Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 20:13:06
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 19:44:23
Twinleaf -
I think you're making a really important point. Some time back I suggested that Council, by majority vote, be allowed to set aside blocks issued by Bob. My thought was along the same lines as yours.. that errors in judgment do happen.. and like the one you cited as 'running vs. ruining' - even Bob can misunderstand or misinterpret something. The written word can be very difficult to interpret without the nonverbals that usually accompany communication. It would be impossible for Bob to stay closely involved in every thread to pick up the nuances that are involved in communication that is erroneously judged as uncivil. Like you said, some incivility is clear, and some things tagged as uncivil might not be tagged as uncivil if Bob were more involved in the thread. I think he does take care - and I think his more recent practice of asking for rephrasing mitigates this issue to a great extent. It allows the poster to restate it in way that makes their intent clearer.
But my suggestion that Council be able to set aside blocks altogether met resistence. And that's ok. It may really be better to just get Council off the ground as simply as possible - and see how it goes. Refining can always be done later.
But I do heartily 'get' what you're saying here, and it makes me feel better to know that I'm not the only one who sees that there are times an incivility is cited in error :-)
Solstice
> 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:Solstice
thread:965628
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973467.html