Posted by greywolf on April 8, 2006, at 10:38:25
In reply to Re: i tried » greywolf, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 22:36:13
I understand what you're saying, special k, but my point is that the blocking/length of blocking stuff falls into my "it is what it is" category. That being the case, generally posting in a constructive, supportive way seems not to get people blocked, and posting in any other way seems to increase the risk you'll be in TO for a while.
There's a certain amount of imprecision or arbitratriness built into every system, and this one seems to err on the side of discouraging dispute, controversy, and tension by requiring an unusually high degree of sensitivity. But, given the focus of the site, I can see why.
I've seen blocking that I thought was a little heavy-handed, and I've seen blocking not employed when I felt it should have been. That's the way it goes. For instance, I totally agree with the blocking in the "provocative" thread that got so much attention above, and I wondered at the decision not to block the poster who started it all with what I felt were unnecessarily strong comments. I tended to agree with her assessment of the situation, but would not have phrased it like she did--in a way I would have bet would have resulted in a block.
But it didnt', and it left me wondering, and it caused me to again reach my regular conclusion: it's not a big enough deal to lose sleep over. Especially when I've got enough on my own plate as it is.
poster:greywolf
thread:630292
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/630530.html