![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 9:46:00
In reply to Re: Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies » Dr. Bob, posted by ArthurGibson on February 21, 2003, at 6:11:59
Arthur Gibson,
You wrote,[...Dr. Bob must re-think his policy toward us...].
I would like for you to comment on some ideas that I have concerning your post as an alternative to what you referr to as {heavy handedness}.
Instesd of expelling posters here, below are some alternatives:
A. A poster that breaches the expectations here could be subject to a limiting of their posts for a period of time instead of being expelled. For instance, if someone breaches the rules, they will be permitted only to post 2 posts per day for the next 5 days. If they are in breach of the rules again, then they will be allowed only one post per day for the next 5 days. And if they breach the rules again, they will be allowed only one post per day for 2 weeks. And if they breach the rules again, they would only be allowed one post per day for 4 weeks...
B. A poster that breaches the rules will be fined $0.25 (U.S.). They must pay by credit card to be allowed to post. The next time they are in breach, they are fined $0.75. The next time, $1.00 the next time, $1.25...Along with the fine, they are restricted to make only 3 posts per day for 3 days following a fine.
C. A poster in breach could be limited in ther posts to 10 words or less for the next 3 days in their posts. The next time they are in brech, they would be limited to 5 words or less in their posts for the next week. The next time, 5 words or less for 2 weeks...
D. Other alternatives that you could suggest.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 10:09:46
In reply to Re: Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 9:43:36
Dinah,
You wrote,[...if Babble isn't the kind of place someone enjoys they are hardly bereft of choices...].
Could you clarify if you are you saying that , by the above statement, that you are advocating that :
1) Those that do not agree with the administative policys on Babble should , simply , leave and find another forum?
2) Those that do not agree with the admin. policys on Babble should not attempt to initiate constructive change because there are other forums to go to?
3) None of the above?
4) some other meaning which is_______________
If you could clarify this, then I could have a better understanding of your post and be better able to respond to it.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:21:39
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 10:09:46
I'm just saying that people hang out where they feel comfortable Lou. I can't stand being at bars, but I'm not out picketing to close them. I didn't like the network site, but I'm not writing the FTC to close them.
I have no trouble with discussion of administrative decisions here. I question the usefulness of it sometimes. But sometimes we do change Dr. Bob's mind. But, yes, I do have a problem with people trying to shut this place down because they don't like it here.
Doesn't that bother you too Lou?
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:26:10
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:21:39
I'm not one of those who say America - like it or leave it. I have no trouble with peaceful dissent (although I vastly prefer that it stay on a policy rather than a personal level).
But I don't approve of people trying to overthrow our government or destroy the country.
There is a big difference between disagreeing with Dr. Bob's policies and trying to destroy this place (have it shut down).
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 10:31:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:21:39
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I didn't like the other site but I am not picketing to close them...].
Could you clarify if you are not picketing to close them because;
A. You do not need to return to it?
B. What they are doing that you do not like is permissible by them so they can not be {shut down}?
C. If the network site was doing something that should not be permitted ,like promulgating racism, then you would advocate that they be shut down?
D. none of the above.
E. Some other, which is _____
F. some combination of the above which is ___
If you could clarify this, then I could have a better understanding of your post and be better able to respond to it.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:38:08
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post (2) » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 10:31:11
Lou, if a major network had been maintaining a site that promulgated racism I would have written the FTC. I'm not going to try to shut down a place just because I disagree with their (lack of) civility policies. I'll just choose not to return.
What has that got to do with Babble though? Dr. Bob doesn't promulgate racism.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 10:40:47
In reply to Re: PS Lou, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:26:10
Dinah,
You wrote, [...a difference between disagreeing and trying to destroy this place {shut down}...].
Are you saying that there are some hear that are trying to {destroy} this place {for no just cause}? If so, could you post the URL that advocates such and then I could look at it and reply accordingly?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:43:57
In reply to Re: PS Lou (Lou's reply) » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 10:40:47
No, Lou. I can't do that. But you can look if you wish.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 11:31:05
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post (2), posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:38:08
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I would write the FTC if a site was promulgating racism. I am not going to try to shut down a place just because I disagree with their civility policies...just choose to not return...].
