![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:13:51
In reply to Who votes for a block cap at say 4 wks max????? (nm), posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 10:45:30
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:21:06
In reply to I don't. (nm), posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:13:51
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:24:25
In reply to How come Dinah? (nm) » Dinah, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:21:06
I don't even agree with the one year cap. Why would I agree with a four week one?
I believe in stratifying offenses. That's a different thing altogether.
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 15:13:53
In reply to Re: How come Dinah?, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:24:25
> I don't even agree with the one year cap. Why would I agree with a four week one?
>
> I believe in stratifying offenses. That's a different thing altogether.***I'm sorry if this is a difficult topic for you Dinah.
You don't need to reply if you don't want.
I guess I haven't been burnt by another poster badly, so I can't really say....
I guess what I was thinking is that there would be a eg. 4 week cap, but if the person re offends, there would be another 4 wk block etc.
Its just for me, there have been times when I have been somewhat in less control of myself than I am happy with. And I work on gaining control, but sometimes that takes a bit of work.
I just would hate to be blocked for a long time, cuz what if I mananged to get myself into a good place, and felt ok, and bad bout my behaviour, and wanted to talk to my babblefriens bout it all, but I couldn't cuz I was blocked for a long period of time......
So even though the state I was in that prompted the block was over, I would still be blocked. This is not supportive to me.
Keeping in mind that this IS a mental health site.
Some of us are in fact mentally ill, and w/med changes, and lkife changes etc etc, our moods may vary more than some people.
I often live just day to day. Changing ina short time period.
I don't tend to think long term.
Long term blocks are HUGE to me. HUGE. GIANGTIC.
Maybe they aren't to others.
And thats why the misunderstandings with the blocking process. Cuz blocking seems to be MUCH more hurtful to some than others.
And there's the prob. with Bob trying to have a generic blocking sysytem. Cuz we have a wide variety of people here. We are not all the same.
So that being said.....maybe its not a good place for some. But also that being said....I thot that Bob was trying to have a site that was SAFE for those that can't handle other , less civil sites....
So I dunno.
I just know that for me, blocks are INCREDIBLY painful.
And unexpected blocks INCREDIBLY triggering to me.
But that is me, Muffled.
Maybe I don't belong here?
Sometimes I get awful scared when I know I'm iffy. But I been doing good so far at staying away when I iffy.
But I still get scared sometimes, and don't talk, because I not sure I can talk right. When its noisy in my head, its not always clear to me.
I luv ya Dinah.
Hope things are going better for you.
You deserve good to happen.
((((Dinah))))
Take care,
Muffled
Posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 15:42:20
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round. But 10 felt to me like a good number to divide by.
>>>
Because the blocks are doubled (or tripled) the credit for time without blocks should also be doubled. This will be1 week without blocks=1 week credit
2 weeks without =2 weeks credit
3 weeks without =4 weeks credit
4 weeks without =8 weeks credit
5 weeks without =16 weeks credit
etc
8 weeks without=128weeks credit
etc
etc
14 weeks without=8192 weeks creditYou could then plug it into your formula dividing by 10 (which is a lovely number I agree)
This will allow even people who have a year block to begin over after 14 weeks without a block in contrast to the present wait of 10 YEARS to have a new start. An eight week block could be returned to a new beginning in 12 weeks rather that a year and a half.I think that is more likely to provide an incentive to stay block free.
At the same time it will take 4 weeks to erase a one week block. This might provide a reasonable incentive to keep block free for longer at the beginning.
PS Rounding up would be no less complicated than rounding down :)
> >
Posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 15:51:48
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 15:42:20
I meant no MORE complicated.
>
> PS Rounding up would be no less complicated than rounding down :)
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 15:58:47
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal correction » zazenducky, posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 15:51:48
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 17:02:58
In reply to Re: How come Dinah?, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 15:13:53
I think it works both ways, this being a mental health forum. I don't think it's fair to consider that people should be able to act out here, because it's a mental health forum. Because IMO, this is a place where people should be able to feel safe, because this is a mental health forum.
