Posted by zazenduck on June 11, 2006, at 16:31:57
In reply to please be kind to each other, posted by agent858 on June 4, 2006, at 23:11:32
I think you need to address the problem of excessive block lengths. It's not really about continuing this argument case by case indefinitely until the person blocked comes back or chooses not to come back after the block is up. I think it would be useful to allow all blockees back to discuss this. Even if you limit them to posting on admin until the questionof reforming the guidelines is settled.
(I know how much my opinion counts with you :)
>
> He is idiosyncratic. Some of his decisions are unfair. Some people not even being warned while another person is blocked for one year FOR EXACTLY THE SAME THING. That is not fair. A certain degree of unfairness is inherent because he is not perfect he is a human being.
>
> My bone of contention is that GIVEN THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF UNFAIRNESS IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE PRESENT MEASURES NEED TO BE TAKEN TO REDUCE THE DETRIMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT. What does that mean? That means reduced sentences for blockings ESPECIALLY when there are infractions OF THE SAME KIND that have gone unremarked. If we see something we want to make sure he sees, then we can email him a link or post something to admin. If nobody notices when x says ‘sh*t’ while y gets blocked for saying ‘sh*t’ then IMO the appropriate response is ‘sorry that there was an unfairness here’ and the block should max at one or two weeks. It is still an unfairness. It is still an injustice. But it is about minimising the negative impact of the injustice.
>
poster:zazenduck
thread:646675
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/655574.html