Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2007, at 10:38:25
In reply to Re: deputies.., posted by Aunt Virginia on May 5, 2007, at 0:17:16
> > > i think if a deputy posts a "please be civil" on a thread that should block them from commenting on the contents of the thread...
> > > seems like a terrible conflict of interest...
> > > †
> >
> > So just to make sure I understand what you're suggesting....you think that a deputy's freedom to post should be limited or restricted in some way? In other words, someone who volunteers their time for no compensation while being subject to increased criticism should have their very posting freedom, that same freedom the other members enjoy and that the deputy enjoyed before volunteering to help out the site those same members are able to post freely at, they should have some sort of posting restriction?
> >
> > So if someone posts something uncivil and that post needs addressing by a deputy, that situation someone else created should automatically preclude said deputy from posting on that thread/subject? Now that could represent a potential conflict of interest. Hmmmm, what's more important? Doing the job I volunteered to do? Or expressing my thoughts about something that interests me? Aw shucks. I'll just let this one go so I can say something, even if it's a pretty straightforward call on the civility of the post. Um, yeah.
> >
> > So do I have this right? You're for limiting the posting freedom of deputies?
> >
>
> >
> > gg
> >
> >
>
>
> I'm curious how repeating someone's very clear statement as a question can expand the repeater's understanding of the statement. I know several other reasons to repeat someone's well-formed statement as a question. One reason some debaters repeat others' statements is to cast the statements in a different light.
>
> A few more thoughts: Bulliten board posts don't have needs -- they are inanimate. Posts don't "need addressing." Posts are either addressed to a particular person when they are submitted, or are addressed to an ambiguous general group of readers. Each post has an URL, which also serves as an address.
>
> Sometimes people who run websites, or how help others run web sites *feel* a need to comment on certain posts, often asserting an opinion that such posts are "uncivil." Sometimes that *opinion* is stated as fact. Sometimes I state my opinions as fact to give them more authority. I wonder why others state opinions as facts.
>
> There are good reasons to seperate the job of administration from the task of offering support and education. Those reasons were explained in a scholarly paper that once defined operation of this site. Now that the "best of both worlds" as defined in a scholarly paper by that name no longer defines this site, we are left to wonder which part of those two worlds now govern the site. Maybe the second-best of both worlds?
>
> Maybe asking similar questions of a different subject who hasn't already answered the questions before they were asked would lead to a more revealing replies:
>
> * Are you, gg, for resticting the posting freedom of other members of the board?
> * Do you believe that their are reasons to limit some people's posting freedom?
> * Do you believe the operation of the site now is any different than the operation described in the paper where there was a clear distinction between administrative and supportive roles?
> * Do you believe a volunteer auxiliary police officer patrolling a political rally should participate as a political activist carrying signs at the same rally where he or she has volunteered to serve their community by executing uniform duties in a non-partisan manner?
>Friends,
It is written here,[...volunteer..police officer..participating.. a rally..executing uniform duties..non partisan..?]
This is a question that I would like to email about.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:750630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070423/msgs/756780.html