Posted by Solstice on December 14, 2010, at 13:24:38
In reply to Re: ??? » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 7:50:23
> For the record, deputies saw themselves as working for the community, not Bob.No doubt. Do you think the community members who ran amok of the civility guidelines saw deputies as working for the community - or for Bob? It would have been better if I had acknowledged that the deputies themselves might have a different perception. I was attempting to speak from what I saw in looking at it through the eyes of the folks that hve trouble coloring within the lines. There did seem to be quite a bit of suspicion from community members about how much Bob pulled the deputies' strings. I don't think it can be denied that as much as the deputies themselves intended to help keep the environment here safe and minimize large deteriorations... that dang 'minion effect' was something the design of the deputy role engendered. And if the deputy role is to enforce Bob's civility guidelines with the power to punish, then being perceived as working for Bob is unavoidable.
> I think I might feel offended, though I'm sure your intent wasn't to cause offense.
Never in a million years would I want to cause offense to anyone - especially not you. I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt on that one :-) And it's probably important that I note that my thoughts about such things are influenced by the fact that I have never been a deputy. I have no idea how it plays out for the brave souls who have taken on that role. As a result, it comes a little more naturally for me to see it more thru the community's (or at least some parts of the community's) eyes.
> All I recall Dr. Bob saying about minimums is that real parole boards base it on a percent of time served. I could be wrong.He did mention that he thought that's how it works in our country's penal system. I'm not sure. But he did ask what others thought a sufficient 'mimnimum time' should be. It might help, when considering it, for Bob to set out what he wants the minimum to accomplish. What are its purposes? Knowing those things help a lot in narrowing down the options worth considering.
> The power to keep a block in place doesn't sound that much less anger producing than the power to block in the first place.I'm not sure I can agree with you on that. It is certainly possible that this could happen - but let me try to explain the differences I see:
The initial block vs. declining to release a block is different b/c the initial block is a punishment for having crossed a line. There is no 'mercy' or 'second chance' tacked onto it. The Community Council, however, IS the 'second chance.' Say the minimum is 1 week. Say someone gets blocked for 4 weeks for what clearly appears to be a mean-spirited lashing out at another poster. Say that poster is so convinced his opinion about the other is correct, that he thinks he shouldn't have been blocked because of it - so he goes to the Community Council and tells them that his block is ridiculous, demanding that his block be released immediately. Council might very easily vote that this blocked poster is clearly in no shape to be returned to the community. He just doesn't 'get it.' So they issue a 'ruling' that the 4 week block stands. The blocked poster, in his blindedness, might be angry. he might email friends and tell them that Bob and Council both are ridiculous jerks. But.. so? Who on earth who has the maturity and ability to reason would 'side' with that blocked poster? Council didn't do the blocking - all they did was let it stand. Do you really think it likely that a big chunk of community members will rise up in anger against Council for not releasing that poster? I just haven't seen anything go on here that makes me think that's a viable risk.
Bob does not reduce his blocks. Council has the power to do that. As a result - Council, as an entity, is benevolent. It just doesn't seem likely that the community would develop a contentious stance toward Council, who represents a second chance - a way out of long blocks. In order to minimize the potential for what I described above playing out - maybe there could be, say.. a 1 week minimum time served - and only blocks longer than 4 weeks can be brought to Council?
> I think somewhere you mentioned that a rejection of parole would rarely happen as long as people were civil in asking for the reduction. I'd be interested in seeing if that was as true for *all* posters, regardless of their popularity or perceived value, or the popularity and perceived value of the recipient of the incivility. Or the perceived "truth" of the statement that caused the block.First - let me say that I don't like the 'parole board' analogy because there are so many unhelpful associations conjured up by anything related to the penal system.
And yes, I think that most people who find themselves blocked and decide to ask for a Council review, would be approaching it from precisely the attitude Council would be looking for. 1) I think a lot of blocks take place as a result of a poster's hair-trigger impulsivity - and regret follows it. 2) Those who are self-righteous and believe they shouldn't have been blocked, will quickly learn that using that stance isn't going to get them anywhere. The first year's council will be part of the learning curve for this thing. First year's council may very well have a greater number of uncivil reactions as the community adjusts to what the Council option really means. But remember - Council is not required to vote on a blocked poster. It really is up to the poster to cultivate within themselves an attitude and disposition toward their initial block and the Council that earns Council's willingness to consider lifting the block early. And blocked posters won't be posting - so their ability to lash out is very limited. In fact, maybe all their communications with Council should take place in the chat room - in a room designed to hold the messages for all council members to see - and even for Bob to see. That way everything is out in the open where Council is concerned, and an blocked poster using the privilege of communicating with Council to be abusive isn't going to get them the results they want.
> I think if I were to be the recipient of incivility from someone who was paroled, or if I felt bad for the recipient of incivility from someone who was paroled, I'd feel the same sort of feelings I feel towards regular parole boards when a parolee hurt someone. Suitably scaled, of course, for the severity of the hurt.And.. maybe you wouldn't? We aren't talking about violent crimes like assault, robbery & assault, rape, murder, etc. And if someone is released from their block, and then turns around and is uncivil to you or your friend - they'll end up right back where they started - whereas in our penal system, it's not uncommon for a paroled prisoner to get away with a whole string of escalating atrocities before being caught and there being enough evidence to convict in our court system. That is not the case here. At all. No poster released from a block would be able to run rampant with incivility unchecked. I'm open to changing my mind if I see evidence that warrants it, but I think the risk of what you're talking about there is so incredibly minute compared to the harm being done now because of unreasonably long blocks.
That said - it's important to keep in view that nothing is perfect. We're an imperfect lot, the human race. There is no place on earth where incivility is extinguished, replaced by eternal love and good will surrounding the people. Incivility WILL happen. At work, between families, between friends, and in this place. So it's got to be managed - but in this particular environment - a community of people, a high percentage of whom struggle with mental health issues, there has GOT to be a kinder and gentler way (than we have right now) of managing civility with a special sensitivity to the tendency of mental health issues to interfere with optimal functioning at times.
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:965628
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973533.html