Posted by Emme on August 4, 2003, at 8:31:10
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime, posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2003, at 6:54:49
> > But why not have the punishment fit the crime? In my opinion, the more severe offense is to direct snide, sarcastic or inappropriate comments *at* another poster. Just using a questionable word without directing it at anyone is a lesser offense.
> >
> > I don't think changing the rules to reflect the severity of the offense would present a problem if it's spelled out.
> >
> > Emme
>
> > Perhaps it *would* be a good idea to have the punishment fit the crime? I.E. change the FAQ so that some offenses are listed as major and some as minor. Minor offenses would result in a block lasting the same period of time as the most recent block placed on the poster, while major offenses would keep to the current policies. What do you all think?
> >
> > Ame Sans Vie
>
> I think it works more or less OK now, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement...
>
> What about using Emme's system to differentiate, as Ame Sans Vie suggests, between two levels of incivility? Except with "minor" blocks following the current system and "major" ones double that?
>
> BobHmm...call me a pushover, but I was thinking of a few little tweaks such as:
1. a warning and then uniform blocking of 1 week for simple use of a crude word *not* used in anger or aimed at anyone/everyone.
2. The current system of warning and then doubling the blocks for making sexually inappropriate comments, or making someone (or everyone) feel put down, or generally being mean in a more personal sort of way. That would be most of the current banning anyway.
3. Double the system for the rarer and really dangerous baddies such as methods for harming oneself, etc.
Simple and clear. What do you think?
Emme
poster:Emme
thread:247518
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/247978.html