Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 201785

Shown: posts 49 to 73 of 104. Go back in thread:

Re: Would rather... » JohnV

Posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 8:35:29

In reply to Re: Would rather... » NikkiT2, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 8:14:41

I just think we should be pretty damned thankful that Dr Bob has put such a place on the net for us. I know I am.
Having run boards in the past myself, I knoiw when people constantly complain about it and the way you run, its get very disheartening. I would hate for Dr Bob to feel like that, when he is providing a service for us. Sure, he's doing his own research, but primarily, this place is here for us.
There are comments in this thread talking about closing this place down. It has been commented onbefore that people are going to complain to his "body" in order to get thisplace closed. That, in my opinion, would be a terrible thing to happen, and something I will fight against all the way.
I just don;t understand, if someone is being made so unhappy by this site being here, why they are here at all. Surely it is easier, if something is causing you alot of pain, to walk away and find somewhere else. The times I have been that upset here (by other posters, not by Dr Bob) I have simply walked away for a while, till I felt comfortable about returning. No one says "you have to be here"...
My point was simply, surely its better to have it here as it is, than for it to be closed down.
Nikki

Re: Lou's respons to A. Gibson's post (B) » Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 9:04:23

In reply to Lou's respons to A. Gibson's post (B) » Arthurgibson, posted by Lou Pilder on February 22, 2003, at 7:50:27

I believe that it is felt you are trying to stir the waters here Lou.
You posted a series of posts, that could easily have been just one post, simply asking "for clarification".. I think it was seen that you weren't helping much. Please do try to keep your posts all in one.. the posts above from you were generally asking just one point, but you somehow managed to post the same thing, in slightly different terminology, over 4 or 5 posts.
A troll (in internet language) is someone who tries to cause trouble, on purpose.
Please do not ask me for clarification, as I think I have explained myself perfectly well here.
Nikki

Re: blocked for week » ~alii~

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 9:12:56

In reply to Re: Double speak » Arthurgibson, posted by ~alii~ on February 21, 2003, at 16:51:48

> I admire your ability to clearly state your opinions and I am happy to see a non-clone speaking up! ;)
It's fine to support Arthurgibson, but I don't consider it supportive of others to imply that they're clones, and I just asked you to be civil, so I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
Bob

Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Arthurgibson

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 9:15:50

In reply to Lost Boy in New York City and others, posted by Arthurgibson on February 22, 2003, at 5:24:56

> Lou Pilder on the other hand is viciously spamming this thread and he is allowed to get away with it.
>
> So now I suppose I’ll be given a two week ban for "putting down" Lou Pilder.
Yes, that's how this works.
Bob

Lou's respons to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 22, 2003, at 9:46:47

In reply to Re: Lou's respons to A. Gibson's post (B) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 9:04:23

NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...I believe that it is felt you are trying to {stir the waters} here Lou...]. I do not know what [you] mean by {stirring the waters}. If that means that I am trying to {cause trouble} here, then if {causing trouble } means to do any harm to this board, then I would contend that that would be a false accusation toward me.
The only thing that you wrote as to why you think others {feel} that I am trying to {stir the waters} is somehow associated with the [number of posts] that I posted. If the number of posts [{makes people here feel that I am {trying to stir the waters}],and you are associating {stirring the waters} with [causing trouble] then I think that is a false way to determine if someone is {trying to stir the waters}if that phrase is associated with {causing trouble}.
It is now, and has been and will be my intentions here to offer support and education. To ask for clarification is the standard way to {rule out} implications that could be inferred from another's post. It is actually giving a poster a venue to explian what they wrote so that no misinterptretations could be inferred.
I can not post evrything in one post because of my limitations caused by Bipolar Affective Disorder. I am not able to make long posts so I put them in a capsul that I can focus on. In my posts, I try to keep each point separate in order to allow focus and separation. If someone feels that because I post in short capsuls that that {causes trouble}, then could someone here referr me to some branch of psychiatry in a refference to a book or some other media so that I can study this alledged phenominum? If you could , then I could be better able to understand this concept, and how it {stirs up the waters} or [causes trouble]and deal with it accordingly.
Lou

