Posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 22:48:47
In reply to Re: rules, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 14:57:01
> > If you blocked a person and the block didn't facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn't have blocked that person?
> Not necessarily. Someone can get a ticket for speeding even if they didn't cause an accident, because speeding leads to more accidents in general even if it didn't that time...Okay, let me try that again…
If you block offences of type x and blocks for offences of type x don’t generally tend to facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn’t block offences of type x?
> Ideally, people would rephrase their uncivil posts themselves -- before they submit them.I think that sometimes people are blocked for posts that they do not realise you are going to classify as uncivil.
> And blocks are shorter under the new system.
Yes. I think it is better that they are shorter than they were, but I think it would be better still if some of them were shorter again and if you weren’t so quick to block certain kinds of offences.
> Are you distinguishing between accusing someone like Bush and accusing another poster?
I don’t think we should be allowed to accuse people on the boards or people off the boards. When it comes to critiquing then I distinguish between critiquing people (though that would include both people on and people off the boards) and critiquing policies and institutions, yes. But that isn’t what I’m getting at here. I’ll save that one for another day (I don’t want to be more controversial than I have to be).> > As a result of that... Other posters seem to be uncivil (typically towards you but also towards other posters). Also the blocked poster seems to be more likely to be uncivil (typically towards you but also towards other posters) upon return.
> That's true, blocking someone does sometimes stir things up and make it less supportive, at least in the short run.
Also in the long run as the poster is more likely to be uncivil upon return.I know that sometimes people get stirred up when people get blocked for attacking other posters. I think that in those instances people aren’t so upset that the poster was blocked so much as they are upset at the length of the block, however. People also seem to have difficulty with supporting a poster and not condoning their behaviour and turning against you at the same time…
I think that there are certain kinds of offences that people get blocked for where the majority of posters really can’t understand what on earth the person said to get blocked for, however. I think that those kinds of blocks are the most likely to lead to escalation and incivility on the boards. Both in the short and long term.
> > > The thing about flexibility is that it can be seen as unfair.
> > Rigidity can also be seen as unfair. Not only unfair, but stubborn as well ;-)
> Maybe I'd rather err on the side of rigidity, since that would at least be predictable?Maybe we should distinguish between flexibility / rigidity and the issue of where you draw the line. I agree that flexibility is something that many people have trouble with… Perhaps the issue is more where you decide to draw the line. I think that you have drawn the line in a way that is too harsh for some kinds of offences.
Examples… (I’m thinking of very specific cases here, I don’t want to be more controversial than I have to be)
- Zen got blocked for one year for saying ‘sh*t’ without an asterisk.
- Muffled got blocked for one week for saying ‘sh*t’ without an asterisk over on the writing board (where she may well have thought the rules on writing were different in that respect).
- A poster got blocked for posting a link that had a link to a link that was uncivil (where there is precedent for your blocking for that AND for your saying that it was okay to do that).
- I got blocked for 4 weeks for attempting to rephrase in a way that was within the guidelines.And there are so very many more… So very many…
> Someone who's blocked for a year may in fact not be able to do what's required. At least not consistently and under these circumstances. I agree, it's a loss while they're blocked and then if they leave, after that.Are the boards more supportive as a result of your blocking posters for up to one year for certain kinds of offences? That seems to be a point of difference between us. I think you are too harsh:
> > 1) You seem to be too quick to block posters when they haven't accused / attacked / judged another poster and they would be willing to rephrase on the boards (which may well indicate that they didn't mean to cause offence).
> > 2) You seem to block people for exorbitant lengths of time when they haven't accused / attacked / judged another poster and they would be willing to rephrase on the boards (which may well indicate that they didn't mean to cause offence).
I think that blocking people for those kinds of offences is likely to lead to more incivility on the boards.- In the short term: people get upset with you for having blocked them. The boards become polarised into those who support your decision and those who do not.
- In the long term: people see this as an ongoing issue and those hurts come up again next time. The poster returns after a block and is more likely to be uncivil after being blocked for those kinds of offences.
poster:Estella
thread:670602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/672446.html