Posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2006, at 0:01:44
In reply to Please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 3, 2006, at 14:35:20
> You quite ignored clear evidence that one particular post was hurtful both to its poster and to its target. You reversed the decision of a deputy.
What decision was that? I don't like to reverse their decisions, but sometimes I may think things may be more consistent if I do.
Whether someone's hurt is important, but isn't the only issue. A particular person could feel hurt, and I still could consider it a civil post. OTOH, a particular person could not feel hurt, and I still could consider it an uncivil post.
> >Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?
>
> No. It feels random. It feels capricious and arbitrary. It feels Bobbish.Does it feel reminiscent of any other situations?
> civility rewards effort. Civility is exemplified in things like, "Tie goes to the runner."
Ties may, but what if it isn't even a tie? And what about the effort the other side makes?
> > > How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated?
>
> I speak of the non-harassment version of the DNP rule.Sorry, I know that's overdue. There are other DNP changes I'd like to make, so I'm planning on making them all together. Also, there are other changes that are even higher priorities.
> You did not address the example I made of Ed's thoroughly civil message which resulted in a block.
I guess we disagree here, too. I didn't think it was civil and explained why at the time.
> Nor did you address the issue I raised about seeking clarity or rewordings on each example in which you discover ambiguity of meaning, rather than once ever.
I think it's better if wordings are clearly and unambiguously civil in the first place.
Thanks for trying to understand the system and for suggesting improvements,
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/640158.html