Posted by Snowie on December 12, 2000, at 22:21:19
In reply to Re: labeling, posted by concerned on December 12, 2000, at 19:07:35
C,
I think I understand what you're getting at, and tend to agree with some of it. Many BBSs have plain language rules for posting at their Boards, which leave little room for misunderstanding. Here's a link to the "Terms and Conditions" of another BBS, which is self-explanatory.
http://www.algy.com/anxiety/disc/faq.html
Snowie
> The software is simple enough. Medscape uses a similar function, where one must register before entering the site. It is essentially a version of the same software in use for implementing registration here. Some BBS softwares, or scripts, come ready made with options for registration at selected places during the users access process, either before entering the site, or before posting. Many sites require "adult" certification before entering. Others simply require a guest to click on an "I agree" box before entering, which is the closest to what I suggest.
>
> The difficult part, for me, is introducing the idea. If nobody agrees that some people are hurt by the standards in place here, there might be little I can say to persuade anyone that the implicit language of the header on the pages in their current configuration does not comprise an adequate agreement concerning community standards.
>
> I could suggest specific examples where exclusion has been a catalyst for harm, and how a failure to establish clear standards in a particular setting contributed to a perception of wrongful exclusion. But to introduce specific examples would invite argument over the merit and relevancy of the example. Discussion back and forth could invoke strong feelings, and I do not feel "safe" expressing or encouraging expression of strong feelings in this environment. Likewise, I could further debate the semantics of "civility" and what it means here and elsewhere, but again, to do so only encourages debate, with unpredictable consequences.
>
> I doubt that I am the most sensitive, thin-skinned person on the Internet, but I have noticed that the ambiguous, subjective standards in place here can sometimes be surpisingly hurtful. If I, being at times a rather thick skinned traveler, am sensitive to this hurt, I feel it is fair of me to suggest that the standards might prove even more hurtful to others.
>
> People accustomed to what they perceive as a normal standard here may not be in the best place to understand how the standard can be surprising to people who are accustomed to different standards elsewhere. The standard here is obviously a more restrictive standard than, for example, the one in place at the MSN "Slate" board. A simple process of assertively agreeing, in advance, to the standards in place here will help prepare people for the potentially difficult psychological process of negotiating the unique and subjective standard.
>
> In a simple process of clicking through a portal page, one would not agree simply to a general standard of support, education or civility, which is wide open for interpretation. Instead users could be asked to assertively agree, from the outset, to a contract to abide by a specific interpretation of support and education unique to this site.
>
> Some forewarning about the sensitivity of diverse participants here, who are often suffering in unusual ways, and about the potentially inflammatory nature of controversy here could help prevent disruption. A byproduct might be that, rather than the moderator reacting after the fact to explain the subjectivity of his decisions, he would be challenged to better define his criteria at the outset. He might not need to feel so heard hearted about excluding some people, or deleting some posts. He could include appropriate fine print that might protect him against litigation, such as "I agree not to post copyrighted material here," or "I agree not to reproduce material from here elsewhere without expressed consent," or "I agree that posts deemed disruptive by the moderator might be deleted."
>
> I am suggesting that, rather than inviting everyone to the party and then telling them the party is not for everybody, the site could include more specific language and processes in the invitation that will help more people understand the expectations of participation here.
>
> Rather than minimizing the merit of the diverse values of those who will inevitably be rejected here, I encourage an effort to maximize recognition of the unique values in place here.
poster:Snowie
thread:106
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/129.html