Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 1:22:38
Dr. Bob, I dont entirely understand what youre trying for here, but I do think its not a bad thing to encourage posters in this sort of support. But while Im entirely in favor of responsibility, Im not sure fellow posters have the power to encourage people to act in such a way to avoid a block. And as you have no doubt guessed, in some cases it would not be seen as support by either fellow posters or the poster in question to encourage them to do something they find morally wrong to avoid a block. Or maybe people are afraid of being hurt themselves if they put themselves out that way.
I think its great to, for example, thank those who did attempt to intervene, and point out that this is enormously helpful to Babble. And if people attempted to intervene, but were inadvertently uncivil in trying to follow your wishes, maybe some education is in order. But I dont think chastisement is appropriate in those cases where the community failed to make an effort to divert a poster from a path that appeared to be leading to a block. In other words, I think positive role modeling, and administrative feedback might be more effective and better received.Posters have made their proposals. Youve made your proposal, and it doesnt seem at this point to be well received. But no one has attempted to state the goal, and try to mesh out something that may not be ideal to anyone, but may be better than one now exists.
One thing that might help is to post some statistics that show the scope of the issue. How many people are currently blocked for long periods of time (or at all)? How many PBCs have been granted recently?Its your job as site administrator to be clear which proposals are just not going to happen, so that posters can move onto new ideas.
For example, I doubt that a two week cap will be ok with you. But perhaps something shorter than a year would be open to discussion. Or better yet, IMO, other alternatives can be offered.
I propose something that emphasizes the responsibility of posters. After all, the goal of a block is not to punish or extract vengeance. The goal of a block is to enforce a policy that cannot be enforced any other way. The goal of the policy is to have a reduction of conflict on the site so that the main focus of the board is support and education. Setting a time limited block then having people come back on occasion angry and hurt and not particularly receptive to site guidelines is not perhaps the best approach to achieve your goal. Neither, IMO, is very short blocks since a considerable period of turmoil often precedes a block, and that would not be desirable every two weeks. Its a fine balance between trying to support those who are hurt by admin actions and those who are hurt by poster actions.
How about instead of blocks being set by time, that blocks instead be set by the taking of responsibility by posters to follow site guidelines. For example, after a first block of a week or so (with no blocks in the recent past), a poster could be contacted by Admin or contact Admin and express an understanding and willingness to abide by site guidelines. Or at least a willingness to try to understand and abide by site guidelines. If there is another issue in a reasonable period of time, the poster will again be blocked, and this time offer some sort of corrective plan. Something like I understand that what I wish to say on Faith is not necessarily ok under board guidelines. I dont like it, but Ill abide by that. Or I dont really understand the rules, but Ill ask someone before I post. Or I know I blow up when Im angry, and say things Ill later regret. If I feel Im getting angry, Ill walk away from the computer. If that still doesnt work (again, within a reasonable period of time), there would be probation, where a poster might have to get their posts okd by another poster. In other words, the emphasis should be on a posters willingness to abide by site guidelines, no matter how much they may dislike them. At the same time, a poster could state what they believe Admin could do to help them follow site guidelines. I think at least a week ought to go by between block and offer of compromise.
Also, since shame often seems to come up in these conversations, perhaps we could open the possibility of off board admin actions, and the removal of uncivil posts. I dont like it, because it doesnt seem to be as aboveboard as I prefer. But if shame is a major factor and a sticking point, maybe it would be for the best. It seems to be the accepted standard for the internet. OTOH, that would make it difficult for posters to understand board policy.
In other words, instead of posters saying what they think should be done, and you saying what you think should be done, how about a conversation based on what Im sure are shared goals.
poster:Dinah
thread:900430
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/904175.html