Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 16:11:24
In reply to Re: blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:59:13
> > > Why can't we have discussions about meeting "everyone's" needs?
> >
> > We can discuss that, but what if some people need to express their anger and other people need to feel safe?
>
> I agree with you completely on the "anger" part, but I also feel it is an often very short lived, temporary part of all of us.OK, let's say 1 person needs to express their short-lived anger and 100 people need to feel safe. How would you meet the needs of all 101 people?
> it seems to be those few occassions where someone is having a rough time, and comes across the wrong way, and it also happens to be transient and they could shift around within hours, they get hit with a block.
It might be transient, but it might not, I have no way of knowing. Plus, if I'm blocking someone, it's at least the second time they've been uncivil, so they either haven't shifted or have shifted back...
> If it is a consistent thing that happens in every second post, of course that raises red flags.
Are you saying someone shouldn't be blocked unless they're uncivil every other post? Every third post would be OK? For everyone? Which would mean one third of all posts could be uncivil?
> That is why I am asking why can't there be a "case by case" look at what would be called uncivil, and any action taken towards the "offender" take the above into account.
That's already what happens. The server doesn't do this automatically. :-)
> A person charged with speeding does not get the same punishment as someone charged with murder.
True, I handle "murder" more leniently than maybe I should...
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:201785
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202867.html