Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: blocks

Posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 22:09:34

In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2007, at 16:35:34

> I agree, it can be hard if someone's impulsive or needs many repetitions to learn, but if people can't make mistakes as often, there's less overall incivility and more supportive overall atmosphere.

**Ya but you know what, I myself would be willing to put up with a little incivility now and again, cuz I KNOW we not perfect. I realize people have their moments. I don't feel that constantly smashing them on the head (obvo figuratively speaking, and IMO only) is truly all that beneficial. It just frikken HURTS :-(
Like I say to my kids..."use your words", rather than smacking each other.
Don't always work, but sometimes it does, and they learn, mebbea little slower, but kinder...
And now that I've re read this, I DON'T feel its more supportive atmosphere to be blocking too freely and so long. It just becomes more FEARFUL. Thats all...
Short blocks, more PBC usage is better.
Did you not notice Bob that the deps did VERY well in your absence? The times that there were bigger troubles was because there needed to be backup from an actual administrator, and that wasn't there...It was situations where they had involvement or other dep involvement, so they (understandably) were reluctant to intervene, or they got caught and needed backup, but there was none...
Other than that they done REAL good, with less blocks...
An occasional backup I think is all they really need, but you goto come when they call, or its no good.
Thats my thots.

> Thanks for working on this. Hmm, powers of e probably are about as intuitive than powers of 3, and if we set:
> 0.5 = exp(-24/r)
> then:
> r = 24/ln2 ~ 35
> Another issue is when a poster is immediately uncivil again. Currently, if it's impersonal and S = 2:
> B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * D
> But with your formula and S = 1:
> B = S + D * exp(-P/r) = 1 + D
> It makes the formula more complicated, but to add the exponential decay and keep the current doubling (exponential growth), it could be:
> B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r)
> with S = 2 or 3. So if D = 48 and P = 147 and it were impersonal, we would still get:
> B = 1 + (2 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 2.42 -> 2 weeks
> In Zenhussy's case, however, it was personal, not impersonal, so it would've been an extra week:
> B = 1 + (3 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 3.14 -> 3 weeks

**OMG!!!!!!!Klavot and Bob are math BUDS!!! Its like reading a foreign language to me!!!
Kinda cool actually.
Wonder if it would work...
(IMEO)(in my EXALTED opinion) !
I'm kidding around, cuz this is hard for me this blocking stuff :-( When I freaked some I joke alot.
But actually I am VERY SERIOUS bout the hurt factor :-(




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:muffled thread:762973