You may feel like you don't belong here sometimes, but so do I. My ideas of civility mesh more closely with Dr. Bob's than they do with the majority of posters who speak out on Admin. And that makes me feel rather out of place.
I don't disagree that if people regret their actions that they should be able to ask Dr. Bob for probation on longer blocks. I just don't think it should be automatic, as in a cap.
And, as I've said, I think offenses should be classified with caps on blocks for minor offenses.
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 17:08:06
In reply to Re: How come Dinah? » muffled, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 17:02:58
I think I phrased that badly.
I meant that to mean that I don't think there's only one way to look at it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 18:50:03
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 7:54:13
> notfred's suggestion, of rounding "up" for 5 and above (as per scientific convention) seems to eliminate a lot of my concerns.
I think it might be an improvement, too...
Bob
Posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 20:18:26
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 18:50:03
It's been 5 weeks since I was blocked for a week so am I back to 0?
I feel disappointed after finding you did not respond to my elegant solution to your problem.
Your friend
zazenducky
> > notfred's suggestion, of rounding "up" for 5 and above (as per scientific convention) seems to eliminate a lot of my concerns.
>
> I think it might be an improvement, too...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 23:47:25
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 18:50:03
> I think it might be an improvement, too...
OK, let's give this a try. Thanks for your input, everyone...
Bob
Posted by muffled on October 24, 2006, at 0:18:08
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 23:47:25
Posted by muffled on October 24, 2006, at 1:48:59
In reply to HAH! So we CAN change stuff. Cool..... (nm), posted by muffled on October 24, 2006, at 0:18:08
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 24, 2006, at 7:52:34
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 23:47:25
Hi Dr. Bob,
Thank you so much for responding to my concerns. I REALLY appreciate it, and I know that you're busy.
Since there were so many different proposals and suggestions for improvements being floated around, would you mind changing the FAQ's to explain the blocking system algorithm as you currently implement it?
Three more ideas that I would like you to address.
1) Placing a CAP on the maximum block length?
2) Treating all babblers fairly, including the ones who had very lengthy blocks because they were repeat offenders under the OLD exponentially increasing block system. At what point will someone who had a block of 48 weeks under the old system, followed by 40 weeks of civil participation, have a clean slate?
3) Can you please reconsider the block lengths of those who are currently blocked?
3.1)I only stumbled upon the rounding DOWN bias because one babbler had 18 weeks of civil participation, but was only given credit for 10 weeks. This babbler has been a very positive participant in this forum, and has been very supportive to me as well as others. This babbler was blocked without a warning or a PBC.
3.2) I would like to formally appeal the block length of Alexandra_k, as her block is too long, given the reasoning that I outlined in 3.1. If it follows that there are several other currently blocked babblers who are also victims of the idiosyncratic rounding DOWN algorithm, I would ask you, Dr. Bob, to be fair and grant them a new block length calculation, giving them credit for "time served" as they say in the criminal justice system.
3.3) Everytime we post, you thank us for our participation. You're Welcome.
-Li
Posted by 10derHeart on October 24, 2006, at 15:21:52
In reply to Re: How come Dinah? » muffled, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 17:02:58
>You may feel like you don't belong here sometimes, but so do I.
Me, too. Often. So often I'll bet it would surprise some people. So, I just keep silent.
>My ideas of civility mesh more closely with Dr. Bob's than they do with the majority of posters who speak out on Admin. And that makes me feel rather out of place.
Me, too, exactly. Well, it's comforting to be reminded I have at least one person that I can feel out of place together with...and how's *that* for some bad writing and grammar?
I wish none of us ever had to feel it here at Babble, since it tends to happen too often IRL (although less so for me now). And, well, that outsider feeling can be a *very* bad one :-(
Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2006, at 16:21:34
In reply to Re: How come Dinah? » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on October 24, 2006, at 15:21:52
Hi 10der.
It makes me feel better as well.
