![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 42. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 7:48:29
But can we revisit the cap on block length?
If blocks are not designed to be punitive, but to give the poster a chance to cool off and re-evaluate their actions, then why do they escalate?
I would like to propose that the longest block be a maximum of two weeks. Surely that is long enough to give the poster a chance to re-coup and refresh.
I mean, how long would you put a misbehaving child in time out? 9 weeks? 30 weeks? a year?
Any thoughts?
Posted by ClearSkies on November 26, 2006, at 8:53:53
In reply to I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 7:48:29
> But can we revisit the cap on block length?
>
Yes! It seems to have dropped from the babble radar.> If blocks are not designed to be punitive, but to give the poster a chance to cool off and re-evaluate their actions, then why do they escalate?
>
My understanding is that they escalate to make the point that continuing incivility is not appropriate or acceptable here.> I would like to propose that the longest block be a maximum of two weeks. Surely that is long enough to give the poster a chance to re-coup and refresh.
>
So someone would be able to be blocked for two-week periods infinitely?> I mean, how long would you put a misbehaving child in time out? 9 weeks? 30 weeks? a year?
>
I don't see blocking from babble to be comparable to how misbehaving children are given time-outs. We're adults here, and we have comprehension of what the consequences are of not following the site guidelines.
Posted by zenhussy on November 26, 2006, at 9:13:56
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure » madeline, posted by ClearSkies on November 26, 2006, at 8:53:53
>>> We're adults here, and we have comprehension of what the consequences are of not following the site guidelines.<<<
sure, most posters here are adult in chronologic age but how many have the maturity or ability due to DISEASE or DISORDER to comprehend AT EVERY MOMENT the "wise guidelines"?
this board is utilized by people who are sick, diseased, disordered and the like. how many of this population are running at top notch at any time? with the archives we can find examples of many of our finest posters tripping over the wise guidelines and being shown the door for an extended break.
in theory we understand your statement but in practice we see it to not be so applicable due to real life cicrumstances.
as usual, only our tuppence
Posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 9:45:52
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure » madeline, posted by ClearSkies on November 26, 2006, at 8:53:53
Yes, I do think people could be blocked for two weeks for as long as it took for them to realize the consequences of their actions.
I think it would at least give them a chance to post again in two weeks instead of 30 weeks. If they trip up again, then another two week block could be implemented. At least it would give them a chance.
I also think zen has a great point, I post when I am feeling my worst sometimes. It's no excuse, but maybe we can give allowances for that too.
Don't get me wrong, I am a big advocate of the civility guidelines here and I don't have all the answers.
I also know that nobody here wants anyone to be blocked for extended periods of time and I hope we can come to some sort of resolution where this doesn't happen anymore.
Posted by fayeroe on November 26, 2006, at 12:31:14
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure » ClearSkies, posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 9:45:52
madeline, i agree with you completely. my longest block was 16 weeks...did it change my feelings any more than two weeks would have? NO.
and my block certainly isn't the biggest one that Bob has given. i was rattling cages and i knew i was going to get one and at that time i didn't care.
i only drop by occasionally. i was gone from here for almost two years. i went to another website and found a home there.........
i came to this forum because i had issues that i needed help with. most people come here for that reason. they aren't at their best 99% of the time. that's why Bob has a website. people come here for help.
i feel that the 30 week block is ludicrous. that is more than half a year without support. thinking of it like that is painful for me concerning the poster.not being able to post or hear from friends. that is a very long and lonely time.
for some, this is their life.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 13:08:54
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure » ClearSkies, posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 9:45:52
> Yes, I do think people could be blocked for two weeks for as long as it took for them to realize the consequences of their actions.
But what if they never realize? Or realize, but don't change how they act? I think it would be disruptive if people were posting something uncivil every 2 weeks...
I agree, it's unfortunate if people can't post. But at least they can still receive support via babblemail.
> I also know that nobody here wants anyone to be blocked for extended periods of time and I hope we can come to some sort of resolution where this doesn't happen anymore.
