On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are punitive, whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
The most important part is not that the blocks actually are preventative, but the thought process that goes into making them considers the preventative, not punitive.
Okay, but now you're very much into wild speculation, because neither of us has access to the mental states of the blocker.
The ideology that produces the action, not the action itself. That is my point.
You just keep repeating what the ideology is. If the block log shows otherwise, you say "that doesn't count, because they're actions"?
(Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
It's not just a separate policy, and that's not why it's separate. It's a different concept.
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological baggage that gets in the way of common sense.
Civility, assuming good faith, and ignoring all rules are all part of unrealistic ideological baggage that baffle common sense.
I disagree. They make a lot of sense, and are far from unrealistic. You do the first two many times every single day in real life.
Eh, this is getting a bit off-topic. If you think it's a bad illustration, then, ignore it. I stand by my point about a need for diversity in types of admins we have, and not being biased against a certain type. Discernment can be applied on a case-by-case basis, certainly; I'm not against that.