Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Rules vs No Rules

[Catherine Owen (crowen]

 << *Dogs should cause no harm to humans or their stuff* >>
> 
> This is a statement of a value that probably most people would agree
with.
> However, it isn't a rule.  Rules include specific actions that are
required
> or prohibited.  Technically, effective rules also include consequences
for
> violation, too.
> 
> This could be turned into a rule by restating it as "Owners of dogs must
> take all necessary steps to prevent their dogs from causing harm to
people
> or property" or "The owner of any dog that causes harm to any human or
> property must ____."

It seems to me that the first statement is a policy, not a rule, and if
there is real trust and good communication in a community (not to mention
an overt statement/policy/goal that the community wants to have animals as
a part of the community) then specific rules may not be needed.  The second
statement, "owners of dogs must take all necessary steps"... is a more
specific "policy" which may be clearer and therefore more useful, and which
allows some room for judgement and negotiation on the part of the owners
and non-owners.  Perhaps I am being naive, but I am hoping that we can set
up processes to discuss these kinds of problems as they happen rather than
have specific rules about exactly what kinds of actions (e.g. leash or no
leash) must be taken.  Obviously I am one of those "no rules" people...I
like flexibility and openness whenever possible.

-Catherine Owen
(Member of a nascent cohousing group in southern New Hampshire)


----------
> From: Michael D <ohanamd [at] worldshare.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org>
> Subject: Re: Rules vs No Rules
> Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:14 PM
> 
>> 
> Michael
>