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: Interesting points - but..... SLS

Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 9:13:45

In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 8:07:11

Scott:

Please be known that I consider you to have valuable input to Babble. I just have a difference of opinion with you regarding this issue.


> > But you say it is not personal. Lou happens to use this posting style. You say that the rule will be applied fairly (theory), but Lou is the only one that the new rule (practice).
>
> How many people here have commited murder?
>

I think this is a bad example. Murder does actually hurt another person. Multiple posts to admin hurt nobody.

Besides, I prefer to think of babble as NOT being a democracy (majority rules.) I prefer to think of it as a place where the rights of the minority are protected against the majority. Isn't that what we are all looking for???


> > In fact, you have already listed at least two exceptions to the rule - the replies to multiple posters (Susan's case) and the meltdown case (Dinah's case). What happened to 'rules is rules' and no exceptions??
>
> Perhaps we should let things settle down a bit without forcing the moderator to take further actions that would only create more upset? Flexibility here would seem prudent.

But how much has flexibility been used in other cases? Every time I've stood up for someone, I've been told that 'rules is rules' and intent is too hard to determine to be able to take it into account. NO EXCEPTIONS, I've been told. Why is this different??

Question: what do you consider 'settle down' to be? Give the new rule time to gel, and those of us that have a problem with it shut our trap? Or chunk the rule completely?


> > And you say don't take it personal? It seems to me that this rule is designed for one person.
>
> I think it was designed for any person. Any person could have posted 100 consecutive posts. The proscription of murder was designed for any person, not one person.

Yes, but only one person has actually done multiple posts with regularity. So, while theoretically it applies to all, in practice it only applies to one. And it's NotMurder!


>
> This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive. I am sure there are many people who did not find Lou's behavior thusfar to be disruptive. It is not about him. It is about a potential for abuse. I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.

Two separate thoughts here. If we worry about *potential* for abuse, then we have the *potential* of laying down so many rules that there is the *potential* for even smileys to be banned.

If someone *personally* finds it disruptive (especially on admin) then - As Dr. Bob says so often, there are other pages to visit.

It is my opinion that any rule that has built in flexibility (considering intent) and an arbitrary line drawn (3? why not 2? or 6?) is a bad rule. Why base the number on one archiving?

Mel

 

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:AuntieMel thread:394224
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396216.html