Posted by Willful on March 25, 2014, at 12:09:59
In reply to Re: [Decision] Voting system » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on March 25, 2014, at 9:51:16
Children don't vote on the rules; but citizens vote on the rules. Or the representatives of citizens, who are in place because of elections, vote on the rules. (Except for the Supreme Court, for which I see no particular analogue here-- and even the Supreme Court members are appointed by and vetted and accepted by elected representatives.)
I take it, then, that we live in a dictatorship; you are the benevolent dictator, and we are the lucky citizens. We are lucky because you could be so much worse, and with absolute power (except the power to compel us to be here), you might well.
Some argue that benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, given all the problems of representative democracy-- which we see displayed recently--
I'm not persuaded, but neither am I dissuaded.
So I remain agnostic on this issue--
but it does seem that as being between a rock and a hard place, your methods of calculating blocks is a prime example.
If you have a one-size-fits-all blocking scheme, you risk being unfair, because apples and oranges, or various levels of incivility, seem to fair people to merit different severity of response. Such people may be deeply offended by your procrustian measurements.
On the other hand, if you hand out blocks dependent on your evaluation of the severity of the offense, you risk great outbreaks of disagreement from the citizens, and many vitriolic complaints about your judgments. That is a disruption all its own.
Perhaps your scheme would be better served by a different algorithm. For example, the minimum block would be decided by the severity of the incivility, from 1-4 depending on the level of personal attack, or by the perceived harm to either the community or the object of the attack-- and the block lengths could static or immediately ascending, also dependent on the severity of the offense. A repeated minor (1) offense could be 1 week each time. This protects the community from minor abuses, while not seeming a draconian response to such offenses.
On the other hand, a 3 level incivility could begin with a longer base block and could escalate according to your current scheme.
A level 2 incivility could be somewhere in between, perhaps with a shorter intial block and then after several offenses blocks ascending by perhaps 1 1/2 additional length for each added instance.
For the rare 4 level block, you could have a longer intial period, and then deal however you want with further offenses.
Then, if you wished, you could put certain protected individuals into a lower category of blocking-- or exempt them entirely, if you felt that was the most fair action.
Then you wouldn't be guilty of sanctioning anyone's incivility-- because there would be somewhat more fitting of the sanction to the offense, and to the person of the offender and offendee, -- everyone would be treated somewhat individually.
I dont think this system is too complex and would require so much investment of time and thought that it would be onorous-- and it would be much fairer in fact.
But as this is just my bit of brainstorming on the topic, I don't expect you to do anything but give it some thought along with whatever else you are giving though to, on this subject.
Emsam.
Abilify
Provigil
Rilutek
poster:Willful
thread:1063193
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1063211.html