Posted by JenStar on September 2, 2004, at 13:27:32
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 12:45:20
For me, I think the rules work pretty well. (Hear me out, folks...please don't get mad!)
I think it's incredibly hard to write blanket rules that apply to all situations. My feeling is that the best-written rules only "work" perfectly in about 90 or 95% of cases. However, it's even harder to write rules that account for all the onesy-twosy situations that could arise.
I think that having objective -- not subjective -- rules seems the most fair to the greatest amount of people in the long run. If there are too many loopholes for subjectivity, it would almost feel like favoritism in some cases, and might engender hostility or unhappiness in the babble community.
I myself tend to react inappropriately at times to posts (sorry!) with sarcasm or insulting language. I usually feel righteously indignant about such posts, but once I think about it further...what if EVERYONE wrote rude things, all the time? Might the board disintegrate into a shouting match where people are afraid to post? I know it's kind of a "slippery slope" argument, but to prevent against the slip into chaos we need to govern ourselves and stick to the rules consistently.
For example, let's say that someone was banned for responding uncivily to an uncivil post, but we want to change the rules allow that particular person to keep posting in this instance and in future similar instances.
How would this be worded? "If someone responds to an uncivil post with uncivility, but IF that person is liked by at least 15 others who sign a petition, THEN that person will not be banned, as long as that person has been posting here for XX months AND has only had XX "civility warnings" in the timeframe of YYY." It seems that it would get incredibly complicated to work in all the particulars; too complicated to sort out. It might be worth doing -- it just seems hard. And some people would still not be happy with it.
I'm not poking fun or insults at anyone who suggested a petition; please don't read that into my notes. I just used that as an example of how difficult it might be to write 'special circumstance cases' into the ruleset.
I just think the rules are pretty well-thought-out, even if I don't always personally abide by them 10% of the time. :)
JenStar
PS - Personally, I feel a sense of consternation mixed with frustration and irritation when I am solicited for money on behalf of any cause here on babble. Although I might care about the cause/person involved, I feel that it's a bit invasive and manipulative to be asked for money in a forum where I come to be 'protected' and to share ideas/thoughts, not finances. I feel sort of threatened, too: Will people stop liking me if I DON'T contribute? I worry about the person in question: Will they feel bad if other babbles DON'T donate? Will they get a false sense of hope or security, only to be disappointed later?
Here, too, I worry about the "slippery slope" argument: If we allow ONE request for money, would it be fair to deny any OTHER requests? And if we allow ALL requests, would it turn into a forum for donations? Would I be asked for money often and feel like a jerk often for not participating? Or if some requests are allowed to post and not others, would that be fair?
These are the kinds of questions that keep me up nights. :)
poster:JenStar
thread:385696
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/385710.html