Posted by Solstice on December 14, 2010, at 14:12:08
In reply to Re: ???, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 8:25:20
> I don't think it's going to involve all that many posters, unless the number of blocked posters increases. Particularly if the blocked poster has to apply for pardon and agree to attempt to abide by site guidelines. With the high probability that Dr. Bob will not be *less* vigilant towards those who are paroled as opposed to those returning from a block.
I agree.
> So as long as block reductions are transparent and consistent in application, with the same criteria applying to all, I have no real objection. Particularly if Dr. Bob and deputies are on hand.
yeah.. and remember - it's not a single council member who decides a poster deserves a shortened block. It's by majority vote - so there will be a consensus of a majority of hopefully, a group of members who are mature and relatively stable themselves. Plus, in the first place I think we've all agreed that there really aren't *that* many blocks to begin with. It's really the quick escalation of long blocks that much of this issue centers around. I'd speculate that Council reviewing blocks might happen a handful of times a year.
As far as transparency - I think it's important that we understand how the Council concept will end up working. We're asking a group of five from within to look out for the best interests of the community - as far as letting posters we miss back into the community after demonstrating a willingness to abide by civility guidelines, and leaving blocked posters who are still swirling in uncivil anger to stew in their own juices until they either come to their more civil senses, or their Bob-block expires. We will have to trust the collective judgments of the five we choose to hold Council positions. Bob seemed pretty adamant that Council would be operating independently of him, and that their own collective discretions would play a large role. I don't think there will be a list tacked on their meeting room that gives them a set of 'rules' to follow in making their judgments. Poster A and Poster B may get in separate scuffles - and after saying the exact same uncivil thing - find themselves both blocked for 6 months. Say they both ask Council for review. Council may look at Poster A and say - "ok, this is genuinely an aberration for you - you have a long history of demonstrating care in posting civily. In your email to us you took responsibility for allowing yourself to fall into the incivility you committed - and you described what you're going to do to make sure that never happens again. As a result - we're going to reduce your 6 month block to the 2 weeks you've already served. Take care - and happy posting!" But Poster B may be an entirely different story. To Poster B Council responds "Ok - you asked for a review, but in it you are blaming everyone else for *making* you be uncivil. Although you say you are willing to abide by civility guidelines, your email gives us the impression that you don't understand at all how you got yourself blocked in the first place. And lastly, you have a history of running afoul of the civility guidelilnes. You haven't seemed to learn from these past incidents. Here's what we've decided to do: We are willing to reduce your block from six months to three months, under the condition that you've got to find a civility buddy who is willing to work with you and review your first four weeks of posts (this would equate to a kind of probation). After serving three months and having your first four weeks of posts reviewed prior to posting, if you have sustained civility then you're cut free.
This is an example of what I think Bob meant when he stipulated that Council can, at their discretion, lift a block with or without conditions. Council would be free to consider the surrounding circumstances and a poster's past record. For that matter - they could also consider the harm done by the incivility. This is where we have to trust the Council. No doubt, blocked posters who feel their incivility is justified because it's (in their mind) *truth* - they may cry "favoritism!!" etc. But Dinah - that is just the nature of the beast. This is probably where strudiness will come in handy. Council will not please everyone, and shouldn't expect that of themselves. Posters who get themselves blocked will have an avenue - thru Council - to return to the community. They can sabotage themselves and lose that relief vavle - but they don't have to.
> It's just that sometimes incivility only occurs occasionally among a lot of less than technically uncivil posts directed at a person. That can be an unpleasant environment. And sometimes it can get very unpleasant with actual "uncivil" posts if Dr. Bob and the deputy are not available for a period of time. In those situations, I think I could feel anger towards the parole board who made it possible, as well as towards those who had the power to stop it were they available.And Bob has said that he would like to restock his deputy shelf. It would probably be especially helpful during the transition year. If there aren't deputies - maybe any blocked poster who is released from their block but falls back into incivility - maybe they can be on a very short leash where the block button can be turned back on by Council. Or - to keep council out of that aspect - maybe a blocked poster's release could be specifically timed to coincide with Bob's availability. No doubt there are a bunch of different ways to solve that problem.
> I have long thought that Dr. Bob was as interested in the resulting dynamics of elections as he was in the dynamics of rating posts or small gated communities. Since he's said more than once that it's likely that no more than five people would run, and that if more than five people run the excess could withdraw from the election, it seems hard for me to grasp that his enthusiasm comes from wanting an "elected" group.You make a good point here, Dinah. My impression of his comment about only five running would solve the election problem was that it was his way of holding onto his own idea - yet selling it to those opposed to campaigns and elections by saying "well hey! if only five step up - then that eliminates the election problem, right?" I suspected he just hadn't looked at it from enough angles.. which is why I also challenged him similarly to what you did today in another post. I hope he pays attention to the point we're making.
In the meantime - I'll hope for the best until either Council is seated, or it becomes clear that Bob is not interested enough in Council to work with the community on the logistics of seating a Council.
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:965628
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973541.html