Posted by JahL on May 28, 2001, at 9:15:20
In reply to Re: alternative sentences, posted by Dr. Bob on May 27, 2001, at 13:40:17
> Well, here's an idea that was emailed to me. It's more a lighter sentence than an alternative one, but what if someone who otherwise would have their posts blocked instead just had them moderated? IOW, they could still submit posts, but those posts would need to be approved before actually being posted.
Yeuck! That smacks of censorship. The day that happens here is the day I stop reading (big loss, I know).> In theory, this might help us keep those members (under those names) while still maintaining a civil atmosphere.
> The posting mechanism would need to be revised, so it would take some time. Also, I think doing the moderating would be too much for me. What if other Babblers did it?
For a start it would create a 'them & us' divide. Second, there is no doubting that there exists certain loose 'factions' on this board. Resentment could build if one faction was seen to be castigated more often than others. Third, I think it wld be asking too much of Babblers to maintain impartiality when it is obvious so many of us hold strong but disparate views. Besides, having a no. of moderators is a recipe for disaster. Everyone has their own definition of what is civil, possibly leading to discrepancies.
The present 'Goodbye forever' punishment is too harsh & unforgiving, but something along the lines of Shelli's proposals makes good sense. A kind of '3 strikes & you're out' rule. Blocks could be for say, 2wks then 4 wks then forever (or 3 months?).
Another method could be to stick people on 'probation'. Following an explicit warning, any slip-ups in the ensuing (say) 4 wks & it's 'goodbye'.
J.
poster:JahL
thread:1222
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1319.html