Posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 10:35:11
In reply to Re: Timing of enforcement - Call for Deputies » Solstice, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 28, 2010, at 8:40:40
> You know, I was a deputy - for a VERY short time. And I considered becoming one again. Unfortunately, I am not able to agree to the current guidelines for deputies as Dr Bob has them set up.
>
> Yes, indeed, there is an elephant in the room. I am not going to name it, as it is not my place to do so - it's the administration's as they created it. If this elephant saw fit to leave the room and say, join the other elephants in their preserve in the African continent, India, or wherever else they have been corralled to live together, then perhaps there might be more active deputies.
>
> I see emotionally charged situations escalate in intensity and feel badly that intervention does not happen. I don't feel that I have much power to have any influence over these occurrences as I don't often know the parties involved - at least one of the them will be a stranger (mostly) to me. Who am I to tell them what to do or how to behave? I have tried to interject myself in at least one thread that had been going awry in an attempt to wrest it back into civility and felt that I was not welcome in my comments.
>
> And so I keep quiet and in the background. It's not my place to correct what I see going on.
>
> PartlyCloudy
Hi PC.. and everyone else!Those of you who have served as deputies know much more about how it plays out in reality than I could ever know. What I know is only what I've learned by reading the boards over a long period of time. I also realize that there is probably more to what's going on than what I, as a reader, am able to see.
When you speak of 'elephant,' I'm not sure if you're talking about a policy, a chronic forum problem, or a person. If I were going to name an elephant that I'd like to see disappear, I would cite the very real possibilty that Bob may resist engaging in a revamping of the current system. Resist being decisive. I'm concerned about a comment he made yesterday cautioning that changes would likely take a long time, and he stated his preference for that. It has already taken a loooong time. Based on the high number of members who were not prone to blocks who have left in (civil) protest, the consistent and long-standing pleas from members for action, the swell of highly-respected balanced members (Scott, for example) who have offered their input, and the amount of forum time, space & energy devoted to discussion of these issues... I think the forum is on life-support. I hate to think that Bob might not recognize it. It will take something dramatic to revive this thing. Kidneys are our heroes.. they are crucial to the functioning of our most important systems.. our heart.. the cleansing of our blood.. the elimination of waste.. maintaining the balance of our complex system of electrolytes. Kidneys produce the hormone that generates the production of red blood cells - which carry the oxygen we cannot live without. They produce the hormone that reglates our blood pressure - which affects everything. The administrative moderation of the forum is like the kidneys of our body. We don't need a new administrator, but we do need a kidney transplant.. a new and healthier moderation system. If kidneys are breaking down, they can withhold releasing something becoming toxic to us, and they can release too much of what we need to survive.
There are two changes that, without making any changes to the civility requirements, I think could breathe new life into the forum. Please note that these are NOT my ideas! 1) Grant a one-time wholesale amnesty to everyone currently blocked. It could include a disclaimer that this action should NOT be interpreted to mean that the actions that got those posters blocked are now permissible; and 2) adopt a single short blocking time-frame that is applied to every single incident of incivility. No attempts will be made to measure severity or debate validity. If it's 2 weeks, and a blocked poster comes back after their 2-week block and is still angry and becomes uncivil again.. then it's another 2 weeks. This would provide those who are struggling to figure it out multiple opportunities to learn and practice these important skills (much better than months-long blocks). It would also make it much less of a big deal if someone is blocked for those lower-threshhold incivilities. It wouldn't be worth arguing about if someone has to sit in the corner for only 2 weeks.
I need to call attention to something important, though. If Bob agrees to amnesty and very short blocks, he will not be able to maintain it on his own... especially initially. There will likely be an influx of blocked members who may still be hurt and angry - who may want to talk about how they were affected by it. This should be considered an inevitable part of this kind of transition. However, I think it will necessitate a reasonably well-organized group of Civility Buddies, and likely some deputies. I think Dinah is well-equipped to respond to the probable higher need for Civility Buddies. I'm more worried about the likely need for some deputies to help Bob monitor civility. Perhaps an amnesty will only result in joyous reunions with posters who have been missed. But amnesty and short blocks could also mean that, especially initially, there may be a number of people who are frequent fliers of the short-block system as they find their footing. I think it will be imperative to the success of the transition that Bob sees that his civility guidelines are not compromised. It will take deputies to protect that. Perhaps deputies would issue more PBC's (especially for the lower-threshhold incivilities), and would issue blocks only when the incivility is clear. I think Bob would (reasonably) be much more reluctant to make these changes if he does not have help. I think his first priority is maintaining civility. Help from a healthy supply of deputies may be essential to implementing shorter blocks. I also think that there have been a good number of suggestions that the way PBC's are worded needs to be redone. Perhaps Dinah would help reword PBC's to make them more likely to encourage the response they are intended to encourage?
I think that what this forum needs more than anything right now (urgently), is to experience administrative mercy, and to see the forum owner willing to make a decisive and dramatic change in the punishment formulas currently used. The Civility Guidelines can stay exactly the same as they are now. Regardless of the threshhold, there will always be some who see the threshhold as too low, and some that see it as too high. So if Bob likes it where it is, then that doesn't have to change. That said, it will be impossible for me to understand why Bob would be unwilling to change the punishment formula used, especially considering the amount of support for change coming from active forum members who are among the most balanced. The arguments in favor of dramatic reduction in block time are well-thought out, well-reasoned, balanced. These are folks who support moderation, even tight moderation. They just reasonably (an civily) petition for a blocking system that is less destructive.
So in my perhaps-not-so-humble view, Bob's lack of decisive engagement and action is the elephant that needs to disappear.
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:970854
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971544.html