Posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2012, at 21:07:59
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep, posted by Twinleaf on February 18, 2012, at 9:40:50
> Just addressing one small aspect of Bob's request for suggestions to help make this site more active: I personally find requests for other posters to join Bob in encouraging posters to apologize ( or change their wording) for things which Bob has found uncivil to be inappropriate. Others may well not have the same reaction that Bob had. Their purpose here is to speak for themselves and to help and support others in ways which originate with them. Bob is of course expected to state his views, but not necessarily to request others to back up his requests.
>
> On a related issue, I think it is demeaning and patronizing to ask others to be civility buddies; this assumes that the poster in question is incapable of making intelligent, civil choices of their own. This is almost never the case, and is certainly not with Eduk, one of our most thoughtful, supportive and well-informed contributors over the years.
>
> To sum up, genuine respect for contributing posters would mean, to me, not asking people to support Bob's views ( but just letting them do so if they wish), and not asking for civility buddies. Just these two small changes would improve the atmosphere a lot.Tl,
You wrote the above. As I understand what the thrust of your post could be, it is that the owner/operator of this site is in some way part of your thinking on ways to make the site have an improved atmosphere. In this case, you could see that him redacting his policy in his TOS concerning civility buddies and requests to members to apologize to remain members, could improve the atmosphere here.
This opens the door to more introspection concerning the operation of this site by the owner and his deputy. They can control the content by either performing what their functions are in the TOS here, or not, as one way for an indoctrination to happen. They can effect the psychological/emotional state of person also by either performing their functions or not. If a statement could inflict emotional distress upon another member, and the owner and his deputy allow it to stand, then that can be a way for the psychological/emotional state of the member that the statement is diresct to , to have the infliction of the emotional disterss to continue and/or be made a deeper pain.
What your introspection shows here to me is that the site is a {union} of the members and the administration members. And if one in the union is not performing their stated function, or has a policy that could in your opinion have a detrimental effect psychologically/emotionally on some members, then that could be part of the atmosphere here.
And there is much more to this that I think could come out of this discussion. But in my thinking, as long as my requests here to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy remain outstanding, and all of the notifications from me to the administration remain outstanding, that could hold back improving the atmosphere for me. I do recognize your contribution here as that I am in agreement with your thinking about the situation with asking a person to change their wording to fit someone else's thinking. And what good could it do for someone to post an apology? Is not the way an apology is accepted or not determined by the one that the statement that is apologised for considers the apology acceptable, not someone else? An apology is generally accepted if the apology is judged to be sincere and sufficiant by the one the statement is agaainst, not someone else. I do not know how that could be done here as to be able to judge if something posted is sincere, maybe someone else does?
So what I see is the policy of apologizing a way for the one apologizing to remain a member here. How, then, could anyone judge if the apology is sincere?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1010543
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1010738.html