That would be nice, but I don't know if it's possible. But I do think we can continue to try to improve how the guidelines are enforced, and I do appreciate suggestions (even if I don't end up implementing them).
Bob
Posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 13:41:49
In reply to Re: the cap on block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 13:08:54
It isn't so much the need for guidelines as such, but where they are drawn that is the issue with me. Zeugma's incivility was that he mentioned Bush and Blair destroying civilization in the Middle East. He then said, not quoted by Dr Bob, 'in order to save it'.
It must be kinda symbolic because I have trouble imagining anyone here being offended by this sentiment, especially from this poster.
You could, if you wanted, be offended by all sorts of things. (As an Australian I could find the ommission of John Howard offensive. Is it implied that our contribution to the Coalition of the Willing is tokenistic?)
But who feels offence (rather than tiredness) over things like this?
People are hurt by misunderstandings between each other and civility guidelines don't help much there.
Posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 15:28:46
In reply to Don't mention the elephant, posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 13:41:49
you're right, I wasn't mentioning the elephant. But there you have it.
A 30 week block for saying someone is saving the middle east.
A two week block would have been easier for me to take I think.
I know that deep in my heart babble can do better than this.
Posted by tensor on November 26, 2006, at 16:31:40
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by zenhussy on November 26, 2006, at 9:13:56
Posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 17:23:12
In reply to Re: the cap on block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 13:08:54
"But what if they never realize? Or realize, but don't change how they act? I think it would be disruptive if people were posting something uncivil every 2 weeks..."
I guess I see what you mean now.
really really heavy sigh.
maddie
Posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 17:37:55
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure » madeline, posted by ClearSkies on November 26, 2006, at 8:53:53
I reckon z knew exactly what he was doing.
It's just that it's such a pity to lose him.
Posted by Jost on November 26, 2006, at 17:50:44
In reply to Adults? » ClearSkies, posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 17:37:55
Who knows if he did considered the consequences, or if he had a momentary spasm of something that caused him not to be thinking.
I think blocks beyond a certain number of days/weeks (much shorter than 9, to be honest) make much more sense than protracted blocks that wipe the person out of existence.
First of all, people are much more likely to inhibit incivility if they get something out of it-- like being here- in a meaningfully immediate way-- a week, two weeks--something that could motivate behavior.
As the blocks get longer, the value of being here diminishes in significance-- and the anger about various injustices (perceived or real, I 'm not saying which in any particular case) becomes more significant-- and in reaction evoke (to the action of erasure that blocks invokes) erasure of the goodness of Pbabble, and of civility.
Plus what about the people who haven't been uncivil. Should we be deprived of the companionship of people because they've been uncivil, for such long periods of time? Should we be forced to protect ourselves from the loss by having to view them as expendible. It's not good for me to feel that people are so expendible that we can, or even would, erase them-- for anything less than truly very disruptive acts?
Which personally I can't imagine anyone thinking the comments about Bush, even under the aegis of extensive calculations about the consequences thereof, were.
I'm really surprised and disappointed that Bob takes this position Don't understand any rationale for it. Sorry.
Jost
Posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 18:01:14
In reply to Re: Adults?, posted by Jost on November 26, 2006, at 17:50:44
I'd hate anyone to think that *I* thought Zeugma had been uncivil. Blocks relating to opinion are silly, IMO, because no one takes offence anyway. (Offence as against strong disagreement)
But if you see things in terms of truth vs civilty, you may opt in favour of truth.
It's not for me to speak for Zeugma, but he has said in the past that he sees it like that.
