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: Decidedly Against Deputy Monitor Posting Police shar

Posted by ShelliR on September 14, 2002, at 21:09:11

In reply to Decidedly Against Deputy Monitor Posting Police, posted by shar on September 12, 2002, at 0:44:48

> ...or whatever we will call them. Psycho Babble, as a site, has become more restrictive and we already have people making long intros before they state their opinions so as to (one hopes) avoid a PBC or block. Communication has become cumbersome, more veiled, less direct (even when direct NE uncivil but *MIGHT* be perceived that way), so that a thought becomes a tangle of a little bit of the idea, an apology, pointing out it is not directed at anyone in particular, plus toss in some paranoia because the guidelines aren't that clear anymore...and, voila, an incomprehensible mess(age)!
> I agree a few posters get way out on the edge, and need to be dealt with, and I don't have a big investment in who deals with them. However, I am not interested in having a lot of "be careful" and "watch the tone" posts, either, in the name of preventing a problem--no matter who makes them. Except that if Dr. Bob makes them, it's his board and he can do what he wants. It is too reminiscent of the kid who got to "take names" when the teacher left the room, even if just to step out into the hall. Or, always being under the watchful eye of "Mom" or "Dad" who wants to steer everyone away from even the hint of impropriety well before it is even a glimmer in a teenager's eye, so eventually everyone quits talking.
> It is as if the goal of the boards is now 'flat affect.' Which, of course, doesn't make sense to me on a board that deals with emotions, a full range of emotions, and emotions that are in response to what others say. The guidelines are so broad now, to be civil is akin to being either supportive or neutral. Anything beyond that, and one risks a block, even if one is only expressing a personal opinion about an IDEA. And I do want to add that blocking for humor added a whole new dimension to the notion of what now constitutes "civility."
> Now for my standard disclaimers, that none of this is directed at anyone in particular, and Dinah did a very good job when she filled in for Dr. Bob, and I hope nobody takes any of this personally because it is not meant that way.........

BEAUTIFULLY said, Shar, and your post goes as it should, way past the idea of being "disappointed" in Dr. Bob. First the problem seemed to be too many blatant misjudgments by Bob, followed by his serious unwillingness to ever admit a mistake in censoring, even a completely obvious error.

But now I'm beginning to realize that the problem with both Dr. Bob's monitoring, or a replacement monitor, goes well beyond incorrect judgments. (again, as Shar has clearly pointed out). When the blocking was implimented, it addressed only blatantly insulting posts and posters. For some reason along the way, blocking and warning has shifted to an over scrutiny of each post (by Bob or other) to check whether he or they are almost 100% certain that NO READER, no matter how unlikely, would find offense. It has become a game of obsession, which distracts greatly from the content of the board.

When Dinah filled in for Dr. Bob, I was frustrated when she started using the exact same words as Bob:, "please do not say anything that may be interpreted........" and she even put asides to him in her posts in case she had offended him: (sorry Dr. Bob...). And I didn't like the pre-warnings she posted, for example, "guys watch out...", even though I'm sure they *were* offered to help avoid the escalation of conflict. (and I am fairly certain that at least some of the time, she was successful).

I also felt the constant praise of Dinah (by other posters) for her excellence in monitoring the board, annoying. Not because the praise was not warrented but, rather, along with her choice to use Bob's exact language, the "pre-warnings", and internal conversation with Bob, I resented never being able to get too far into a thought or idea, without being reminded about the continuous possiblity that someone, (and probably for no clear reason), could be censored at any time. The censoring that was ambigious to all but Dr. Bob and a very few members who feel safer with strict censorship, and don't seem particularly concerned about fairness. (Well, also to the few supporters who love "dad" a little beyond my comfort level).

So finally I realize (way after many other posters), that this nitpicking of posts will continue with or without Bob as the full-time monitor, especially as he seemingly chooses monitors who have *mostly* expressed very little problem with his censures in the past.

BTW, in spite of my annoyance at Dinah's use of Dr. Bob's exact words, and her warnings and asides to him in some of her posts, her monitoring probably *was* less controversial than Bob's, and I have no doubt that she tried very hard to do a good job. So while I have been pretty explicit about my feelings, it would be wrong to interpret them specifically as bad feelings toward Dinah, rather than the situation.

Now willing to step back and see what happens,





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 www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

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

poster:ShelliR thread:7094