Posted by mist on August 15, 2002, at 11:42:05
In reply to What purpose do blocks serve?, posted by mist on August 14, 2002, at 14:31:40
I see the points expressed on this thread about it being theoretically a deterrant but I wonder how effective it is. I think blocks should at least be used more sparingly and some should not be as long as they are. It also should depend on the motive of the poster. Otherwise a lot of ill-will is generated with not much gained and over time that can erode trust. In some cases it seems that a more "educational" measure might be taken. Some posters seem to have good intentions but don't seem to get what is and isn't civil (even when it probably is obvious to others in a particular post--because in other cases it isn't that obvious nor would everyone agree on it). So maybe more explanation of what was wrong and why would help in some cases.
> You've been around a long time, remember when he used to block people permanently? That was harsh...
I don't remember. I read the site more sporadically in those days (started in latter half of 2000) and was usually in a depressive fog. It does sound harsh, although I suppose it depends what they did. I think there are some violations that do warrant very long blocks or permanent bans, but they are serious ones where the poster is acting deliberately and could do a lot of damage if left unchecked.
poster:mist
thread:7142
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020725/msgs/7171.html