Posted by Larry Hoover on October 28, 2003, at 8:05:55
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 2:09:52
> I agree, it would've been better if I had announced the general block-reduction policy (and the specific block reduction). That was a mistake, sorry. Better discussion late than never?
>
> Policies tend to be prompted by specific cases. But hopefully are written in general terms...
>
> It was without precedent (was itself a precedent). And without input from the group. But in "general terms", I still think some sort of block-reduction policy makes sense."That was a mistake, sorry.", is all you have to say? It was a huge mistake, Bob. It may indeed make sense, but not when arbitrarily applied, and when applied in secret. There should be a court of appeal. Your ruling would fail. Period.
> > The banned poster *did* violate parole, Bob.
> >
> > > her block ... expired on 7/2, but since she did take a new name, she was able to start posting again on 6/29...
>
> I'm surprised that hasn't been commented on until now...I only found out about it *last week*. You nearly struck the record clean, destroying all the evidence. I spent hours trying to figure out what really happened, so that I could make an informed comment.
> Technically, yes, it was a "violation", but my inclination was to let it go because:
>
> 1. Usually, someone who's blocked tries to post, finds out they're (still) blocked, re-registers under a new name to get around the block, and posts. But that's not what happened in this case.You know that, because?
> 2. She was only off by a few days. I don't expect people to keep track of exactly how long they're blocked. I don't even keep a list myself anymore. It's all automated. But that automation isn't perfect.
Here's what you said a few days ago:
"Those are two different situations. After something's been posted, if the issue is how civil I think it is, the poster's intent is not (much) an issue. Before it's posted, if the issue is how the poster should say it, their intent is very much an issue."Let's apply that concept, intent, to you and the Rules. It doesn't matter your intent, Bob, if your decision violated the Rules.
> > At that time, I was emotionally raped. My trust and faith that my boundaries would be inviolate has been stolen from me. I will never forget what happened, and the pain is with me still. It will not heal. I am scarred by it. I am forever changed by those events, and I cannot go back to 'before'. As they say in legal circles, "You can't unring the bell."
>
> I'm sorry you were so hurt. You may not be able to go back, but I hope you can go on.Your comment is both appropriate and well-meaning, but your actual conduct feels more hurtful to me than the original wound. It may be an unattainable objective, but people seek fairness. What you have chosed to do is not fair. It's only because someone with a little more knowledge of what really went on brought it to the light of day that we can even discuss it. Otherwise, someone would have got a deal that absolutely no one else had been offered, and all other participants in this forum would have been none the wiser. Simply saying "Let's talk about it now" is not an adequate response. You have seriously compromised the integrity of your position.
I have a suggestion for you. Write down a simple summary of the events as they occurred, and submit the scenario to a colleague for their assessment. And abide by their determination of what might be fair.
> And remember, you can report an adverse event at:
>
> https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/advent.plThat looks like a drug report form.
> > This may be a deal-breaker for me, Bob. I'm serious.
>
> I understand. And see that my whew! above was premature. I do hope you stay, but do what you think is best.
>
> BobThank you for your support. You know I will do what *I* think is best.
Regards,
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:273904
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/274206.html