Posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 5:27:20
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:58:23
Dr Bob,
Personally I think the whole concept of blocks is wrong.
Although I do see that there are times when some posters may benefit from a forced "break" for a week or 2 at the MOST to calm down, think things over etc...so I guess there is some good arguments to be made in favour of SHORT blocks at times.
And there are a few cases where posters may need to be banned for say a year...like in a faked suicide (as opposed to discussing suicide ideation)..or repeatedly abusive posts. ..in these cases, I also think the offending posts should be deleted before archiving occurs. There are some derogatory attacking posts in the archives which, IMO, are not a credit to any board to display.IMO "blocks" may be harmful to posters who make slipups at the very time they need support the most...which is probably when thy are more likely to slip up. I have spent some time considering this, and I can really see NO benefit to anyone in the blocks.(other than discussed above). "Blocks" IMO are being metered out as a "punishment" ..as if the posters were say, lower primary school age. I say this, as by upper primary school we did have a right to state our own case in defense for consideration.
The "blocks" must be at the least hurtful and embarrasssing to some posters....especially when you consider it is done on a board that is so easy to google.What is worse is that there is no right of appeal.
In a law court at least the accused is given a chance to defend him/herself.
I took this heading to mean that Admin should perhaps be considered as a place where posters can freely say what they think..and be allowed to post to argue their defense after being "blocked"..there should perhaps be somewhere where posters can state their side openly to the board if they wish...perhaps before any final decision is made.Why I am against the whole concept of blocks is that they are really impossible to meter out fairly and considerately by any human (or even group of humans)..as noone is all seeing. They are ..as I know you understand, not a "black and white" easy call to make in most cases. Also I really cannot see any benefit of them..I'm sorry but I personally don't get any benefit from seeing someone blocked ..even if that person has upset me. To own the truth, the posts I find upsetting seem to fit your civility rules quite well.
I could suggest just having some guidelines ..like no language not used on prime time TV...and moderation by editing the posts if broken. (as is done in many other forums and seems to work effectively).
Also no personal attacks on other posters whether directly to another poster OR by posting negatively ABOUT another poster by name(especially when that poster is blocked and therefore has no way of defending him/herself).
I really can't see much difference between posting directly TO a poster about something you disagree with (which, to me, should be fine unless that person has requested that you do not post to him/her..even if it causes a poster to feel "put down" as someone disagrees with them)
OR posting what you disagree with about another poster to someone else or to the board in general...except, to me, this kinda lacks manners or something.
For instance you allow someone to request they not be directly posted to..and that is fine, but a poster may still post (negative)remarks about that poster..as long as it is not directly addressed to them... which defeats the purpose in a way.
Unfortunately I can see no easy way to implement an "ignore" on this style of forum.Also I think that no "education" ..at least of the medical drug/alternative type can be really made if posters are allowed to claim personal opinions and experiences as fact or even worse to be able to say things that appear false..
If this board is not to be "dangerous" in a medical sense..there needs to be moderation of incorrect content. This may be at least parially achieved by allowing other posters to question the content and ask for supporting studies, references etc...where it does seem a poster is making statements they may be misleading. This is a form of board self moderation...and yes it may involve the original poster feeling "put down" as people are questioning what they state...but if no timely official moderation of content occurs (and it doesn't)...readers may be hurt...perhaps seriously medically if some readers were influenced by incorrect content and questioning is not allowed/discouraged/ penalised in any way.
IMO..if the poster does repeatedly make statements which someone considers misleading then there does need to be a questioning for some evidence to back up their claims..until it is either produced or the poster corrects his statements and restates them as opinion or personal experience only.Personally I'd also would have liked the ability to edit posts until "archiving" occurs, at least on the medical "babble" and alter boards. Why? as this allows incorrect statements to be modified by the original poster ...so no blatantly misleading information is displayed at least on the archived boards. I guess this would depend on just what "education" the boards are trying to achieve?
I don't expect anyone to agree, but I hope some small part of my suggestions are helpful even if in only putting forward a differing point of view.
poster:tealady
thread:297006
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/300083.html