Could you clarify what, if you were to write the FTC about a site that promulgated racism, would have been in the letter to them? If you could, then it would be revealed to me what you would have written to them and then I could have a better understanding of your post and be better able to reply to it.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 11:34:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post (2) » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 11:31:05
I'm sorry Lou, but it was a totally hypothetical situation, and I haven't written a hypothetical letter. But you know full well my stand on racism.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2003, at 11:37:40
In reply to Re: Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies » Dr. Bob, posted by ArthurGibson on February 21, 2003, at 6:11:59
> although you created and moderate these boards ... Without us these boards would be barren
That's definitely true. It's a collaboration.
> Do you throw guests out of your home every time they say something that offends your sense of values?
If they kept doing it, I would. But they don't. When you're a guest in someone's home, do you keep saying things that offend their sense of values?
Plus, here, it's not just my personal preferences, but what I think will be good for this community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 11:43:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post (2) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 11:34:53
Dinah,
You wrote, [...you know my postion on racism...] . It is my undestanding that you are against racism in any form.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 12:30:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post, posted by Dinah on February 21, 2003, at 10:21:39
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I have a problem with people trying to shut this place down because they don't like it here...]
It is my understanding that there could be people that [don't like it here] for [various] reasons, one being their disagreement with the operation of the site in reference to decisions made by Dr. Bob in refeerence to [discipline], and another reason could be that some could feel that the site {fosters} anti-Semitism. I base this obsevation on several recent posts here that speak to some's questioning the way that some posts that use ant-Semitic language have been handled by Dr. Bob.
Now their are some people that believe and feel that sites that foster racism, [should] be shut down. I have communicated with the Islamic Society in Washington DC about sites that advocate genocide to Islamic people. They told me that they have been successsfull in shutting down those type of sites. Now there are some people that would want those type of sites shut down and some that would just do nothing, or some that would write a letter and some that would do other things.
I was successfulll at getting a web site to change their policy about racism. They wrote me and said that they agreed with me and would not allow anti-Semitic language to be posted on their site and said to me, "We agree with you, Mr. Pilder, for we do not want our site to become {a haven for anti-Semites."}. I was not trying to shut that site down, but to give them due-process to change their moderation of their site.
In the post that you wrote,[...I have a problem with people trying to shut this place down because they don't like it here...],could you clarify if you are saying that you have a problem with those that want to shut down this site who are of the class of posters [that feel that this site fosters ant-Semitism], or if you have a problem with those posters that do not like [decisions on discipline] or you have a problem with both? If you could , then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote and be better able to reply to your post.
Lou
Posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
In reply to Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » ArthurGibson, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 9:46:00
> A. A poster that breaches the expectations here could be subject to a limiting of their posts for a period of time instead of being expelled.
>For instance, if someone breaches the rules, they will be permitted only to post 2 posts per day for the next 5 days.
..........10 potentially offensive, racist, sexist, rude, crude, etc. posts
>If they are in breach of the rules again, then they will be allowed only one post per day for the next 5 days.
.........5 potentially offensive etc. posts
>And if they breach the rules again, they will be allowed only one post per day for 2 weeks.
........14 potentially offensive etc. posts
>And if they breach the rules again, they would only be allowed one post per day for 4 weeks...
.........28 potentially offensive etc. posts
.........And what if they breach the rules again? And again after that? And again after that? And again after that? And again after that?
.........Since people already do get a warning before being blocked (which I liken to a "time out"), and they ignore the warning and breach the rules in order to get blocked, why should they be rewarded for that behavior with more opportunities to post?
> B. A poster that breaches the rules will be fined $0.25 (U.S.). They must pay by credit card to be allowed to post. The next time they are in breach, they are fined $0.75. The next time, $1.00 the next time, $1.25...Along with the fine, they are restricted to make only 3 posts per day for 3 days following a fine.
