Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 12:23:44
In reply to Re: not enuf clarity, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 11:47:24
I may have not done a good job making it clear that it's all still just *hope* :-)
> Cuz blocks ARE the issue here.
Blocks are definitely the biggest issue.
> One of the issues is the shock factor.I do understand that the shock factor has been very important to you. I agree that it would be awful to have no warning that your toe was getting over the line - only to be suddenly whacked with being cut off from an important community of support.
I do think Bob has taken measures to ensure people are forewarned, though. He really does have a protocol for moving toward a block. It isn't terribly new - or terribly old, so it has been imperfectly practiced, as new things often are. But it seems to have recently reached a pretty predictable point. He will issue a PBC (which is a kind of warning). He will ask for a rephrase (which is also a warning). He'll ask for others to 'help' keep someone from getting blocked (annoying, I know.. but the spirit behind it is good, I think). If the person being warned responds by apologizing or rephrasing - - all is well. But if they post a response complaining about Bob's warning - or justifying what they said that he's asking them to rephrase - - - well... they often end up with a block.
So I think the warning thing is taking place. It may not be the kind of warning that would be ideal for you - but sometimes we have to (especially if we aren't making the rules) figure out how to 'see' when the warning is being delivered. Differently than you'd like maybe, but it is pretty predictable and identifiable.
> So I think caps are important.Caps really aren't necessary, though.. if there is a Council one can contact and say "ok - so I got a 6 month block. What do I need to do to pare that thing down?"
> Cuz there's likely gonna be plenty who won't want to/choose to appeal.(shame and all that)People who don't want to appeal - regardless of their reason - won't have to appeal to Council. I don't think the goal is to dispute blocks, or remove civility standards. Muffled - I really don't think you'd be happy with no civility standards here. In order to protect you from the incivility of others - the others have to be protected from incivility that you might stumble into. So if someone gets blocked, they have a choice. If they want to focus on the shame they may feel - then they don't have to ask for Council's help. If they want to get back to posting, then they can tell the shame they feel to take a back seat, and appeal to Council. Council is NOT Bob. Council members are NOT deputies who are following Bob's notions. Council are peers. fellow babblers. If you go to them and say "I want to get rid of this block" ..as long as you remain civil with them, you might find yourself being guided toward getting rid of the block. Maybe they'll explain "Well Muff - when you said '-----' this is why Bob considered it uncivil.. so what you need to do is look at the list of civility buddies and see if there's someone there that you can work with to come up with an apology or rephrase or whatever.. and as soon as you get that taken care of then your block will be removed" Now - that's just *my* idea of how it might work - but still - Council is an avenue of returning to the community. No one has to use it. If someone appeals to Council and then gets uncivil - Council could very legitimately say "Hey - we don't respond to incivility. Come back when you can make a civil appeal." That poster would be stuck in their block until they figured out how to be civil when dialoguing with Council. As it should be. Bottom line Muff, is that overcoming shame is an important thing to learn. It's not easy. But it's important. Maybe the strong desire to be active in the community will be the pull one might need in order to accomplish that?
> So if the block was a week, then a person could just 'sit it out'.
> That would mean ALOT less 'control' would be needed aka The Council.The only thing Council will control is the ability to lift blocks by majority vote, and to impose (or not impose) conditions of a release of block. I think the important thing is to get a Council in place. that will be the relief valve. This will never be a place that is free free of blocks - and there will never be a set of block criteria that satisfies each and every member. But if we have a Council, we have a relief valve.
> Cuz at this pointy I am still seeing the council as having too much...power(lol, yet again).Maybe you are thinking of it having powers that have not been part of Bob's proposal? They will not have the power to block.
> See, like I said, if there were a cap on the blocks, it would just automatically be 1 wk-nuff said. Not a bunch of angst ridden negotiation there...just the way it is.But there might be times/situations for which 1 week is really not enough time. But if 1 week is the minimum time that must be served - then no one need be blocked longer than 1 week if we have a Council.
> Personally, I see the role of the council more as whether a block is needed *period*.
I initially wanted to include that - - but people here that I consider wiser than me did not think Council's role should be to question the determinations of our 'King' :-) After thinking about it, I see their point. Really.
> Also, agin...the other stuff I posted is VERY important IMHO as well.
> I think this stuff needs to be CLEAR before any one can safely jump in.
> I thank you solstice for 'filling in' for what Bob wants. But ultimately, it comes down to the owner and lol 'king' of this site....You are right on there. And one thing that plays a large role is the fact that Bob has the power to pull the plug. That will never change. Since we have to live with that fact, maybe some of our ideas about the perfect set of circumtances are worth setting aside - in order to keep a functioning community that is as protective as possible, without being overly punitive.
Sol.
poster:Solstice
thread:965628
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973430.html