Posted by confuzyq on June 19, 2007, at 17:46:59
In reply to Re: so, you're saying... » karen_kay, posted by scratchpad on June 19, 2007, at 14:50:20
> From what I've seen - and no, I'm not together enough to be able to whip out an http quotation, but if someone has been blocked for a particular offense in the past; and they come back from that block and repeat that same type of offense, then they can be blocked again without a warning PBC.
>No, not necessarily returning from a block, anytime...
From:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/701122.html> Is it true that technically, once a person has received one PBC *ever,* they may be blocked immediately with no warning from then on. And that this does in fact happen.
> muffled
>> It's true, that sometimes happens. People should take that first warning seriously.
(Bob)
-----------------------------> Like, they are doing it on purpose, and they know what they are doing (this being inferred).
> This is my understanding, and not policy as I have ever seen it stated anywhere. Just what I've seen. I think of it as having drawn a line in the sand, and the person comes back to the playground just to cross that very same line.
>I just think the block formula line "did not understand and made effort to reply" should be removed or changed in those cases. Like "N/A: sufficient prior warnings received." Or maybe "No, in multiple *previous* instances." So it doesn't give the false impression that that time also, they had time to reply and possibly stop the block too.
Just a technicality but an important one I think. While it may be true that that person has had chances, even many, to learn and not repeat the behavior again; it is not necessarily true that in the case at hand, they "made no effort to reply"/rephrase/amend. Because the first sign of admin discontent/action in these cases is the block itself.
Actually you had a great suggestion on the same thread linked to above, but bob didn't go for it:
> I think it would supportive for the community as a whole to have the previous requests to be civil linked in the blocking post.
>
> ClearSkies>> I see what you mean, but I'd be concerned about embarrassing them. If they want, they can ask...
(Bob)
For clarity, it is this blurb I'm referring to, in which all other data does apply to *only* the case/block at hand, except that one line I have the technicality/logic/accuracy problem with:
previous block: [x] weeks
period of time (at that time) since previous block: x week
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: y/n
particularly uncivil: y/n
different type of incivility: y/n
**clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no**
provoked: y/n
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: no
poster:confuzyq
thread:752323
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764250.html