Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2010, at 20:08:24
In reply to Yes, but.... » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on April 25, 2010, at 19:37:11
> ...and I might be extrapolating here, but I think that the poster who was blocked was really looking for an explanation for what had happened (with the Facebook message in her long inactive account) in the midst of her upset which offended you - and the block effectively stopped any possibility of that discussion taking place.
>
> Just as YOU had been offended by the poster's way of communicating her upset at what had happened (and I wonder whether that upset was actually directed at you, or at the event? Is that a possibility, Dr. Bob?), might I propose that you were triggered by the post? This does not suggest that you suffer from a mental health issue - people can be triggered by many innocuous events that can build up over time, or they may have less tolerance for them; or it may be that the civility guidelines towards the administrator has actually evolved over time, which seems to have happened here. I seem to recall many vitriolic words directed towards you in the past that never resulted in blocks - or am I misremembering?
>
> Let's try to continue this discussion.
>
> So, to clarify (for me): the rules of civility towards the administration are more strict now than they were previously - is this correct?
>
> If this is the case, then it would be problematic for a poster who frequents the boards only now and then and is unaware of these changes in policy.
>
> Many thanks,
> PartlyCloudy, treading lightly and with cautionPC,
You wrote,[...in the past...the rules are more strict..problematic for a poster...unaware...].
You have posted a good point in relation to if or if not the poster knew of the change, if there was one.
Well, me and Mr. Hsiung have been in dialog concerning what is known as the aspect of {two standards} in relation to administrative actions. And in those discusssions, I remember what you said here concerning that comments directed to Mr. Hsiung were not acted on in the same way as if those same comments were directed to a poster.
But then I remmeber that there was a change and Mr. Hsiung cited the concept of {two standards} and comments directed toward him then were acted on as the same if they were directed to a member.
Your point, and it is a very valid point IMHO, is how could a member have known of the change?
You see, there is another aspect of administration that me and Mr. Hsiung have also been in discussion about here. This is the aspect of what is known as {due-process}. The question I have here is did the member in question, as you have brought up, have due-process? And if not, is the adminstrative action valid or not, and if not, could the action be dismissed and the member be reinstated? In my opinion, a denial of due-process could be an unsound mental-health practice.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:944420
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/945055.html