Posted by Lindenblüte on October 24, 2006, at 7:52:34
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 23:47:25
Hi Dr. Bob,
Thank you so much for responding to my concerns. I REALLY appreciate it, and I know that you're busy.
Since there were so many different proposals and suggestions for improvements being floated around, would you mind changing the FAQ's to explain the blocking system algorithm as you currently implement it?
Three more ideas that I would like you to address.
1) Placing a CAP on the maximum block length?
2) Treating all babblers fairly, including the ones who had very lengthy blocks because they were repeat offenders under the OLD exponentially increasing block system. At what point will someone who had a block of 48 weeks under the old system, followed by 40 weeks of civil participation, have a clean slate?
3) Can you please reconsider the block lengths of those who are currently blocked?
3.1)I only stumbled upon the rounding DOWN bias because one babbler had 18 weeks of civil participation, but was only given credit for 10 weeks. This babbler has been a very positive participant in this forum, and has been very supportive to me as well as others. This babbler was blocked without a warning or a PBC.
3.2) I would like to formally appeal the block length of Alexandra_k, as her block is too long, given the reasoning that I outlined in 3.1. If it follows that there are several other currently blocked babblers who are also victims of the idiosyncratic rounding DOWN algorithm, I would ask you, Dr. Bob, to be fair and grant them a new block length calculation, giving them credit for "time served" as they say in the criminal justice system.
3.3) Everytime we post, you thank us for our participation. You're Welcome.
-Li
poster:Lindenblüte
thread:696312
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/697250.html