Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 4:01:47
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 13:12:32
> If you block offences of type x and blocks for offences of type x don't generally tend to facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn't block offences of type x?
I guess I would...
> > Ideally, people would rephrase their uncivil posts themselves -- before they submit them.
>
> I think that sometimes people are blocked for posts that they do not realise you are going to classify as uncivil.I'm sure that happens. It's something that can take time to learn...
> > And blocks are shorter under the new system.
>
> Yes. I think it is better that they are shorter than they were, but I think it would be better still if some of them were shorter again and if you weren't so quick to block certain kinds of offences.Well, one step at a time?
> > Are you distinguishing between accusing someone like Bush and accusing another poster?
>
> I don't think we should be allowed to accuse people on the boards or people off the boards. When it comes to critiquing then I distinguish between critiquing people (though that would include both people on and people off the boards) and critiquing policies and institutions, yes.Are you saying you think it shouldn't be OK to accuse people, but it should be OK to accuse policies and institutions?
> I think that there are certain kinds of offences that people get blocked for where the majority of posters really can't understand what on earth the person said to get blocked for
How much do you think it's (a) not understanding the reasons and how much (b) understanding the reasons, but not agreeing that they justify the blocks?
> Perhaps the issue is more where you decide to draw the line. I think that you have drawn the line in a way that is too harsh for some kinds of offences.
That may be true. Reasonable people can disagree. But how long someone's blocked for doesn't depend just on the current "offence"...
> Are the boards more supportive as a result of your blocking posters for up to one year for certain kinds of offences? That seems to be a point of difference between us.
It does seem to be, I agree with you there. :-)
> - In the short term: people get upset with you for having blocked them. The boards become polarised into those who support your decision and those who do not.
That's the thing about critiquing, it's correlated with polarization. If the subgroups were people who supported my decision and those who supported the blocked poster, I think it would be different.
> - In the long term: people see this as an ongoing issue and those hurts come up again next time. The poster returns after a block and is more likely to be uncivil after being blocked for those kinds of offences.
I think it's inevitably an ongoing issue, how to coexist. I don't think posters are always more uncivil after being blocked.
> how much are the boards preparing people... empowering people for irl...
>
> and how much are th eboards encouraging / fostering unhealthy dependency and resulting in people withdrawing from irl for a 'quick fix'
>
> hard to say...I agree, it's hard. And it could be one for some people, the other for others. And for a given person one at some times, the other at others.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:670602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/674456.html