Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 13:23:55
In reply to Explaining specific long blocks, posted by jane d on November 10, 2010, at 13:07:08
> I usually don't comment on the many occasions when I hear people say "Poster X was blocked for 32 weeks for saying...."
>
> It would be clearer, I suppose if Dr. Bob posted the list of actions that lead to a long block as that poster is blocked. But I think it might be even more shaming than blocks currently are considered. I certainly wouldn't wish to hear a litany of my "sins" at a time I already felt vulnerable.Me, neither.
> Perhaps, though, the wording of the block could be changed to reflect the fact that the length of the block results from a pattern of behavior. The FAQ definitely should be changed to make that fact as plain as possible, IMO, to clear up apparent misconceptions.
>
> DinahIMO, spelling out what goes into the formula each time makes it plain. And how much of a difference that can make was made plain recently when three posters were blocked at the same time:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 47 weeks
block length = 2 weeksduration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 7 weeks
block length = 3 weeksduration of previous block: 9 weeks
period of time since previous block: 6 weeks
block length = 23 weeksBut formulas aren't everyone's cup of tea. What if I added to each block something like:
> This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is. According to the formula...and to the FAQ something like:
> The block is the result of one uncivil post, but its length is the result of a pattern of uncivil posts.
>
> If they've been blocked before, it's usually determined by a formula that takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:I'm open to suggestions. Being realistic, however, I don't think any change of wording will clear up all misconceptions.
It might in fact help more to comment whenever someone says poster X was blocked for 32 weeks for saying Y.
--
> I think that a massive black boxed text of "you are posting while under a 'Please Be Civil' Resquest" or some such phrase be part of the post submission for the pbc duration might increase awareness.
>
> pcThat's an interesting idea, but what do you mean by "while under a PBC request"? I ask everyone always to be civil. But maybe something along those lines would be to customize the block length calculator in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
so that people could find out how long they'd be blocked for if they posted something uncivil right then.
--
> If it wouldn't be too unwieldy I'd also like to see some explanation that simultaneous blockable posts by the same poster won't be specifically flagged once that poster is blocked. Otherwise I suppose it could look like those posts were approved even though they may be worse than the one flagged.
>
> janeThat's something we've wondered about, too.
1. People shouldn't assume a post not being flagged means it was approved.
2. If people notify us about other uncivil posts, we explain.
3. When other uncivil posts are on different boards, we've been linking to the PBC or block, since people there may not have seen it. We haven't been when they're on different threads on the same board. Again, there's the issue of balancing the needs of the community and the shame the poster might feel.
Thanks, everyone, for all your constructive suggestions,
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:969574
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971577.html