Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2009, at 2:14:41
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2009, at 2:08:16
> > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
> Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with. Many would say that a better show of support to those individuals would consist in campaigning to change the laws rather than campaigning for the individuals to alter behavior that one personally doesn't find problematic.
> > How about people being in danger of getting a 'faceful of cat' in the form of being blocked by you for one year? Why is it that that isn't factored into an assessment of the justifyability / unjustifyability of your posting behaviour?
> Coming from me, it's consistent with the goal of this site, but coming from fellow posters, it isn't.
What is the goal of the site, again? I thought the goal of this site was for there to be a safe place for people to post in order to give and receive support and education. It isn't at all obvious that blocking people for up to one year is more likely to maximise that than other less harsh alternatives. But really, people have been saying this for years. You seem less interested in finding out what (empirically) best serves the goals of this site and much much more interested in persisting in behavior that others believe is an unjustifyable 'face full of cat'.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:904398
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090707/msgs/908606.html