Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 23:24:38
In reply to the answer choices are limited » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on September 15, 2002, at 21:20:39
> I went to the poll and was chagrined to discover that none of the choices really fit my desired response to your blocking of beardy. Choices 2 and 3 gave me the option of saying either that I disagreed with your general statement of the rule supposedly violated or that I agreed with the rule but thought it had been misapplied in this instance. This is all well and good except that each choice also contained the clause "and think you should have been more lenient." Maybe my knowledge of vocabulary is just too limited, but I generally think of leniency as being akin to mercy as with the judge who showed "leniency in sentencing." The concept of leniency doesn't break into my thinking about this unless there's been some breach of rules or etiquette. None of your alternatives allowed me to voice my conclusion that there simply was no such breach.
Sorry, maybe those aren't the best choices, or worded the best way. I see what you mean, but by "should have been more lenient", I meant "over-reacted". How about if I just change it to that in the future?
> What I saw was that beardy wrote a rather opinionated post (as she frequently does). Judging from the tone of her response, it's obvious that Mash (sorry for the way I've shortened this) took beardy's remarks personally. Beardy's rejoinder, for which she was blocked, read to me like very much of an apology - something on the order of "my remarks were really intended as a criticism of Bob not you and I'm very sorry that you took it this way." The specific statement cited by you as a put-down was a statement that I thought said nothing about any other poster and rather only expressed an opinion of your PBC. Surely this statement probably was a put-down of you and your moderating decisions...
Here's how I imagined the options would apply in this case. Again, sorry if I put it in a confusing way. My post was:
> > The PBC is what is ignorant.
> Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down. Last time I blocked you from posting for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
So my rationale was that that statement of hers could lead others to feel put down. So the poll options are:
1. You agree that (a) in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil, (b) that statement was an example of that, and (c) being blocked for 2 weeks was reasonable.
2. You disagree that in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil, so you think I over-reacted.
3. You agree that in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil, but you don't think her statement was an example of that, so you think I over-reacted.
4. You agree that in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil and that that statement was an example of that, but given that it was beardy, you think I over-reacted.
5. You think I under-reacted.
I hope that's more clear. People who have already voted can change their minds if this makes a difference (or for any other reason)...
> but it seems that you've always allowed considerable leeway when criticisms have been directed your way and not to other posters.
I did at first, but changed my mind a while ago. Because I think uncivil posts are like broken windows, letting some go, even if they're my windows, leads to more:
> This is an unfortunate example of 2 problems which seem to arise with some of your moderating decisions. 1) statements are frequently read out of the context in which they're made, and 2) sanctions sometimes come to quickly.
Hmm, "context" isn't an option in the polls, I'll add it. How about:
I agree with the general principle and that it applies to this post, but given the context, I think you significantly over-reacted.
Which in this case would mean something like:
6. You agree that in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil and that that statement was an example of that, but given the context (for example, that she was apologizing), you think I significantly over-reacted.
(To the one person who voted in an initial version of the next poll while I've been typing this, sorry, can you vote again? :-)
> That this blocking should arise out of statements made in the course of a seemingly sincere apology is particularly puzzling. Presumably if beardy had kept her mouth shut and had not attempted to apologize to someone who was obviously upset with her, she would have been fine.
Yes, if she hadn't posted anything, she would've been fine. But she also would've been fine if she'd just left out that one sentence...