Posted by Estella on August 17, 2006, at 5:32:57
In reply to Re: blocks and support, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 11:00:24
> I agree, blocks doesn't always have the desired effect.
Systematic alterations to the blocking system should lead to systematic alterations in the effects (whether the effects are desired or not). It is unclear whether the current blocking system acheives the optimal solution in the trade-off between desired and undesired effects.
How much have you done with respect to seeing whether there is a systematic dependency between the blocking system and the effects? How much have you done with respect to varying where you draw the line so as to assess the trade-off between desired and undesired effects?
Posters have been trying to get you to block less. How seriously have you taken their concerns?
> Learning is part of it, but other factors influence behavior, too.You already have a notion of ‘same type of offence’. That factors in to the length of the block, at times.
> What if any critiques needed to be constructive?
What do you mean by “constructive critique”?
Wiki says:
> Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_criticism
>> I know that sometimes people get stirred up when people get blocked for attacking other posters. I think that in those instances people aren’t so upset that the poster was blocked so much as they are upset at the length of the block, however. People also seem to have difficulty with supporting a poster and not condoning their behaviour and turning against you at the same time… 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.
> If the subgroups were people who supported my decision and those who supported the blocked poster, I think it would be different… I'm not sure how to explain it. I guess I think it's inevitably more adversarial if one subgroup says x is good and another says x is bad. Because good and bad are (easily seen as) incompatible. But if one says x is good and another says y is good, those aren't necessarily contradictory positions. So it's easier to get along.
Right. I think people do have difficulty seeing that they can support a poster without condoning their behaviour. I think people do have difficulty seeing that they can support a poster without turning on you. I think it is a shame because it means that when people have good reasoned opinions on their finding your blocking behaviour unacceptable you can just lump it with an ‘expression of support’ for the blocked poster and… Not take the concerns seriously.
> > > 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).> It's both, it's about somebody being excluded because their behavior isn't, IMO, conducive to coexisting.
In your opinion.
It is your opinion that people are calling into question.
Your basing decisions on your opinion when the majority really don’t agree with your opinion and when the consequence can be a one year block. When the majority cannot understand why it is that you saw fit to block the person.When you block people… Then you aren’t conducive to coexisting.
And you say 'well how am I supposed to administrate if I aren't allowed to be uncivil and label posters uncivil and exclude them from society as a consequence of my opinion of their posts?'
And some of us say 'well maybe you should ease up a little and not be so quick to jump on people, take their posts out of context, uncharitably interpret, be so jolly quick to block people for up to one year'
And round and round we go...
And it isn't about steering a ship
It is about pushing you
Cause others don't steer
Except insofar as you go AWOL for a time
And leave them explicit instructions
And you call on them so you can say
'Our' decision instead of 'mine'
Even when...
Thats not the case.
Is it?Do you poll deputies?
Do you count the votes?
Or just the vote of the person named Bob?
poster:Estella
thread:670602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/677343.html