Re: blocking policies

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 10:02:33

In reply to Re: Would rather... » NikkiT2, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 8:14:41

> In order to "argue" and speak for their cases in a democratic fashion, I think blocked posters should still be able to post to this PBAdmin board. This would allow them the chance to have their arguments heard.
It would also allow them to continue to be uncivil. They can argue their cases with me by email while they're blocked and post again after that.
> The "two strikes you are blocked a week; three two weeks; and then always doubled" seems like a cold and calculated policy to me. I and many others don't see everything in such simple black and white terms.
Coldness is in the eye of the beholder, but some calculation definitely went into it. The "strike zone" isn't always black and white...
> What I think would be a true gift of this website, and add to it as a "rehabilitative" place on the web, is if somebody took time to seriously discuss what he feels is his concerns.
Rehabilitation is an admirable goal, but beyond the scope of this site.
> Why can't we have discussions about meeting "everyone's" needs?
We can discuss that, but what if some people need to express their anger and other people need to feel safe?
Bob

Would rather see exchange of ideas as good » NikkiT2

Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:21:16

In reply to Re: Would rather... » JohnV, posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 8:35:29

I agree Dr. Bob has done a wonderful thing by putting this board here, and the last thing I would ever want is it to be shut down. Why do you think that because some are asking for a review of policies that they want this place to close? We all contribute to the community, and discussion is a good thing.
There may be others who have some agenda they want to fulfill and try to shut this place down, but I and many others love it here as much as anyone, and we also have our right to have our voices heard. We can't treat dissent and differences as something to smother out. What we can do is have civil discussions (like most are in the majority of this thread, with a few who have let their anger get the worst of them.) I view it as a progressive diplomatic exchange of ideas on serving interests of all community members.
All's I ask you is to consider what I am saying, and I will do the same of you. Thanks. John

Re: Resistance to discussion puzzles me :-( » JohnV

Posted by Dinah on February 22, 2003, at 12:40:53

In reply to Resistance to discussion puzzles me :-( (nm), posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 8:19:14

John, I'm not sure how long you've been babbling. But I don't think anyone objects to discussing administrative issues. It's just that it's been done and done and done. It comes up on a regular basis and is thoroughly discussed. I don't feel like I have too much more to contribute. I don't even bother to argue in favor of the civility standards much any more, because I'm pretty sure Dr. Bob isn't going to do away with them. Were he to announce that he was doing away with them, I'd have plenty to say.
I was responding to those relatively few posters who seem intent on bringing in outside authorities to shut the place down. I love Babble, and would be just as upset if anyone tried to take away anything I loved.
If you check the archives, you'll see plenty of discussion on this subject.

Re: blocking policies » Dr. Bob

Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:59:13

In reply to Re: blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 10:02:33

> > In order to "argue" and speak for their cases in a democratic fashion, I think blocked posters should still be able to post to this PBAdmin board. This would allow them the chance to have their arguments heard.
>
> It would also allow them to continue to be uncivil. They can argue their cases with me by email while they're blocked and post again after that.
>
Who says they will continue to be uncivil? It would be a chance to be judged by peers as well as yourself. It appears in most cases, people get a "occasional" block often during a rough time in their life. That is what I mean by taking a case-by-case approach. For "chronic offenders", I do agree it may be necessary to block them for a period of time until they can prove themselves to post in a decent manner of civility. You have to take a subjective look at the "offense", because we don't lock people up for life for speeding tickets, no matter how many they get in their life, but yes we deal with murder in more serious terms.

> > The "two strikes you are blocked a week; three two weeks; and then always doubled" seems like a cold and calculated policy to me. I and many others don't see everything in such simple black and white terms.
>
> Coldness is in the eye of the beholder, but some calculation definitely went into it. The "strike zone" isn't always black and white...
>
I just don't think using the same "punishment" for all is healthy or fair. Circumstances and gray areas are always involved, and any democratic court of law takes that into account.

