Posted by Dr. Bob on December 21, 2010, at 12:31:07
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 12:32:57
Regarding blocks:
> I have always felt that it would be more transparent of Bob to just block some people for life than to use the formula in the way it has been used. Which is, establishing an precedent via a PBC and then ratcheting up the penalties until you are at the year long block.
>
> sigismundThat would be more transparent if my intent were to block people for life. But that's not my intent -- and of course not what I do. Whether that would be better is a different question.
> I remember when 'The Formula' was first being discussed. I was SO happy cuz I thot it meant the blocks would be less.
> Sigh, NOT.
> I don't understand it, the formula, I just don't.
> I like things simple...
>
> muffledSigh is right!
1. Blocks are shorter. The idea of the formula is to take into account "periods of good behaviour":
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/766717.html
which only shortens blocks. To see how much, enter zero for "period of time since end of previous block" in the block length calculator:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Taking that into account did make the formula more complicated. I tried to make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. :-)
2. And there are fewer blocks now:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/947061.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969738.html--
Regarding the council:
> > Thanks, would you consider serving on some kind of Elders Council?
>
> Goodness!
>
> That would mean I'd have to stand in an election?
> No negative campaigning?
> Better still, no campaigning at all!
> (I can see the advantage of that.)
> But then committee meetings, or things like them....
>
> I'd consider it, yes, Bob.
>
> sigismundThanks! I appreciate that. I hadn't seen this when I posted before.
Yes, you'd have to stand in an election. It would be up to you whether to campaign.
> for thise willing to 'run' for a council....bless their hearts, do they know what they are getting into???
> I would think they need to have a good sense of what they are getting into. I don't want to see any posters hurt whilst just trying to help out.....
> I think it would be good to have some registered 'chats' with those willing to be on the committee(just them), so that they can discuss ramifications etc ahead of time, and see if they even have the time or desire to work w/the others.
>
> muffledThis is something new, so it's hard for any of us to know what exactly we're getting into. I'm glad we're thinking it through to clarify as much as possible beforehand. I'd be happy to chat with candidates. Or to set up a chat for just candidates. The first election will be the hardest because there's more uncertainty and therefore more anxiety. After the council's in place and things are working, what being a council member entails will be clearer. The first council would be pioneers.
> blocked posters won't be posting - so their ability to lash out is very limited. In fact, maybe all their communications with Council should take place in the chat room - in a room designed to hold the messages for all council members to see - and even for Bob to see.
>
> SolsticeRegarding "things like committee meetings", that's a good point, council members may find it a challenge to work with each other. We see that in other elected bodies. One issue they might (or might not) want to decide is whether to insist on civility to each other.
Speaking of civility, another issue might be what to do if a council member receives a block and asks for it to be lifted. In addition to a mailing list that includes all of them, they might want ad hoc mailing lists that include only some of them.
My inclination would be for them to decide internal matters like they decide about lifting blocks: with a quorum of 3 and majority rule.
> So Dr. Bob has specifically agreed he will grant all Council members access to the admin (software) tools the deputies had/have access to? Since that is the only way to "release" a block without waiting for him?
>
> 10derheartI could implement a new system for them, but probably I'd confirm that they followed their procedures (had a quorum, voted, and posted their votes and decision) and then do any unblocking myself.
> I hate to sound like SUCH a negative pain here....but Bob is a friggin ROCK I say. Trying to make him chnge is like trying to chip away at a rock with a rubber mallet.
> All I am seeing is alot of reluctance on Bobs part
>
> muffledYou can catch more flies with honey than with a mallet. :-)
> This all sounds very promising. I would agree - if we get a Council with the power to modify blocks of cooperative posters who ask, that should give us what we need. Possibly, if that works well, the very long blocks, and the formula that determines them, may become obsolete. Bob might develop confidence in the workings of the Council, and gradually allow the older way of doing things to lapse. We can't be sure, of course, but effective change probably means choosing the most important thing, getting that in place, and then seeing other aspects of the situation change and adapt.
>
> twinleafThat's the idea, thank you for seeing and expressing it.
> I think its very commonly very hard for people to 'ask' for stuff. For parts of me to 'ask' is to expect to have something bad happen to me. I don't think I am alone in this. For parts, to ask is to beg. For parts to ask is far too much cuz who the f do I think I am, I am bad. etc etc I think this would be tough for MANY and they would just suffer in silence.
>
> muffledYes, it can be very hard to ask. Asking is being vulnerable. Not asking is being safe.
Hmm, standing for election could be considered asking for votes/support/validation. So this might be one reason some posters don't feel safe doing that.
> it's not about refuting his decisions. It's about a blocked poster having a chance, after having been blocked, to demonstrate to council that they are willing to abide by civility guidelines.
>
> SolsticeJust to be clear, I'd leave it up to the council to decide how to decide. I wouldn't say they needed to consider willingness to abide by the guidelines. But they'd be free to do that if they wanted.
> All I recall Dr. Bob saying about minimums is that real parole boards base it on a percent of time served.
>
> DinahWe wouldn't need to do it the same way, and I'm still open to input, but FYI, I looked around a little and found:
> > truth in sentencing legislation required federal prisoners to serve 85 percent of their sentences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole_board#United_States
> I am certain that it's possible for there to be, at times, discontent with Council decisions about shortening blocks - but since Council doesn't make the rules or enforce them, I think you might be taking reactions to your administrative actions and erroneously believing that they will apply to Council as well. I think the chance of that is so slim that it's not even worth considering.
>
> > posters should be careful about accepting power.
>
> are you encouraging them to be so careful that they just don't take the chance of finding out how it will be? ... at the very bottom of it is the fact that this is all volunteer. If it turns out to be impossible - if Council is mistreated to the point that it's unbearable - then they can quit!
>
> SolsticeI'm not the only one who believes there might be anger at council members. I encourage posters to consider taking a chance, but with the awareness that that's what they'd be doing. Some posters are risk-averse, and I wouldn't want to mislead them.
> I for one am not necc. happy to have th buck stop w/you...however, you ARE the owner of this site, and somehow, somewhere, I keep feeling that maybe you are not horrible..., so ya, ultimately the buck has yo stop w/someone, and obvo then that has to be you...
>
> Ya, heck I'd run for council.....IF I felt I could work with the operator of this site. But I can't, cuz I don't underasand him, and I don't agree w/how he is running things....so I cannot align myself with him unless I know he is willing to change some things I feel are off base(IMHO).
>
> So I suppose in my way, I am just as rigid as Bob, but I have reasoning behind my thots, and I know that many here agree with some of what I say.
>
> So, once again, this is nothing personal to you Bob, but about how this site is run. I too would like to see it be more successful.
>
> MThanks, others may also consider me "maybe not horrible" enough to prefer the status quo. :-)
The primary task of the council would be to give the community a way to override decisions of mine, so I'd hardly see them as "aligned" with me.
But there would be some working with me. I'd confirm that they followed their procedures, and it would probably be up to me to actually unblock posters. Some conditions, like a mandatory civility buddy or delayed posting, would require new features that I'd need to implement.
Their secondary task would definitely involve dealing with me. I'd value their input even if we disagreed -- input doesn't help if someone always agrees with you -- so again, I wouldn't see them as "aligned" with me. But they should be aware that we might disagree and I might not to do what they advise. I'd also have reasoning behind my thoughts.
I think most of us want this site to be more successful. I think a community council would be a step forward. If you do, too, I invite you to join me in being that change.
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:964630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/974203.html