Posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 0:29:34
In reply to Re: blocks and support, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 4:01:47
> > 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...
Yeah. I thought you would say that :-)
So now the controversy would be over:1) How you type offences.
2) How you measure whether blocking people for a type generally tends to facilitate support or not.
> > > 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...I think that being too quick to block some of those doesn't faciliate learning, it facilitates people going 'well f*ck you'. I've been here for a while now... Am I 'unlearning' over time? If blocks are anything to go by then I seem to be...
> > > 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?
Sure. I hope you don't mind if I keep trying to push you into (what I perceive to be) the right general direction, however...
> Are you saying you think it shouldn't be OK to accuse people, but it should be OK to accuse policies and institutions?No, I don't think it should be okay to accuse either people or institutions. I distinguish between accusing and critiquing, however.
Main Entry: ac·cuse
to charge with a fault or offense : BLAMEMain Entry: 1cri·tique
a critical estimate or discussion <a critique of the poet's work>I agree there can be a fine line. I think we should be able to critique policies and ideologies and institutions *on the politics board*. I agree that we shouldn't accuse politicians or posters, however. It can be a fine line. I think it would help people learn if you weren't so quick to block borderline offences.
> > 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?Hard to say. If (a) then it would be nice if you could try and help us understand. If (b) then it might be time for you to look at whether your reasons really do justify lengthy blocks. That is what people seem to be saying in some instances. Seems to be a recurring issue... That yes they understand your reasons, but that no they don't agree that that justifies a lengthy block.
> > 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.Though it is unclear whether both can be right ;-)
It would seem to be an empirical matter...> But how long someone's blocked for doesn't depend just on the current "offence"...
Borderline offences can accumulate too...
One year for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk...
> That's the thing about critiquing, it's correlated with polarization.Correlation doesn't entail causation. It might be that polarisation tends to cause critique, or it might be the other way around. Do you distinguish between critique and attack? Perhaps we disagree on what counts as a critique and what counts as an attack?
It doesn't have to be that way. Especially when critique is about *discussion* and *reasons*.
> If the subgroups were people who supported my decision and those who supported the blocked poster, I think it would be different.
Different how?
> > - 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.Though when you block people it isn't about coexisting. It is about a person being excluded (that might not be your intention but that is a consequence).
> I don't think posters are always more uncivil after being blocked.
I think posters are more likely to be uncvil after blocks for certain types of offences... Also after lengthy blocks for certain types of offences...
> > 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.Yeah, thats probably right.
poster:Estella
thread:670602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/675104.html