Believe it or not, I've been learning to just walk away without putting in my two cents too. Quite a feat for me.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2006, at 20:04:13
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 24, 2006, at 7:52:34
> 1) Placing a CAP on the maximum block length?
There's already a cap, 1 year.
> 2) Treating all babblers fairly, including the ones who had very lengthy blocks because they were repeat offenders under the OLD exponentially increasing block system. At what point will someone who had a block of 48 weeks under the old system, followed by 40 weeks of civil participation, have a clean slate?
A totally clean slate? I guess after 48 * 9.5 = 456 = 40 + 416 weeks, if I'm doing the math right.
> 3) Can you please reconsider the block lengths of those who are currently blocked?
I'm open to doing that, but changes in rules usually aren't automatically retroactive.
> 3.1)I only stumbled upon the rounding DOWN bias because one babbler had 18 weeks of civil participation, but was only given credit for 10 weeks. This babbler has been a very positive participant in this forum, and has been very supportive to me as well as others. This babbler was blocked without a warning or a PBC.
That babbler had never received a warning or a PBC? And that was already at least their second block?
> 3.3) Everytime we post, you thank us for our participation.
Thank you for your participation, you're essential to the functioning of this site. :-)
Bob
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 24, 2006, at 20:39:38
In reply to Re: Three more ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2006, at 20:04:13
> > 1) Placing a CAP on the maximum block length?
>
> There's already a cap, 1 year.Oh okay. Good to know. If I ever get blocked for a year, maybe I'll stop cutting my fingernails and take a picture of them to post on babble to show people how long a year is.
>
> > 2) Treating all babblers fairly, including the ones who had very lengthy blocks because they were repeat offenders under the OLD exponentially increasing block system. At what point will someone who had a block of 48 weeks under the old system, followed by 40 weeks of civil participation, have a clean slate?
>
> A totally clean slate? I guess after 48 * 9.5 = 456 = 40 + 416 weeks, if I'm doing the math right.Ouch.
> > 3) Can you please reconsider the block lengths of those who are currently blocked?
>
> I'm open to doing that, but changes in rules usually aren't automatically retroactive.I know you don't make these rule changes retroactive, usually. That's why I asked you extra nicely ;o)
> > 3.1)I only stumbled upon the rounding DOWN bias because one babbler had 18 weeks of civil participation, but was only given credit for 10 weeks. This babbler has been a very positive participant in this forum, and has been very supportive to me as well as others. This babbler was blocked without a warning or a PBC.
>
> That babbler had never received a warning or a PBC? And that was already at least their second block?Curses. Now I have to go there. the bad place. and READ THE WHOLE THREAD. Probably will find out I'm wrong. somewhere near the third hour of reading the twists and turns of... ideas too complicated for my simplistic mind.
> > 3.3) Everytime we post, you thank us for our participation.
>
> Thank you for your participation, you're essential to the functioning of this site. :-)
>
> Bobyep. you too. I'm off to the archives. I'm going to light a big bright torch, but if the damp mossy walls get too close, and the spider webs too sticky, The moldy air too oppressive, I may lose my cool. Just going down that spiral staircase, I can already hear the song growing louder. "tell you 'bout a dream that I have every night..." hope I find the answer before the sirens come...
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 24, 2006, at 21:13:19
In reply to Re: Three more ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2006, at 20:04:13
> > 3.1)I only stumbled upon the rounding DOWN bias because one babbler had 18 weeks of civil participation, but was only given credit for 10 weeks. This babbler has been a very positive participant in this forum, and has been very supportive to me as well as others. This babbler was blocked without a warning or a PBC.
>
> That babbler had never received a warning or a PBC? And that was already at least their second block?The thread begins here
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20061009/msgs/694101.htmlI'm a sacrificial lamb, linking you to these potentially uncivil posts. You have every justification to PBC me, under your own rules. As you will see, reading through these posts, there is even precedent for blocking me without a PBC.
