Posted by Larry Hoover on May 2, 2006, at 11:46:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:18:38
> > she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
>
> > her uncivil comments
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for 6 weeks again.A number of intelligent and experienced posters have asked you to clarify just what it is that constituted the incivility in *my* use of language that *you* use all the time. I was quoting you, truth be told. Are there words that you can use, but others may not? And where is that, in the FAQ?
One of the responsibilities you took on, when you decided that only you could determine what is ultimately civil or not, is to clarify your arguments. Yet, you consistently and repeatedly fail to explain yourself, even when directly questioned about it. That is grossly uncivil. Please be civil, Bob.
This is a prime example of the disparity between that which you envision, and the true end result of your creation. Unless, of course, your validation is in the outcome itself. Your decision to block me did nothing but silence me. I see no evidence that anybody learned anything about civility through this example, if that was your true intent. I learned nothing, as Bobjectivity remains beyond the capabilities of even your most experienced deputies to define. All the time, we observe them deferring to you. Over and over again, we have to wait until Bob comes back. And, all of the time, virtually, you fail in your duty to guide us. By retaining such power, yet not leading effectively, you are not civil to all Babblers, not just those with questions.
Shortly after I was blocked, I saw ed_uk come under ad hominem assault, from a fairly new poster. As an experienced poster, it was Ed's duty to just suck it up, right? But, well within any definition of civility I have ever seen, and in fact, in an exemplary post, Ed civilly mentioned the "unkindness" in that other's posts, and he was blocked for it.
I haven't yet been in touch with Ed about it, but I am going to stake my intuition on declaring that I saw Ed wounded by your decision. I don't think Ed has been the same, ever since. You don't consider the unintended consequences of your idiosyncratic perception of civility. Ed spoke to his hurt in the minimum way possible, while still conveying his sense of offense. That is civility, to carry that message, a criticism, while doing so in the most gentle way available. It was an exemplary post, Bob, not a blocking offense.
It is similar to other of your acts, e.g. your creation of a Politics board. Do you not understand the meaning of the word politic? It is the taking of sides, sir, amongst other older meanings. Arguments pro *and* con.
Political debate involves two things. Advancing your own position, while weakening that of the others. Metaphorical teeter-totters of argument. Let us consider civility as teeter, and incivility as totter. You are saying we've lost half our field of debate, and must make do with only teeters. It is quite absurd. Moreover, you have declared that there is, in fact, a discrimination point between teetering and tottering, and, and this the key point, you "know it when (you) see it", (from the FAQ). If only you would be so kind as to declare precisely where that point is, so that intelligent and civil posters can position themselves accordingly. If you are going to redefine the English language, then you need to say so, explicitly and precisely. Where is the guidance?
One could reasonably argue that the Politics board was created so that you might never suffer a dearth of blockable posters. The "blocking percentage" of all posts to a board must be at a maximum on that particular board. Do you thrill at the kill, Dr. Bob?
The anger I released in this thread, some weeks back, sir, was all created by your various acts in which you failed to be civil to me, or to others on these boards. Your use of the operator "could", with respect to the meanings of words and their civility, is a particular bone of contention between us. You block me because you have a vivid imagination, sir. Here's how it goes.....
I post something with a pointed message. Provocative of further discourse, I would like to imagine it to be. And, upon reading my words, you ponder a moment, and you discover a non-zero probability that I might have had an uncivil meaning in mind. You then substitute the obvious meaning I intended with your own imagined meaning, and subsequently block me for that. You're not blocking what I said. You're blocking what you imagined. That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination.
In *my* sense of what is civil, where ambiguity arises in another's words, one does one of two things: A) one seeks a clarification, a rewording perhaps; or, B) one takes the more charitable meaning as the intent. Each time it arises, not once ever. In your regime, you only get one ambiguity? One lifetime ambiguity?
Moreover, and this is a critical point, civility as I know it rewards effort. Always. One shapes behaviour towards an ideal, and one both gives and receives reward for the effort expended. Under your regime, 99.9% perfection is total failure (i.e. "Block with his head" ....errrr, you know what I mean). It could come two weeks later......whammo! Educational? Not.
I have seen many sincere and emotional posts on this board since I was last blocked. From posters who were emotionally wounded by your determinations of civility, Dr. Bob. I, and all these others are asking you to consider the unintended consequences of the implimentation of your civility regime.
As you say, sir, you don't consider intent. How is it, then, that you hide behind your intent when adverse effects of your system are made known to you?
How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated? Keeping that one in reserve, to nail somebody else?
How is it that I still don't have a clear idea of what you mean when you use the word civility? I cannot find a definition, anywhere, that comes close to yours. No civil system splits hairs.
Bobjectivity. I know it when I see it. And it makes me angry.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/639194.html