Posted by greywolf on April 11, 2006, at 10:26:45
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 8:36:57
This is all so easy to resolve. Dr. Bob could hire an agency to develop a training program to teach the mods how to employ the blocking formulas, then he could outsource the mod work to call centers in India.
Works for me.
> Isn't the cooling off block now in effect? So that if someone has followed the rules for (insert number of months here) and the civility guideline breach wasn't incredibly egregious, they could be blocked for one week no matter how long they've previously been blocked for.
>
> Allowing someone to make a bad choice every now and again without remembering every past bad choice (or lack of knowledge) they ever made seems like good administrating (just like parenting). Who wants to hear they're grounded for a month, because in third grade they snuck out their window to meet with friends when they were told to study.
>
> On the other hand, ignoring the fact that they snuck out last night, and last week, and ten days ago seems unwise as well.
>
> If I were blocking king, this would be my choice.
>
> 1) I agree with Dr. Bob that if someone's blocked, comes back, and is soon in violation of the civility guidelines for similar infractions, the block should be doubled. If a post is particularly uncivil to another poster, or Dr. Bob, the block should be doubled or tripled as now.
>
> 2) Each time a poster posts while blocked, the block should be doubled, and not capped at one year.
>
> 3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster) or Poster X (posting to someone who has requested a DNP) or Poster X (violating Faith or Politics guidelines).
>
> 4) Depending on circumstances, if someone clearly doesn't understand their PBC, makes an effort to reply that would ordinarily get them a block, but again, clearly doesn't understand what they've done wrong, a deputy (because Dr. Bob probably doesn't have time for this) or fellow poster with knowledge of the topic can suggest they rephrase, with a reasonably detailed explanation of what would be an allowable rephrasing. I think a lot of anger comes when people don't understand why what they've done wrong is in violation of civility guidelines, or how to phrase an I statement.
>
> 5) As now, there could be judgement applied by Dr. Bob. So that something could fall in teh middle. No doubling, a reduction, or anything else that seems appropriate under the circumstances. Only for a lesser block, not a greater block.
>
> 6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted. Maybe along with alternative suggestions.
>
> 7) More deputy and fellow poster (and administrator) warnings on what look to be heated threads. After such warnings, people would post at their own risk, and PBC's and blocks would be based on the fact that a warning has been given.
>
> 8) Additions to the standard language on those warnings, and on PBC's and posts that are reactive in nature, that posts be reported on Admin (with only a single line URL and a "Please review this") or by emailing deputies and/or Dr. Bob. And that if one chooses to reply, one should be very very careful on wording.
>
> 8) I don't think that every PBC or block needs a committee meeting, but perhaps an open minded discussion of longer blocks could be addressed by committee.
>
> 9) If shorter blocks are given, it might be a good idea to briefly give the reason. e.g. This was a new infraction, or this falls under the guidelines for a cooling off block because there hasn't been any infractions for xx months.
>
> 10) New posters should have added to their PBC's the consequences of further rule infractions, or a very specific link to the FAQ on that. This site is unusual, and most sites I post at have major rules and consequences clearly stated on the opening page. I realize Babble doesn't have an opening page, but still...
>
> I know it seems complicated when written out like that. But it also seems to be based on common sense factors. IMHO, longer blocks should be reserved for situations where the poster clearly isn't making an effort to comply with the rules, or the spirit of the rules or where shorter blocks haven't had the desired effect.
>
> But on the other hand, longer blocks *are* appropriate for those circumstances. Even if it's just for repeatedly saying *ss without blocking out the a. Because it's Dr. Bob's site, and he has the right to make the rules, since he has the responsibility and the ownership. And he has a right to expect that we make an effort to comply with them, if we choose to post here.
>
> Or at least that's my take on it.
poster:greywolf
thread:628886
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/631731.html