Posted by Estella on September 3, 2006, at 23:17:17
In reply to Re: blocks and support » Estella, posted by Jost on September 3, 2006, at 13:59:04
> Bob has, I guess, made consequentialist-sounding claims about the blocks, and he may believe that these claims are true-- but they still may not be the rationale.
Yeah. He might well come up with another rationale if that one doesn't work out for him. The whole motto is that 'I'm doing this for the good of the group', however.
> a demonstration that he's empirically incorrect might go only so far.
He said that he would agree that he shouldn't block offences of type x if blocking offences of type x harmed the boards more than it helped them.
> How can you measure the degree of a harm--or the degree of a good that might be out there, but is more theoretical--ie the blocked person goes away mad, but learns something useful in the next situation?
Bob thinks that blocks make the boards more civil. If you find that blocks tend to lead to escalation (where more people get blocked) then he wouldn't seem to be correct.
> How, for example, do you weight Good A, vs Good B, or Harm A vs. Harm B?
I hear what you are saying. In a way what I'm doing is... Protesting against lengthy blocks that are handed out for IMO no good reason. I think he shouldn't be as quick to block.
This is an issue that comes up again and again and again on the boards. The difference is that I keep up with the issue while other people will wait until the next person is blocked (where they don't understand) and then they will go off for a time... And then they will forget about it until next time. I keep on at it because if you go off about a particular case then Bob writes you off as attempting to offer (misguided) support to the blocked poster and he doesn't take your concerns about the blocking system seriously.
(He is changing the topic already)
I know the study won't be done. All I'm really trying to do with that... Is to illustrate that while Bob keeps saying 'its for the good of the group' he could well be wrong. I'm not sure how much he looks at / notices / takes seriously the harm that results from some of his blocks.
Not ALL of them. The conversation typically degenerates into 'but we can't do away with the whole thing'. I'm not saying that we should do away with the whole thing. The conversation typically degenerates into 'you can't please people all of the time'. But I'm not saying that one should try all I'm saying is to take serious upset seriously. The conversation typically degenerates into 'So you feel powerless. But people having power over you isn't always a bad thing'. But I'm not saying that it is always a bad thing. I'm saying that Bob is too quick to block (on SOME occasions). And that that harms the boards. It does harm the boards. He thinks the benefit outweighs the harm. But I don't think he sees the harm. Some of what he says about the harm... Is dismissive.
> I'm curious about Bob's algorithm for blocking.
Seems to be a work in progress (thank god). Lots of room for improvement though...
> From what Ive seen Bob is a rather enlightened dictator, compared to others.
I'm not denying that. But he ain't perfect. If we focus on the good... Often we ignore the improvements that could be made...
> Although democracy is a great concept, probably enlightened dictatorship works as well as enlightened democracy.
Becoming more democratic is on the cards. There has been a conversation about that in the archives. I think he is trying to move towards a 'rule by small few'. Tends to be resisted, however. People think he is trying to 'extract' himself and so it is resisted. On the other hand maybe the way he envisiges 'rule by small few' is that he can say 'I've talked to the deputies and we have decided that no' instead of just saying 'no'.