Posted by spoc on May 29, 2004, at 21:51:56
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2004, at 20:29:11
> On the other hand, unlike many of those who have posted here, I am a big fan of blocks, and successive blocks, tempered by Dr. Bob's discretion. I think it's terrific that Dr. Bob doesn't buy the arguments that we can't be held to high standards because we have mental health issues. Heck, the worst boards I've seen have been for supposedly mentally healthy people.>
<<<<< I just wanted to be sure that this is not what I appeared to be expressing in an earlier post, when I mentioned the possible difficulties in having exceptionally fragile people predict when electing to be here how being at the site will affect them, such as whether it would have a serious real-life impact should they end up getting a block themselves (especially under complex circumstances). I absolutely didn't mean that people should be allowed incivility and looser standards due to mental health issues.
Btw, I too would not want these things to basically be popularity contests. I too intensely dislike that stuff. And I don't have the confidence to see myself that way here and probably never will. I was having faith that with all these brilliant minds, a reasonable process would be conceived of. Maybe we shouldn't even think of this as such a self-contained world, with only those already present as potential "jurors."
I have been responding because, as jimi noted, the question was asked. Maybe the fact that Larry *is* so popular is actually tainting the larger discussion about blocks in general, because I don't necessarily see that as related or having been asked. What's happening here isn't THE new process being suggested, I don't think. That I know of, we haven't been considering open, board-wide popular voting in regard to making determinations about blocks. I thought we'd establish whether change was advisable, and then decide the part about how and who would assist. This world is full of people and sources of them who could help with judgments, even on a volunteer basis I bet.
Maybe even people whose day jobs and experience reflect or are related to having good, unbiased judgment... Wouldn't a few mental health professionals (of various 'strains') probably commit a few hours to reviewing cases? Or college professors who teach something relevant (ethics, philosophy, etc.); or even some kind of actual judge? I'd think many would enjoy it! They wouldn't have to read the whole site everyday, just get up to speed on specific cases, in shifts if the load was that big, which it isn't, is it?
I don't know, but there are plenty of quality people out there besides us, who could also be more removed than us... Dr. Bob could then hear their input and make the final call... Except in cases of X, Y, Z (insert blatantly inhuman violations) having been committed; or in cases where a poster sees his error and doesn't even call for review; which cases would be left at that...
Dr. Bob, you must have a bevy of esteemed colleagues and connections who could help! :- )
I do know what you mean about the doubling and tripling making sense to you Dinah, but that probably presumes cases wherein violations are either pretty serious or the person is cut-and-dried guilty, but is clearly not learning. In reality, that *isn't* how it always is.... And as far as the appearance of any "misguidedness" in decisions, or oversights to equal transgressions, lack of time for thorough review of all posts has often been cited, but that is clearly a circumstance that doesn't *have* to continue...