Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:59:13
In reply to Re: blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 10:02:33
> > In order to "argue" and speak for their cases in a democratic fashion, I think blocked posters should still be able to post to this PBAdmin board. This would allow them the chance to have their arguments heard.
>
> It would also allow them to continue to be uncivil. They can argue their cases with me by email while they're blocked and post again after that.
>Who says they will continue to be uncivil? It would be a chance to be judged by peers as well as yourself. It appears in most cases, people get a "occasional" block often during a rough time in their life. That is what I mean by taking a case-by-case approach. For "chronic offenders", I do agree it may be necessary to block them for a period of time until they can prove themselves to post in a decent manner of civility. You have to take a subjective look at the "offense", because we don't lock people up for life for speeding tickets, no matter how many they get in their life, but yes we deal with murder in more serious terms.
> > The "two strikes you are blocked a week; three two weeks; and then always doubled" seems like a cold and calculated policy to me. I and many others don't see everything in such simple black and white terms.
>
> Coldness is in the eye of the beholder, but some calculation definitely went into it. The "strike zone" isn't always black and white...
>I just don't think using the same "punishment" for all is healthy or fair. Circumstances and gray areas are always involved, and any democratic court of law takes that into account.
> > What I think would be a true gift of this website, and add to it as a "rehabilitative" place on the web, is if somebody took time to seriously discuss what he feels is his concerns.
>
> Rehabilitation is an admirable goal, but beyond the scope of this site.
>Maybe for every single person who posts, but it can most certainly play a part in the rehabilitative process for some. It shouldn't be discounted completely. This place serves far more purpose than any general chatroom.
> > Why can't we have discussions about meeting "everyone's" needs?
>
> We can discuss that, but what if some people need to express their anger and other people need to feel safe?
>
> BobI agree with you completely on the "anger" part, but I also feel it is an often very short lived, temporary part of all of us. Again, it seems to be those few occassions where someone is having a rough time, and comes across the wrong way, and it also happens to be transient and they could shift around within hours, they get hit with a block. If it is a consistent thing that happens in every second post, of course that raises red flags. That is why I am asking why can't there be a "case by case" look at what would be called uncivil, and any action taken towards the "offender" take the above into account. A person charged with speeding does not get the same punishment as someone charged with murder.
John.
poster:JohnV
thread:201785
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202835.html