Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 3:36:11
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 20:24:08
> 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.
Right. But (a) it can get kind of black-and-white, for example, 1 week if it's been more than x months or 1 year if it's been more, and (b) "cooling off" implies they were hotheaded, but that isn't necessarily the case.
> 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)
I do kind of do that already. Grouping together, as above, different types of incivility.
> 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 ... or fellow poster ... can suggest they rephrase
> 9) If shorter blocks are given, it might be a good idea to briefly give the reason.
Maybe it would be good to be explicit about other reasons, too. For example, the extent to which they may have felt provoked, whether they were uncivil in a number of posts at the same time, whether their posts have already been archived, etc.
> 7) More deputy and fellow poster (and administrator) warnings on what look to be heated threads.
I agree, that's a way Babblers can look out for each other.
> 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.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean there. Warnings are different than requests for review...
> 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.
Sure, that's reasonable.
> 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.
That's a good idea, too. Which I think you've been putting into practice yourself. :-)
> 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.
>
> DinahI like that idea a lot, those are really difficult situations for this community. However: if a number of people foul Poster X, does that necessarily mean it's Poster X who should be asked to modify their behavior?
Also, wouldn't the behavior to modify need to be specified? And if that were a reasonable request, wouldn't it be reasonable to make it a new rule and apply it to everyone? IMO, a new rule is more balanced. Poster X is asked to follow it, and those who commit technical fouls are asked to stop doing so.
--
> 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
>
> greywolfEven better, everyone should understand the formulas! I'm not sure how efficient it is, but there's already a training program: FAQ + Admin. :-)
--
> suppose a poster with one PBC used a vulgur word without the asterisk, then negatively characterized another poster's post which was itself uncivil, then quoted uncivil material in their reply to someone, then mistyped and used another vulgar word accidentally. Under the old system, this person would be now be blocked for 16 weeks. Do we really need to be "protected" from this person for 4 months? It's not that simple. I can't imagine that each uncivil post could lead to an equivalent "amount" of harm. Viewing all uncivil posts as additive just seems too simplistic given the complexity of all the factors related to blocks.
>
> ggBut you'd agree that it would be reasonable for the period of protection for that poster to be longer than that for a poster who posted just one of those posts? It's just how much longer that's the question?
--
> I like to provoke people into thinking and questioning. ... And sometimes people don't like that. ... But I think it is a worthwhile thing to do... ... I try and do this sensitively.
>
> But should we go around making sure what we say doesn't lead to anyone feeling upset?
>
> That would involve selling myself. Censoring myself. It would involve me shutting up about the things I most need to talk about.
>
> I'm sensitive abotu the idea that I need a radical personality overhaul to be fit for human company.
>
> special_kIt's impossible to make sure no one feels upset. At the same time, it can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place. If you're already trying to do that sensitively, aren't you already censoring yourself to some extent? Without having had a radical personality overhaul?
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:628886
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/632491.html