Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: rules

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2006, at 3:57:17

In reply to Re: question gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 22:16:24

> What's the goal? Humilate the real sufferer, or reward the person mildly or righteously offended by what might even be a rather trivial rule infraction?

The goal is civility. Which facilitates support. Unfortunately, people may sometimes feel humiliated, but that's not the goal.

> there appear to be discussions about some genuine, obvious offenses, but also a few that appear dubious, trivial- or just plain confusing.

It sounds like we agree that lines need to be drawn. But where exactly to draw them is a different issue, and reasonable people can disagree.

> What's to stop, theoretically speaking, someone from zipping all over the site, being offended by everything, and turning everyone in? They'd get a lot of attention, I gather.

They probably would. It's not in the FAQ yet, but there's a 3-objection rule:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407882.html

> I am concerned that some people, who might post a plea for help or while obviously in trouble, might ... attract enourmous attention about whether or not there was a real infraction of rules ... and meanwhile, the original poster's core concern gets ignored

I agree, that's why those discussions are redirected here -- and why it's important not to get so preoccupied with rules that we forget about support.

> Perhaps there could be an area for dicier discussions, "use at your own risk", where people promise to be on their best behavior, yet acknowledge someone could end up offended?
>
> -But no, it's not my site-

This site isn't, but that dicier site could be... :-)

> I just still wish that there was more flexability, that so many people weren't afraid to write stuff out of fear of accidently causing offense or breaking a rule

> The warnings almost appear pre-emptive sometimes.

What would more flexibility be based on? The thing about flexibility is that it can be seen as unfair.

I think fear is an important, but distinct, issue. But if someone's never been warned, the most that can happen is they'll be warned (to attempt to preempt a block). And if they've been warned, but never blocked, the most that can happen is they'll be blocked from posting for a week. If they've already been blocked repeatedly, it's true, more is at stake. One way to look at it is:

> > Part of learning how to deal with others might just be for people to be uncivil, have that pointed out by Dr. Bob and other members, and then work on appropriate alternate behaviors, and then keep posting. I have seen that happen many times here. There is the possibility for growth in this setting, kind of like group therapy, and I think people should take advantage of that.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020325/msgs/21311.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil

Thanks for contributing to this discussion,

Bob


Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Dr. Bob thread:670602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/671947.html