Posted by Nadezda on June 22, 2009, at 11:12:07
In reply to Re: Rules - Recommended Changes » SLS, posted by Justherself54 on June 22, 2009, at 10:42:42
One of my deepest concerns with blocks is that they are very unpredictable. I mean-- some are predictable-- if there';s been a contentious discussion for a while on a populous board-- or on politics--
I find that there are many ad hominem-ish or objectionable posts that get no response from the TPTB -- and I find myself amazed that they are let go without a mumur. While other posts, that may be sharp or defensive, or just badly worded so that some hostility does get through (or seem to)-- are blocked.
I know that enforcement can only be spotty-- and I don't see posts that don't violate some understandable norm (at least I understand it) blocked-- but I see many many posts that violate the norm left to stand. And so it becomes impossible to know, really, if you've crossed a line or not-- because the line just never gets drawn in a clear enough, consistent enough way.
I mean-- I know when a post has crossed it-- but there's a huge terrain when I think posts must have and yet nothing happens-- and this creates a lot of confusion-- and possibly makes people feel even more constrained than they need to.
I think that may be why many blocks come as a shock to the poster.-- They were kind of in the wrong place at the wrong time-- or someone complained-- and they get singled out-- and rightfully wonder-- how come?
So I do think this is a perhaps unresolveable, but really huge, persistent problem with the civility rules.
And I do personally remember some blocks which just seemed to me so badly timed-- so clearly about to hurt someone who was really in bad shape and just didn't need that to happen, too. I know all blocks hurt-- and all of us struggle-- but there are certain instances when people have just been so overwhelmed and in the midst of a moment that seemed especially hard-- and not the norm for them-- that it seemed that more discretion might have been exercised.
Now I know that this is a personal judgment-- and that we can't have rules that someone who's suffering more at a moment shouldn't be blocked-- I guess it's just that, to me, the rules are so intermittantly applied that it has always seemed to me-- you know-- why not just overlook this one? why not just let this one go, too?
I don't mean this as a reproof to the deputies-- at all. I guess I'm just saying that I do wish there were some other mechanisms in place other than PBCs and blocks to try to help people out of these places they get into--not only after, but before, blocks happen. I'm sure most of us know when someone else is in that danger zone-- and some of us might be enlisted to do more, not only privately, but for board.
I know it would take more work on the part of whoever administers the board. And we're apparently down in participation-- so more helpers aren't necessarily available.
There's no perfect world-- but I do think the blocks and the reactions of anger and hurt to blocks has started to really erode the sense of connection and hope that many had here. And maybe it really is time to rethink how all this has worked.
Nadezda
poster:Nadezda
thread:902222
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902610.html