.........Are you saying, Lou, that only people with money should be allowed to post here?
.........And what about the time after the $1.25 fine? And the time after that? And the 20 times after that? I think this idea definitely discriminates against people with little or no money, and people unlikely to have a credit card.
> C. A poster in breach could be limited in ther posts to 10 words or less for the next 3 days in their posts. The next time they are in brech, they would be limited to 5 words or less in their posts for the next week. The next time, 5 words or less for 2 weeks...
..........And the next time? And the next time? And the next 10 times?
............Lou, if you could provide additional details in response to my questions to your proposed solutions, and clarify what you meant and the possible outcomes, I'd be much better able to consider your alternatives and give them the thought they deserve.
Many thanks,
Shar
Posted by IsoM on February 21, 2003, at 14:43:12
In reply to Re: Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies » Dr. Bob, posted by ArthurGibson on February 21, 2003, at 6:11:59
I feel so strongly about this. I’m glad Arthur spoke up. I get upset that any one who criticizes Bob's policies is viewed as subversive. We're too often thought of as trying to break up something that (in their opinion) is working perfectly fine. Any dissident voices are thought of as somehow wrong or evil - out to get the "nice Dr, Bob". We’re thought of as somehow “unsafe”,
I wish others could see that those who disagree with Bob's policies aren’t a bunch of left-wing wackos. We're very normal, nice, loving, helpful people too. We WANT these boards to work to the benefit of all - not just those who don’t complain or speak up about what they perceive as injustices. We don’t all have to agree all the time on issues to get along, do we? And those of us who do speak up aren’t “out to get” the rest of you. Because you don’t see a problem doesn’t mean there is none.
Many view the Psycho-Babble community as a big family - one they can turn to in times of difficulty for acceptance and reassurance. But in any family there’s bound to be some friction - even in the most loving and stable of families. But it’s talked out so each can understand the others better and it’s made stronger by doing so. By squelching any signs of friction, the opportunity to grow and learn is taken from us. How can we learn how to get along if every little misdemeanour gets someone sent away for a week or more? How can the problem get talked out?
I think the need for moderation and reproofs are needed, especially when someone is purposely unkind and vulgar. But blocks are being handed out for far too flimsy a pretence in most cases. And if we try to reason with Bob about it, we get the stock answer - “it’s my board so you’ll have to let me decide what’s best”. While that may be true, why can’t Bob REALLY listen to our ideas (some of them are excellent) and incorporate some of them into his policies. And I don’t just mean some of the window dressing that’s been done either. Give this community a chance to grow and please stop treating us all like little children who don’t know what’s good for us. We’re NOT out for each other’s throat.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:03:17
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote, [...if you could provide additional details...].
Another aspect to create constructive change would be so that a {Bill of Rights} be established here. I base this on the concept that [The majority rules, but they can not take away the rights of the minority].
I propose that the following notice be posted on the opening page to this site and I believe that it could be of benifit to posters here in referrence to the subject discussed in this thread.
DR. Bob's Amendments to the rules
1) your amendment here
2) your amendment here
3) your amendment here
4) and so forth...
Now if people wrote in what their concerns are here, and wrote an amendment that they thought would be of benifit here, then please do so as a response to this post for further discussion. I would propose the following amendment.
1)All posters here have an equal opportunity to post and no poster will recieve favoritism from the administration in regards to established rules, such as using racist language in any part of their post.
Lou
Posted by ~alii~ on February 21, 2003, at 15:06:18
In reply to THANK YOU for saying it and nicely too » ArthurGibson, posted by IsoM on February 21, 2003, at 14:43:12
A hearty thanks to IsoM and Arthur Gibson for their views.
