Posted by Larry Hoover on May 5, 2006, at 12:47:59
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2006, at 0:01:44
> > 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?How many hurtful post removals/deputy reversals have there been, sir? Do you not recall it? The wounds are still fresh from it.
> I don't like to reverse their decisions, but sometimes I may think things may be more consistent if I do.
And what if the decision to honour consistency over hurtfulness turned a belated right back into a wrong?
> 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.You have concisely described the situation. It is the first person aspects of the situation which are at issue.
I am grateful for the imposition of civility here. But where you see a simple smooth boundary line betwixt it and incivility, that specific line, the one you have chosen (the one I have called Bobjectivity), is quite jagged and irregular and fragmented, in the eyes of others. I don't mean to generalize my condition to that of others, but based on my experiences, your current process of teaching that which you think is self-evident, is about as effective as disciplining a dog three hours after he's gotten into the garbage. The dog doesn't understand what's gone wrong with his world. The garbage is still all over the room. Everything simply gets worse, for no good reason. And then, you go and leave the dog alone with the garbage, again.
An example of Bobjectivity, from your last post.
You said:
"The issue isn't the meaning you have in mind, it's how other people could be affected by your post. Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?"I'll come back to my statement, the one I had made to you which engendered your words, in a moment. Let's first look at your statement. Let's consider the issue of bias.
Your words tell me that five near misses (or some other threshold, whatever it is) is more or less equivalent to one clear block. However, there should be no trend whatsoever, unless you are also measuring your own shift in perceptual state. You have become prejudiced against me, if there is any trend at all. The strength of that correlation is a measure of *your bias*. And, to the extent to which you allow that bias to influence your decision-making capabilities, it no longer measures a variable under my control. As I said, you block me based on your imagination. And, re-iterating what I said earlier, the progenator phrases,
I said:
"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."And that is proven by your response. Not only do you allow "close call" bias to creep into your judgments, I also feel that you treat me more harshly because I am popular. I don't feel as if I get a fair hearing from you, and I am unable to disentangle these two emotional responses to your acts. When you are generous to me, you do it for the wrong reasons. In full honesty, I am indignant, with one reason for that being a little bit nobler than the other.
Another quote you made, in the last post: "Guidance is always available."
You don't mind if I find this humorous, do you? If only it was. If only you were. Timeliness is far more important than you seem to think it is. Your lack of timeliness is perhaps your most uncivil act towards us, collectively.
> > >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?That felt like a low blow. This isn't a "baggage" situation.
Your acts feel capricious and arbitrary to me. Period. That is not because someone else also behaved capriciously and arbitrarily around me.
> > 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?The effort made by what other side? When you're dissecting an individual post made by me, of what relevance is another's effort? Are you saying that if another person is more skilled at Bobjectivity, that I must be blocked in consequence? I feel like I have been set up for a block, before, so your comment really shouldn't surprise me. What I cannot believe is that you think that it bolsters your position.
Civility rewards effort, but you don't. I'm asking you why that is. I'm asking you to reconcile your site definition to other commonly held meanings for the word civility.
>
> > > > 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.I am grateful for this update. At least I got something out of you.
You persist in "taking credit" for intending to do these things. I grow weary of the wait. Truly.
Maintenance here has been sorely lacking. I know it is a huge job, now. But it's only going to get bigger, if we don't get at it. You want your finger in every pie. I get it. It's your sandbox. <drumming fingers>
>
> > 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.
You restated your flawed premises. You did not explain it.There are ways to describe situations which only use descriptive language. When something varies along a continuum, we often have different words for the different ends of the scale. E.g. rich/poor or high/low. Or we may use comparators, to describe relative position on those individual continua....richer/poorer or higher/lower. There isn't any inherent inference in the use of these words. There is a simple descriptive aspect to them, which can often be, but is not necessarily, embellished with emotive content. Stripped clean, they are entirely civil. As Ed used the word, for example.
Civil discourse, at least in so far as I learned it, up in the wilds of Canada, permits simple descriptors. One is permitted to describe what one sees, provided that one remains in the descriptive realm. Your system appears to assume that the recipient of any (some value less than 50% on the continuum) descriptor is going to take it personally, as an ad hominem criticism. Your system assumes a state of mind that therapists, for example, encourage their clients to avoid. Moreover, your system then projects this flawed thinking back onto the author, presuming intent?, and embellishes the whole thing with a block. I should imagine all of this, before posting?
When I described certain passages as uncivil, six weeks back, I was quoting you. I again ask the question, is there language that only you can use here? If so, then, what is it? Let us have the list, if you will.
And, would you see to it that your FAQ carries a clear description of this novel definition for civility? Civilized Canadians are having trouble with your Bobwellian version.
> > 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.What you are saying is that you don't like having to even decide where civility is, or is not. Funny, that, but I wish you didn't have to either. I keep tripping over your ambiguities in places I never expected to find them.
> Thanks for trying to understand the system and for suggesting improvements,
>
> BobI made a number of suggestions, some weeks back. I trust you made notes. Just as you presume every poster here has memorized every post that you have ever made, I do expect the same presumption in return.
Sir, the issues I have been raising are all about unintended consequences. Your intended consequences seem reasonable enough. It's those other ones. The unintended consequences. You seem to not even care. I would like to see you seem like you do.
Thanks.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/640295.html