Posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 11:11:32
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy, posted by muffled on February 4, 2007, at 10:14:48
A more utopian idea would be for people to have buddies== maybe consulting buddies, but not oneswho would be blocked if the person posted an uncivil post.
I'd be very uncomfortable with being in the role of blocking a "civility buddy's" posts-- or at least forcing them, on pain of my also being blocked, to change what they wrote. There also is a role for spontaneity and the safety valve of blowing off steam and seeing if you get blocked. Maybe you do, maybe you don't-- but you have the right to say something angry or unkind-- and then others have the right to handle it, in many ways. It's part of the process that's valuable, if sometimes painful.
But I like the idea of having buddies-- although it wouldn't be as interesting if people paired off with their favorite people (even if that would be more doable- it raises the "in" group issues-- and the "popular crowd" issues). Still, it would have to be a person you felt the potential for a beneficial and instructive time.
Maybe it should be random-- or people should pair off with people they have trouble with. Maybe for a period of time, and then people would have the option of changing (or staying with that buddy for another period of time), so people would get to know more people better. I think it would be interesting to try to have a productive relationship with someone whom I intuitively respond to in a negative way. At least I feel I might learn a lot-
Honore
poster:Honore
thread:596575
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/729610.html