~Alii
> I feel so strongly about this. I’m glad Arthur spoke up. I get upset that any one who criticizes Bob's policies is viewed as subversive. We're too often thought of as trying to break up something that (in their opinion) is working perfectly fine. Any dissident voices are thought of as somehow wrong or evil - out to get the "nice Dr, Bob". We’re thought of as somehow “unsafe”,
>
> I wish others could see that those who disagree with Bob's policies aren’t a bunch of left-wing wackos. We're very normal, nice, loving, helpful people too. We WANT these boards to work to the benefit of all - not just those who don’t complain or speak up about what they perceive as injustices. We don’t all have to agree all the time on issues to get along, do we? And those of us who do speak up aren’t “out to get” the rest of you. Because you don’t see a problem doesn’t mean there is none.
>
> Many view the Psycho-Babble community as a big family - one they can turn to in times of difficulty for acceptance and reassurance. But in any family there’s bound to be some friction - even in the most loving and stable of families. But it’s talked out so each can understand the others better and it’s made stronger by doing so. By squelching any signs of friction, the opportunity to grow and learn is taken from us. How can we learn how to get along if every little misdemeanour gets someone sent away for a week or more? How can the problem get talked out?
>
> I think the need for moderation and reproofs are needed, especially when someone is purposely unkind and vulgar. But blocks are being handed out for far too flimsy a pretence in most cases. And if we try to reason with Bob about it, we get the stock answer - “it’s my board so you’ll have to let me decide what’s best”. While that may be true, why can’t Bob REALLY listen to our ideas (some of them are excellent) and incorporate some of them into his policies. And I don’t just mean some of the window dressing that’s been done either. Give this community a chance to grow and please stop treating us all like little children who don’t know what’s good for us. We’re NOT out for each other’s throat.
>
Posted by Arthurgibson on February 21, 2003, at 15:11:08
In reply to Re: Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2003, at 11:37:40
>Plus, here, it's not just my personal preferences, but what I think will be good for this community as a whole.<
This statement gets to the root of what I am objecting to in Dr. Bob's behaviour towards us, its patronisation and authoritarianism taken too far for his own good or ours. He attempts to deflect criticism directed against his actions, by claiming that he is not acting according to his own "personal preferences" but instead he is transcending those "personal preferences" and acting for the greater good of the community instead. This is obvious nonsense. His judgement of what is right or wrong for this community is obviously determined by his own understanding of civility and morality, which are his "personal preferences."
"Power corrupts" and in a virtual community overwhelming "power" lies with the person who administers and moderates the site. This site is unusual and different to most other "virtual communities" because many of the contributors are mentally ill to some degree or other. I myself have suffered from severe depression. Therefore careful moderation is essential to protect the sensitivities of those who may be in a weak and relatively defenceless frame of mind. However I repeat my complaint that in general the moderation of this site is starting to stifle spontaneity, extrovert behaviour, humour, dissention and lively discussion. We have even seen contributors banned for saying that another contributor’s view is “wrong.” LB in NYC was banned for thirty-two weeks for “putting someone down” even though he repeatedly wrote in the same piece that it was NOT his intention to “put (the other writer) down.”
Dr Bob, we are not your clones and we refuse to be coerced to accept your “personal preferences.” You did a great service starting this site and you do a great job moderating it. But please, “back off” a little more than you have done in the past. Thanks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:13:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote,[...clarify ...possible outcomes...]
In reference to [limiting the poster's number of posts per day], you wrote that ,[...there is the potential for more offending posts by that same poster...]
Although that is a [potential] occurance,it does not mean that it is absolutly going to occur. In the restraint of the posters ability to post, the limiting of the posts {could} be a deterrant to the poster to {not} continue with the same offense.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:27:51
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote [...additonal details about proposed solutions...]
In the proposed solution by using a [fine], you wrote,[...fines could discriminate to those that are broke or no credit card...].
I thought that the [fines] were deminimus, but that is relative. And there would be administrative problems. But could we not have a way for the indigent to have a [hardship bank] here that they could borrow from? And when they are able to repay, they could without interest?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:41:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote,[...clarify outcomes...]
