldn't it be necessary to give a name with the credit card for it to be of any use? Don't most people have lots of credit cards?That's a good point, I guess a name -- or an address -- would also need to be required...
> > At the same time, I think he contributed to it himself in this case by actually assuming different identities.
>
> But I'm not one of them and I'm the one that was accused (and it felt UNCIVIL to me not him).That's one of the problems with this multiple identity business, it can create a general atmosphere of uncertainty and "innocent" people can become suspected, too.
> Several people have annoyed me on this board, but I quit reading their posts,I didn't expect them to be banned from the board.
>
> One person can't disrupt the board if no one answers his posts and assists in the disruption,but only one person is being ejected.I do think the best way to respond to disruptive posts is not to, but reading them, or even just seeing them, itself makes it a less supportive environment.
Some chat rooms let you designate people to "ignore", after which you don't even see what they post. That would be another way around this, but would be a big job, programming-wise.
> I think it would be most honest just to say the board belongs to you and you don't have to have any reasons to kick people off. I think that would be fairer and more honest and kinder than making accusations against people as you evict them.
I could say that, and it may seem that way, but (1) I do have reasons and (2) I'm not sure that would in fact be kinder for them -- or better for the community.
Now responding to Cass:
> > Second, I think there's some truth to the charge that he annoys, hurts, disrupts, etc.
>
> Yet is there no truth to the fact that calling someone annoying, hurtful and disruptive is abusive?These things are judgment calls, and therefore inherently subjective, but no, in this context, I didn't consider that "abusive". Even though I don't doubt that he felt hurt by it.
> All of this seems to stem from the fact that MisterB's opinions are a minority opinion.
This board doesn't exist just to allow people to voice their opinions. If that's all they want to do, they can start their own eGroup. This board exists to provide support and education. *If* an opinion is supportive or educational, *then* it's welcome here.
> Why can't others be at least tolerant of his opinions? I don't agree with every thing he writes, but I still respect him, and I don't want to see him leave. Let's ALL get along. Let's all respect each other, not only those whose opinions are in the mainstream but everyone who seems to be earnest.
I would *love* it if everyone respected each other and I didn't have to enforce any rules. But is it tolerant and respectful to call someone abusive?
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:42420
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000811/msgs/42941.html