After you scan through this lively debate, I think you will agree that there was questioning of ethics and of reasoning from most everyone involved, but never an explicit warning "poster X, the following statement is uncivil | may be interpreted as uncivil | please be respectful | etc."
I think in this sort of lively debate it is essential that any warning be made explicitly and that the warning or PBC should come from an administrator.
Perhaps this poster has received the warning in the form of a private communication. If so, I don't know how the rest of us are expected to benefit and learn from the blocking process.
Perhaps this poster has received the warning at some point in psycho-babble history. Given the nature of this thread, which connects very current events with events occuring in more distant history, it is unclear to Lindenblüte how a warning or PBC from weeks or months past can be seen as directly relevant to the debate in this thread. Lindenblüte is left to speculate which warning to which poster should be considered "fair warning".
Lindenblüte is left to speculate which warning to which poster should be considered "fair warning". The more I read this sentence, the more triggered I am. Babble doesn't feel safe to me, because there is potential that I have forgottent to read something- a warning. I can be blocked at any time. I won't even know what rule I broke. I'm getting really freaked out.
I better take those meds and skedaddle, cause I'm thinking less like the clear-headed Lindenblüte, and more like the little kid who never could figure things out like rules, or fair warning, or? but I tried so damn hard, Dr. Bob. That's why I feel so upset when other people are punished by your hand who are trying so damn hard to be civil.
oh my god. my blood is positively boiling. I just figured it out. i better go about to get myself blocked. seriously.
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2006, at 3:29:52
In reply to » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 24, 2006, at 21:13:19
Re; PBC's.
They don't need to be on the same thread, or part of the same discussion.. so, a blocked poster may have received the PBC on a different board to the block.
Nikki
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 25, 2006, at 7:51:55
In reply to Re: » Lindenblüte, posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2006, at 3:29:52
> Re; PBC's.
>
> They don't need to be on the same thread, or part of the same discussion.. so, a blocked poster may have received the PBC on a different board to the block.
>
> NikkiBut what about the time frame? would the PBC or warning have been posted within a few days of the block, or would a PBC from 10 weeks ago suffice as enough warning even on a different thread or different board?
thanks for telling me, Nikki. Nice to see you around :)
-Li
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2006, at 22:31:48
In reply to » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 24, 2006, at 21:13:19
> Perhaps this poster has received the warning at some point in psycho-babble history.
>
> Babble doesn't feel safe to me, because there is potential that I have forgottent to read something- a warning. I can be blocked at any time. I won't even know what rule I broke. I'm getting really freaked out.I guess not seeing a PBC could be an issue, like not seeing a PDP. But blocks do spell out what the issues are.
> I'm thinking ... more like the little kid who never could figure things out like rules, or fair warning, or? but I tried so damn hard, Dr. Bob. That's why I feel so upset when other people are punished by your hand who are trying so damn hard to be civil.
I'm sorry this is triggering. From an administrative perspective, the issue is whether people follow the rules, not whether, or how hard, they try. But these situations can also elicit a "parent-child attitude", including wishes for love and acceptance:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/688269.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/688357.htmlA block is just an administrative response. It doesn't mean I don't like someone or think they're a bad person. Plus there are lots of loving and accepting people here.
Bob
Posted by Lindenblüte on November 8, 2006, at 12:40:02
In reply to Re: rules, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2006, at 22:31:48
Danger: to be triggered makes me experience depersonalization.
I suppose my "reality checking" is still intact, though, so even if I'm not feeling like my words or typing hands "belong" to me, I can still evaluate the words as being civil or not.
Great temptation to get myself blocked when in such a state. Very interesting corollary to creating a physical injury when non-online stressors trigger depersonalization.
Pity for persons without stable "reality checking" and/or insecurity about what constitutes "civility".
-Li
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 18, 2006, at 2:51:11
In reply to Re: Three more ideas » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 24, 2006, at 20:39:38
> I know you don't make these rule changes retroactive, usually. That's why I asked you extra nicely ;o)
I appreciate that, but I think I'd still prefer to leave the past in the past.
Bob
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.