Posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 19:44:23
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:25:21
Civility transgressions come in several different flavors:
1. Insults and hurtful comments to or about fellow posters
2. Insults and hurtful comments to or about Bob.
3. Insults and putdowns of third parties - one of the funniest
examples of this was when Bob read "Bush running the country"
as "Bush ruining the country" and issued a block which he later
revoked with a good spirit.As that example demonstrates, errors do occur. Often, when the civility rules are broken, it is very clear that hurt has been intended, for example when swear words are used. However, at times there is a real difference between how the poster intends a comment and how it is received.To give a hypothetical example, a poster might say, "you sounded awfully professorial there." The person receiving this statement might take it as a sarcastic putdown, when it was intended to be a playful, innocent comment. In cases like this, there isn't a clear-cut right and wrong. Until now, Bob has been the only person with the power to decide what counts as a civility transgression. The Council will have the power to shorten blocks with or without conditions, such as an apology. What about the cases in which Bob's view of what is a transgression is different from most everyone else? Can a block be rescinded if the Council thinks that no incivility has occurred?
A few weeks ago, I think Bob offered at one point to reduce blocks by 10%. (posters who replied asked for a greater reduction, and the idea was apparently dropped) I haven't seen any recent mention of block length reduction, or a reworking of the formula for determining block length.
Are these things being discussed?
poster:twinleaf
thread:965628
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973464.html