> > What I think would be a true gift of this website, and add to it as a "rehabilitative" place on the web, is if somebody took time to seriously discuss what he feels is his concerns.
>
> Rehabilitation is an admirable goal, but beyond the scope of this site.
>
Maybe for every single person who posts, but it can most certainly play a part in the rehabilitative process for some. It shouldn't be discounted completely. This place serves far more purpose than any general chatroom.
> > Why can't we have discussions about meeting "everyone's" needs?
>
> We can discuss that, but what if some people need to express their anger and other people need to feel safe?
>
> Bob
I agree with you completely on the "anger" part, but I also feel it is an often very short lived, temporary part of all of us. Again, it seems to be those few occassions where someone is having a rough time, and comes across the wrong way, and it also happens to be transient and they could shift around within hours, they get hit with a block. If it is a consistent thing that happens in every second post, of course that raises red flags. That is why I am asking why can't there be a "case by case" look at what would be called uncivil, and any action taken towards the "offender" take the above into account. A person charged with speeding does not get the same punishment as someone charged with murder.
John.

Re: Would rather see exchange of ideas as good » JohnV

Posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 13:16:15

In reply to Would rather see exchange of ideas as good » NikkiT2, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:21:16

I'm not saying we can't have a discussion on this.. but as Dinah says, its been done a million times.
And there are people here who would like to see the site shut down. Its those people that my comments on "if it upsets you so much why bother hanging around" were aimed at.
Posters such as Lost Boy have come here time and time again and upset people with their incivility time and time again. I think you're a pretty new babbler.. I've been here ariund 4 years, and seen these things happen so many times. There are people who are simply un-civil for the hell of it.. and in nasty nasty ways. And yes, history has shown that they will continue to do so after warnings etc. The civility rules haven't been here for 4 years, and they were bought in for a reason.
Like Dinah suggested, spend some time reading the archives, and maybe you will begin to see where we are coming from.
Nikki

Re: Resistance to discussion puzzles me :-( » Dinah

Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 13:25:46

In reply to Re: Resistance to discussion puzzles me :-( » JohnV, posted by Dinah on February 22, 2003, at 12:40:53

> John, I'm not sure how long you've been babbling. But I don't think anyone objects to discussing administrative issues. It's just that it's been done and done and done. It comes up on a regular basis and is thoroughly discussed. I don't feel like I have too much more to contribute. I don't even bother to argue in favor of the civility standards much any more, because I'm pretty sure Dr. Bob isn't going to do away with them. Were he to announce that he was doing away with them, I'd have plenty to say.
>
Yes I have searched through the threads, and I have seen signs that this site is progressive in some policy. Progress and change are and can be good, and I don't see why civility policies should not be up for discussion and for possible change. Laws often change to suit the community, and as a law student maybe that is why I am so keen on diplomacy, interaction, and progressive policy. They (policies) should not just accomodate any single person, but take into account our differences. That is the only way a community can survive and prove to be worthwhile to "all" as well as relevant and viable.
> I was responding to those relatively few posters who seem intent on bringing in outside authorities to shut the place down. I love Babble, and would be just as upset if anyone tried to take away anything I loved.
>
Well I agree that is not the right way to go about things, and I think some may be attempting this out of anger. But, it is not just about myself or you, but about a viable and worthwhile community that serves all of it's members.
Sincerely, John V.

