Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 17:58:43
In reply to Re: THANK YOU LARRY, THANK YOU LARRY, THANK YOU » alexandra_k, posted by wildcard on January 6, 2006, at 17:39:34
> I see what you are saying that the good they have done still stands
thanks.
> but the block prevents them from doing further good
i think the block is INTENDED to prevent them from doing further harm IN THE SENSE of continuing to be uncivil. i think... that that is the intention of the block. to give the poster some time to think about what they said. to think about WHY what they said was considered uncivil. to give them a chance to think about alternative things they could have said. alternative things they could have done. that way... hopefully the person can learn something so that there won't be a repeat. i think... that is the intention of the block. prevention of posting also has the effect that they are prevented from posting helpful posts too. yes, it does. but i think that is a conseqence that isn't really intended although it is true that it is a consequence yes.
> and in fact can cause them harm.
i don't think that is intended either. and regarding the possible harm to the person who is blocked... the person gets blocked because of the possible harm to the person the incivility was directed towards. and the possible harm to other people who read the post. and to the possible harm to the community as a whole if those sorts of posts were acceptable to the forum.
> I still feel that his block is a bit harsh when the good he does weighs against what was said.
okay... lets suppose teh blocking system took into account how long people have been here and whether they tend to post helpful posts or not and how helpful their posts are etc etc.
if all that was taken into account...
do you think it would be possible (in practice) to have a system that was perceived as fair with fairly predictable consequences for saying certain sorts of things?
i think... it would be too hard.
and it would be mroe crazymaking for us in the long term.
there would be more 'you were lenient on him because he is your favourite' kind of stuff going on on the boards.i think...
the blocks / pbc's here are fairly much predictable.
sometimes i get a bit of a suprise...
but in the majority of times i am able to take the point.
i think they are fairly much predictable...
and i think that is good.> However, 6 weeks is quite awhile when Lar stated himself that he in fact was not well. What about his well being?
lets suppose i say 'i'm really not feeling very well but i also think you are a useless sack...'
(sorry - illustrative purposes...)
my point is that if people are given leniency for saying 'i really don't feel very well' then the prevalence of people saying 'i really don't feel very well' at the same time as saying incivilities would go up (as a matter of empirical fact)
then there would be problems around 'they are just saying that to avoid a block'
then there would be probelms around assessing whether they *really* are unwell or not...
so...
i think that system would get a little crazymaking as well...with respect to this block...
it has taken a few blocks for them to get up to the present length of 6 weeks.
how long was his last block for?
6 weeks?
i don't think this block is a doubling or tripling of his last block. that is my point there. *Usually* blocks are doubled or tripled for the next time...
the point that Larry's wasn't...
that shows leniency.
it does.
but there needs to be fairly predictible consequences...
for all of our sanity...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:595104
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060102/msgs/595907.html