Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 23:23:15
In reply to My take on where it stands, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 20:47:59
> > I think people are interested....but ya, there needs to be ALOT more *clear* info if we are to see if in fact Bob is really on board, or if this is just another digression...
>
> Muffled -
>
> I think in these beginning stages - we have to tolerate a lot of lack of clarity. It's just the nature of the beast. There really has been a lot of stuff floating around - a lot to keep up with. Maybe it will help you if I tell you what I think is clear:*why? why do we have to tolerate alot of unclarity????
> 1. Bob has offered to allow a Community Council that would be granted the power to shorten blocks after a minimum time (which is still undetermined) is served. The Council would have five members. Members could abstain from voting - but it will take at least three of them to have a vote take place. A blocked poster would be responsible for contacting Council and asking that their block be shortened.*I think I might ask sometimes, but I think the majority of the time I would be so locked in shame I couldn't. I would just hide away and punish myself.
I think its very commonly very hard for people to 'ask' for stuff. For parts of me to 'ask' is to expect to have something bad happen to me. I don't think I am alone in this. For parts, to ask is to beg. For parts to ask is far too much cuz who the f do I think I am, I am bad. etc etc I think this would be tough for MANY and they would just suffer in silence.
Thats why I am so adamant about a cap on basic blocks. Then there wouldn't really be the need to appeal, if its only a week, that can be hard, but its doable...
Also, could others appeal a persons block on their behalf, if they know that person had more going on than the council knows....? Can they support fellow posters in that way?>Council would be allowed to impose, or not impose, conditions on the blocked poster. Early release from a block (after the minimum time served) would be at the sole discretion of Council, by majority vote. Council, or someone on the Council, would have access to the mechanism that would allow them to release the block without having to first get Bob's approval, and without Bob having to be around.
*good
> 2. Bob has suggested that there be special (harsher?) penalties for any poster who is uncivil to Council members in the performance of their duties. This would likely minimize any potential backlash against Council.*sounds good. I like that council is anonymous.
> 3. Bob initially proposed that candidates for Council campaign and that elections be held to vote for those the Community wishes to serve. This proposal has bet strong resistance from the Community, and as yet, no one has said they are willing to campaign for a Council seat, and no one has said they are willing to subject themselves to elections. I proposed an alternate of Bob soliciting nominations for Council from the Community, whereby he would contact the five people with the most nominations to see if they are willing to serve, and work his way down the list until he fills all five seats. Bob has not yet been agreeable to this, but it is my hope that he will consider its merits as an alternative before rejecting it altogether. I think that under the circumstances, he is more likely to get what he says he wants by setting aside campaigns & elections, and doing it by Community nominations instead.*hmmm elections wouldn't bother me(I weird, and it's in my background) but definately I can see where it would be hard for most.
> There are of course a lot of ideas, questions, misconceptions, etc. floating around.. but I think what I've written above is, to the best of my understanding, where it stands at this point.*which...isn't a whole lot of info.
Don't mistake me, I appreciate your work.
But manoman, I need facts B4 I jump into stuff. If a person is going to do a job, they need to know WHAT the job REALLY is, so that they can determine IF in fact, it is a job they would like to do. AND they gonna have to agree w/the priciples of the group in order to be a part of the group...
Maybe I overvigilant(makes me tired lots) but its also saved my bacon...Also, another point, is just WHAT is the *point* of blocks? At what point is it punitive rather than just a time out?
And I would like to see it as *rule* that a person is warned *in* the thread, or at least w/in say the last 24 hrs before blocks are thrown at them(except in extreme blowups, maybe an instant 24 hr.suspension or something...).
I don't know that this is always the case, that thye are warned?
And also, if the poster is no longer being inflammatory, what is the turnaround time for apology? If they are not posting, its possible they have self blocked.
Also, if a person is just gone right off for some reason, then there would need to be an 'instant' block essentially in order to cut them off if they have clearly lost control.
Its just not that simple....
poster:muffled
thread:965628
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973504.html