Re: blocking policies

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 16:11:24

In reply to Re: blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:59:13

> > > Why can't we have discussions about meeting "everyone's" needs?
> >
> > We can discuss that, but what if some people need to express their anger and other people need to feel safe?
>
> I agree with you completely on the "anger" part, but I also feel it is an often very short lived, temporary part of all of us.
OK, let's say 1 person needs to express their short-lived anger and 100 people need to feel safe. How would you meet the needs of all 101 people?
> it seems to be those few occassions where someone is having a rough time, and comes across the wrong way, and it also happens to be transient and they could shift around within hours, they get hit with a block.
It might be transient, but it might not, I have no way of knowing. Plus, if I'm blocking someone, it's at least the second time they've been uncivil, so they either haven't shifted or have shifted back...
> If it is a consistent thing that happens in every second post, of course that raises red flags.
Are you saying someone shouldn't be blocked unless they're uncivil every other post? Every third post would be OK? For everyone? Which would mean one third of all posts could be uncivil?
> That is why I am asking why can't there be a "case by case" look at what would be called uncivil, and any action taken towards the "offender" take the above into account.
That's already what happens. The server doesn't do this automatically. :-)
> A person charged with speeding does not get the same punishment as someone charged with murder.
True, I handle "murder" more leniently than maybe I should...
Bob

Re: blocking policies

Posted by stjames on February 22, 2003, at 18:35:13

In reply to Re: blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:59:13

I just don't think using the same "punishment" for all is healthy or fair. Circumstances and gray areas are always involved, and any democratic court of law takes that into account.
This board nor the internet are run by
democratic processes.

Forget it...I shouldn't have expected more...

Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 22:04:47

In reply to Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies, posted by JohnV on February 19, 2003, at 7:28:14

It seems most don't want to talk of compromise, a sollution, or finding a "third way". No wonder wars break out...nobody is prepared to "seriously" open to a wealth of different thoughts. All's I asked is for us to step outside ourselves once in awhile...walk in others and different shoes and footsteps.
Yes...I have lost my faith, again. John. See more>>>>>
EVERLAST
What It's Like
We've all seen a man at the liquor store beggin' for your change
The hair on his face is dirty, dread-locked, and full of mange
He asks a man for what he could spare, with shame in his eyes
"Get a job you ****ing slob," is all he replies
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues
Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom that said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll
I'm the man you've been dreaming of."
But 3 months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "God damn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls."
And then she heads for the clinic and
she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner
and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose

I knew this kid named Max
He used to get fat stacks out on the corner with drugs
He liked to hang out late
he liked to get shit-faced and keep the pace with thugs
Until late one night there was a big gun fight and Max lost his head
He pulled out his chrome .45, talked some shit, and wound up dead
Now his wife and his kids are caught in the midst of all of this pain
You know it crumbles that way
at least that's what they say when you play the game
God forbid you ever had to wake up to hear the news
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to lose
Then you really might know what it's like...

one of my favorite songs! » JohnV

Posted by beardedlady on February 23, 2003, at 7:17:01

In reply to Forget it...I shouldn't have expected more..., posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 22:04:47

John,
I have bruises on my virtual forehead from banging it into this virtual wall.
beardy

Re: Forget it...I shouldn't have expected more... » JohnV

Posted by NikkiT2 on February 23, 2003, at 10:04:40

In reply to Forget it...I shouldn't have expected more..., posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 22:04:47

I'm sorry.. I gave you my point of view, and was open to a reply... giving my opinion does not mean that I am not open to discussion.
Nikki

Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 10:30:22

In reply to Re: Would rather... » JohnV, posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 8:35:29

NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...I don't understand, if someone is unhappy by this site being here...it is easier to walk away and find someplace else...].
When I was a child in the late 40's, there was a dept. store that expelled black people from their lunch counter. I witnessed them being harrased and clubbed by police because they refused to leave and demanded to be allowed to eat at the counter. I heard the manager yell at the black people to [...why don't you go to another lunch counter, your just a bunch of trouble makers...]
I saw one beaten women rise up off the floor and said back to the manager, {...I am a justice maker, not a trouble maker... I have a right to eat here just as much as the white people do...].
The dept. store refused to allow black people to eat at the lunch counter and there was protest and the dept. store closed.
Some people put justice above the easier way, which would be to go to another place.
Lou

Re: Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » Lou Pilder

Posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 10:34:32

In reply to Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 10:30:22

But Lou.
They aren't the same thing at all.
One is racial discrimination.
The other is disagreeing with Dr. Bob enforcing civility guidelines within his site.