In the proposed [limiting the post to 10 words or less...], you wrote that [..and the next time.... and the next time...?]
Well, let us examine that situation. Suppose a poster posts,[...you are a stupid idiot for telling me to take cojak...it is addictive...].
Now in this case, the poster would be limited to posting in 10 words or less for a week. [Also, there would be a limit of 2 posts per day or the posts could be connected]. So the poster write again, [...you are a stupid idiot,telling me to take cojac..]. Now that is within the 10 word limit. But the poster now is in breach again and goes to the next sanction , which is to limit him/her , now, to 5 words per post. So then the poster writes,[..You are a stupid idiot] but can not post beyond the 5 word limit. But the poster is now in breach for the offending language and goes to the next sanction which is the limiting to 2 words per post. So the poster writes,[You are].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 15:57:48
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Arthur Gibson's post » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on February 21, 2003, at 13:06:26
Shar,
You wrote, [...and the next 10 times?...]
Let us examine that possibility. In refference to the last example, suppose the poster that is limited to 2 words, posts,[...{expletive} you.]. Now the poster is in breach again for the profanity and is now limited to just [yes or no] for 2 weeks. Is there a way for this poster to be in breach again if he/she is limited to only writing either "yes" or "no"? If so, could you give an example?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 16:09:27
In reply to Double speak » Dr. Bob, posted by Arthurgibson on February 21, 2003, at 15:11:08
AG,
You wrote,[...there are those that are weak and in a defenceless state of mind...].I agree
Lou
Posted by ~alii~ on February 21, 2003, at 16:51:48
In reply to Double speak » Dr. Bob, posted by Arthurgibson on February 21, 2003, at 15:11:08
> >Plus, here, it's not just my personal preferences, but what I think will be good for this community as a whole.<
>
> This statement gets to the root of what I am objecting to in Dr. Bob's behaviour towards us, its patronisation and authoritarianism taken too far for his own good or ours. He attempts to deflect criticism directed against his actions, by claiming that he is not acting according to his own "personal preferences" but instead he is transcending those "personal preferences" and acting for the greater good of the community instead. This is obvious nonsense. His judgement of what is right or wrong for this community is obviously determined by his own understanding of civility and morality, which are his "personal preferences."
>
> "Power corrupts" and in a virtual community overwhelming "power" lies with the person who administers and moderates the site. This site is unusual and different to most other "virtual communities" because many of the contributors are mentally ill to some degree or other. I myself have suffered from severe depression. Therefore careful moderation is essential to protect the sensitivities of those who may be in a weak and relatively defenceless frame of mind. However I repeat my complaint that in general the moderation of this site is starting to stifle spontaneity, extrovert behaviour, humour, dissention and lively discussion. We have even seen contributors banned for saying that another contributor’s view is “wrong.” LB in NYC was banned for thirty-two weeks for “putting someone down” even though he repeatedly wrote in the same piece that it was NOT his intention to “put (the other writer) down.”
>
> Dr Bob, we are not your clones and we refuse to be coerced to accept your “personal preferences.” You did a great service starting this site and you do a great job moderating it. But please, “back off” a little more than you have done in the past. Thanks.
>Thank you for continuing to raise your voice Arthur Gibson. It is far too infrequent that any discussion takes place regarding the tone of the moderation/administration of these boards.
I admire your ability to clearly state your opinions and I am happy to see a non-clone speaking up! ;)
~Alii
Posted by stjames on February 21, 2003, at 17:08:11
In reply to Double speak » Dr. Bob, posted by Arthurgibson on February 21, 2003, at 15:11:08
LB in NYC was banned for thirty-two weeks for “putting someone down” even though he repeatedly wrote in the same piece that it was NOT his intention to “put (the other writer) down.”
For whatever reason you have chosen to ignore the facts here, as I have pointed them out to you before.
Lost boy was blocked so long, not for on incident, but many insidents. He also came back
while blocked under another name, so that added
more weeks to his block.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.