Subject:
|
Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:29:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1511 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/rtltoronto/?n=3270
> >
> > There is nothing I see in the news postings that remotely hints to me that
> > this issue was taken care of before I stepped in and 'put in my two
> > coppers.'
>
> If I called up someone on the phone and said, "Hey friend, I think that was
> a little over-the-top" I don't think you would know. If we, at one of our
> monthly meetings brought up the faux pas that was posted in the
> newsgroup--again, I don't think you'd know.
You are correct. Analogous to another relatively recent admin.general
discussion, if you don't reply publicly to the effect, no one knows you did
what you did, and we are left to assume that the issue is left unchecked.
If you want to admonish in private like that, to a friend, and you want to
avoid the 'CP laying the smackdown' it might be a good idea to drop a quick
note on LUGNET to that effect.
Because, whether its me or someone else, public correction will happen. And
I'm not trying to say that maliciously or arrogantly like 'hey, I'm the CP
and I'm gonna get ya!!' either. I'm just saying, its a natural thing for
someone to speak up about it.
> > So, the problem with Community Policing is the guy who can't accept polite
> > correction. NOT the corrector. We need to make it socially acceptable to
> > issue polite correcitons, one community member to another. Like it was when
> > LUGNET started - people corrected with grace and accepted correction with
> > grace. Why can't this be the case now?
>
> Again, my original analogy points out where the issue is here--repeated
> admonishments just peeves *everyone* off and does not help anyone.
I can agree there. But my point above - we need to make this a climate
where it is acceptable and encouraged for people to be able to take
correction and admit they are wrong. I think the multiple admonishments
comes in when the person gets in a tizzy about being corrected.
> > BTW - I never got a reply to the email I sent you asking the same question.
>
> I sent you a reply, Tim. I mentioned that, besides this particular issue,
> I've appreciated your efforts and/or love for the building systems we've
> come to know and love. It was quite similar to the message I sent
> Larry--again, someone I've come to appreciate on LUGNET.
Well, I appreiciate your comments above, but I never got the reply. Are you
referring to the first reply you made to me via email, or a second? Lets
see, I wrote you, you wrote me back, I replied, did you reply again??
> > It just seems that you're associating the Iain/Richard incident and small
> > 'c' policing. I don't see any connection whatsoever. No member of
> > rtlToronto corrected Iain (publicly) before I did.
>
> But why did you feel the *need* to post? To be first?
No. I felt the need to post because it was inappropriate. If someone else
got there first, I would have let their post stand and not add my comments
unless an argument flamed up.
> It was a faux pas.
> It wasn't malicious, it wasn't evil, it was a mistake and people should be
> forgiven for mistakes, not swatted on the nose multiple times.
And I didn't swat him on the nose multiple times.
Mistakes should be corrected and people should be willing learn from them.
Its OK to make mistakes.
> > So we should let TOS violations slide...right? We do that enough, and
> > discussion here degrades.
>
> Wrong--slippery slope rationale (read above) is not a carte blanc to slam
> anyone who steps on your toes. It was an accident and we're all human. We
> forgive, and life goes on.
I can say that about the original post, yes. Mistakes can be forgiven.
The slippery slope thing comes from the attitudes of the responses posted,
namely Richard, and a few other complainers in rtlToronto. They're
essentially saying 'hey get out of our business, we'll post what we want.'
That's the slippery slope.
> > I say, if you (everyone) see something that is in a direct violation of the
> > TOS, against the
>
> spirit of LUGNET
>
> *BINGO* - the Spirit of the Law, not the *Letter* of the law. We're bigger
> than what's written down and we *are* human.
Not disagreeing.
> , and harmful if kept unchecked, by all
>
> Yes, *if* kept unchecked- read *repeating* offenders. Again, you are making
> my point clearer then I could of.
I'm not getting it. I am interpreting what you are saying as 'correct
repeat offenders, not one-time mistake makers.' If we don't correct the one
time mistake makers, they won't know what's right or wrong here, and may
continue doing it. Then do we slap them harder for a repeat offense, if
they truly didn't know?
Again, a polite correction for a mistake can be a positive thing. It just
has to be made politely and respectfully.
> Once again, continuing to make my point, which is jumping on *a*
> transgression is "C"ommunity "P"olicing--waiting for that naughty word or
> idea. Repeat offenders are the issue, not the slip ups.
But the slip ups need to be made aware of what is acceptable and what is
unacceptable, so they don't make the same mistake again.
> > Every society has norms and rules you must follow. LUGNET as a forum has
> > rules, a code of conduct that is clearly spelled out. I would hope that
> > every group and subgroup would have respect for those rules. Especially
> > seeing that they get to post for free here.
> >
> > -Tim
>
> Respecting rules, again, not an issue. I obey the law because it's *the
> law*--not because the cops have guns. I appreciate LUGNET's code of
> conduct, not because of Community Policing but because it makes the
> community a better place. But we are people and we slip up. I *sometimes*
> do 110 in a 100 km/h zone. Not all the time, but sometimes. If I got
> pulled over once, and got a ticket (deservedly) I wouldn't make a case at
> all. However, having 20 police cars pulling me over after the fact and
> saying "You were doing 110 5 days ago was bad! Bad boy!" would just annoy me
> and wouldn't do any good.
I agree to an extent. If you limit the analogy to just what's above, I
agree. BUT, if someone is politely corrected and the corrector gets flack
for it, it is definitely appropriate for further discussion to come in, or
for others to back up the assertion.
Just like, if you got pulled over and gave the cop flack, he'd probably call
for backup.
> - Community Policing is bad (like smacking a dog on the nose repeatedly)
If that's how you want to define CP, yes. But, I don't define it that way.
> - community guiding has the potential to be good
Yes.
> - Just because you didn't see the admonishment, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
If we didn't see the admonishment, we don't know it happened. We are left
to assume it didn't happen, unless we are told it did.
> - Understand the difference between a faux pas and malicious intent.
I do. But even the faux pas need to be respectfully corrected. Keyword:
respectfully.
> - Repeated offenders must be dealt with severely and without pity, remorse
> and/or sympathy ;)
LOL.
I see we *mostly* agree. The way I'm reading you, is you're being defensive
of your group, and that's why you continue to make points like the zipper
analogy or the police one. You have to understand though, when someone
bites back after being corrected, further correction will naturally follow,
and if the correctors are in the right, its not a bad thing.
-Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
