Posted by spoc on June 8, 2004, at 7:40:41
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 8, 2004, at 0:43:24
> > Has Larry hurt anyone?
>
> He may have. How does it matter?<<<<<< This obviously has "startle value" on its face. Proceeding beyond that to try to answer the question, I would say that two of the reasons would be:
1] It's been stated previously that anticipated supportiveness upon return is a factor in block reduction. If someone was unquestionably seen as supportive and an asset; and additionally he didn't hurt anyone, that would surely be relevant to block reduction (and preferably initial levying of a block).
2] If you mean that technical interpretations only are used (such that assessing hurt does not play a role), first, that would be hard to separate if "civility" can be seen as largely serving the function of preventing hurt. Meaning that what is being scanned for are things that have the potential to hurt. And if that is indeed one definition of civility and how it is enforced, and someone has not in fact hurt anyone, that would indeed seem very material to whether they remain blocked (or if they could have been merely warned instead).
> > I feel that you're being rather obstinate to prove a point. If I'm correct, please tell me what point you're trying to prove.
>
> In what way do you feel I'm being obstinate?<<<<<< It will soon be going on two weeks since a possible block reduction was announced. People apparently didn't understand what the process of deliberation was going to be. They probably got the idea that discussion, to some degree including you, was being welcomed. Or that they would be given some information as to what was transpiring. But perhaps you were thinking in terms of the matter not being "due" on the table until the four-weeks-since-block point, at which time the potential reduction would apply if granted. If so, that would probably have been another good thing to clarify at the outset, or at some point since.
As to whether the entire post (and possibly thread context) is considered, or just the “bad” part of a given post, I’m confused as to how this answer:
> I try my best to understand context. Even if that means reading and re-reading...
<<<<<< ...ties in with these:
> I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
> If you'll allow me the same latitude, if someone doesn't want me to miss something potentially important, they should be civil...
<<<<<< Additionally, the first answer is hard to spot in action, when one of the classic complaints is about other, often more obvious violations on the thread being allowed to stand (including literal ones like cursing). And I thought the default explanation in those cases was that it was somehow too late or there wasn't time to go back and address other violations, even if it had only been hours/day(s). Not that they had been read and re-read and still somehow not seen.
> I think it's good to be flexible sometimes. I'm sorry if I've been unfair. It wouldn't be surprising if some people here were particularly sensitive to unfairness.
<<<<< The last sentence is a recurring one, that seems to modify any apology with “…but it is their unique weakness” or something of that nature. Possibly meaning that the average person would not react that way. But I don’t understand how that can be said of being treated unfairly. The “burden” would seem to be on the perpetrator to hope that people wouldn’t be sensitive to having been treated unfairly, not on the recipient to agree that unfairness to them was ok or no big deal. "Average" sensitivity or not.
If unfairness is typically thought to be ok by all but the sensitivity-challenged, then I presume there would be no problem with prefacing any previous research and future articles/books with the caveat that the circumstances leading up to the findings contained weren't necessarily fair.
poster:spoc
thread:346427
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/354744.html