Subject:
|
Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:13:16 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> Yes indeed. We all have a right and a responsibility to work to make LUGNET
> a better place. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
This sentiment is not friendly. It is arrogant and has a stink of
martiality. It really bugs me, I'm sorry to say. I am unlikely to do any of
the above.
>
> > Let me explain this further: Obviously we've seen instances where people
> > abuse a position of community policing, or they take the stance too far,
> > etc. That's unfortunate. But, there are other instances where people are
> > making a genuine attempt to be polite to the 'offender' and at the same time
> > guide them to take actions that are more appropriate or acceptable to the
> > LUGNET community.
>
> > The burden of correcting posters for TOS violations and off-charter postings
> > should NOT be put on the shoulders of the admins alone, unless that is what
> > they want. At least one admin has spoken up about this:
>
> > http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=9984
>
> > Since correcting people publicly has been blessed, I think the people who
> > are interested in making LUGNET a better place should discuss what methods
> > are more effective than others, and address the issues of negative response
> > to corrective posts.
There has been insufficient restraint so far in the cause of 'correction'.
The initial 'correction' (re ™) that caused the current brouhaha comes off
frankly oafish. I don't mean to be rude, but that was my reaction. (A crash
course on when assertion is really necessary might be in order.)
<snip of examples of other instances of problems magnified by clumsy
'correction'>
>
> But I have zero interest in hearing from those that think that any community
> guidance is too much. Zero.
This is not a constructive, useful attitude. It might be true but
advertising it, wearing it on your sleeve, is not fun for others to watch.
Are you Robert Blake? Is there a battery on your shoulder? Is one supposed
to be impressed by _attitude_?
> > If it is negative, copy
> > admin and solicit the backup of an authority (by crossposting, not
> > necessarily by directly prompting an admin).
This is a key behavior that amplifies small hiccups in the social agreement
into brawls. Some zits need to be left alone. Don't pick at it or it'll
never heal.
> > Another thing I note is it is not socially acceptable to the general LUGNET
> > populus to accept correction from another LUGNET member. A far cry from the
> > beginnings of LUGNET, where most everyone knew each other and took
> > correction graciously if it was made politely. Now, no matter who issues a
> > polite correction, they almost certainly backlash 'I don't care who you are,
> > you can't tell me what to do, I'll only listen to an admin.' This is a very
> > destructive attitude, and it harms the sentiment of a community here. How
> > to deal with this problem?
Every failure to acknowledge correction is not inherently an act against the
community. If the shouting is likely to wake up the innocent neighbors, I'm
likely to blame both loud parties, right, wrong or indifferent. Being in the
right is no excuse to act wrongly. If the nudge toward 'correction' is
really polite ( and not just pro forma polite) and the reaction is negative,
it's time to step back and reassess whether further 'correction' is needed
or will just be seen as bullying.
>
> This really is the crux, I think. No matter how polite you are in your
> request, if the twits come swarming out and interfere, it is difficult to
> make forward progress.
Then progress in a different direction and Let. It. Go.
> But every time we go through this cycle of twit response followed by
> discussion hopefully it will get better. Most of the community WANTS that
> the entire burden of helping LUGNET(tm) be a more pleasant place NOT be on
> the shoulders of just Suz and Todd or even on just all the admins.
> As for those community members that do *not* want it, that instead
> apparently want to drive Suz and Todd to nervous breakdowns from overwork,
> or who (worse) want LUGNET to be an anything goes place... well, I would
> question whether they really are worthy of being a part of this community.
> That's not the LUGNET I signed up for.
There are going to be blotches on the face of any forum. The instances will
increase in frequency as the forum grows, but that doesn't mean that the
forum has suffered some kind of fatal breakdown. And it really doesn't mean
that it's okay to maybe put on hobnail jackboots for just a little while
until things settle down.
Our visions of Lugnet are not absolutely aligned, but they are mostly the
same. The key is to be able to disagree without getting wrapped up in a knot.
Respectfully, really,
Kyle
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM)
|
| Frank did an excellent job of addressing most of the points you raised in your post. There was one loose end though... In lugnet.admin.general, Kyle Beatty wrote much that Larry snipped: (...) I am assuming this example is what you refer to here in (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