Posted by henrietta on November 26, 2006, at 18:40:21
In reply to I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 7:48:29
Length is a major issue. Anything beyond 2 weeks seems counter-productive. ("What if they never realize?" feels like jumping to thumpin conclusions, predicting future behavior, making assumptions). But the bias and inconsistency are what bother me more. For instance, Nikkit4 accuses someone on the board of "childish acts", and assumes (yes assumes) that SHE is being "threatened" because "SHE doesn't do cr@ppy fluff, or was it fluffy cr@p?" Does that imply that others are offering fluffy cr@ap? (Racer, you're good as this, this implication stuff. What do you think?) Major jump. Major accusation. Major assumption. And then seal of approval immediately stamped by deputy clear skies. Can't say that went unnoticed, or was noticed too late to address.. Zazenducky gets PCBd for saying exactly the same thing deputy gg has said, a time or two, i.e. that sometimes how another person responds to you has more to do with that person's issues than with whatever it was you said. Somebody decided (leapt to the conclusion, made the assumption) that because ZZD said it, it was SARf'in'castic???? When gg says it, it isn't?
Posted by dreamboat_annie on November 26, 2006, at 19:06:23
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by henrietta on November 26, 2006, at 18:40:21
I agree with everything you have said, and I applaud your having said it! The double-standard is so glaringly obvious and repugnant it has become like one of those big hairy moles that cause people to look the other way. Dislaimer: This is not to say that I don't like bigm, hairy moles, and I don't want anyone with big, hairy moles to feel put down or unsupported.
People should be working together to build a strong, safe and supportive community for all of the participants, not just a select few.
> Length is a major issue. Anything beyond 2 weeks seems counter-productive. ("What if they never realize?" feels like jumping to thumpin conclusions, predicting future behavior, making assumptions). But the bias and inconsistency are what bother me more. For instance, Nikkit4 accuses someone on the board of "childish acts", and assumes (yes assumes) that SHE is being "threatened" because "SHE doesn't do cr@ppy fluff, or was it fluffy cr@p?" Does that imply that others are offering fluffy cr@ap? (Racer, you're good as this, this implication stuff. What do you think?) Major jump. Major accusation. Major assumption. And then seal of approval immediately stamped by deputy clear skies. Can't say that went unnoticed, or was noticed too late to address.. Zazenducky gets PCBd for saying exactly the same thing deputy gg has said, a time or two, i.e. that sometimes how another person responds to you has more to do with that person's issues than with whatever it was you said. Somebody decided (leapt to the conclusion, made the assumption) that because ZZD said it, it was SARf'in'castic???? When gg says it, it isn't?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2006, at 19:24:40
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure » henrietta, posted by dreamboat_annie on November 26, 2006, at 19:06:23
> I agree with everything you have said, and I applaud your having said it! The double-standard is so glaringly obvious and repugnant it has become like one of those big hairy moles that cause people to look the other way. Dislaimer: This is not to say that I don't like bigm, hairy moles, and I don't want anyone with big, hairy moles to feel put down or unsupported.
>
> People should be working together to build a strong, safe and supportive community for all of the participants, not just a select few.
>
>
>
>
> > Length is a major issue. Anything beyond 2 weeks seems counter-productive. ("What if they never realize?" feels like jumping to thumpin conclusions, predicting future behavior, making assumptions). But the bias and inconsistency are what bother me more. For instance, Nikkit4 accuses someone on the board of "childish acts", and assumes (yes assumes) that SHE is being "threatened" because "SHE doesn't do cr@ppy fluff, or was it fluffy cr@p?" Does that imply that others are offering fluffy cr@ap? (Racer, you're good as this, this implication stuff. What do you think?) Major jump. Major accusation. Major assumption. And then seal of approval immediately stamped by deputy clear skies. Can't say that went unnoticed, or was noticed too late to address.. Zazenducky gets PCBd for saying exactly the same thing deputy gg has said, a time or two, i.e. that sometimes how another person responds to you has more to do with that person's issues than with whatever it was you said. Somebody decided (leapt to the conclusion, made the assumption) that because ZZD said it, it was SARf'in'castic???? When gg says it, it isn't?
>
Friends,
It is written here,[...the double standard..obvious and (deleted by respondant..)...all.,..not..a..>select few<...].
I am following this thread with interest, for I think that it is important at this time.
If anyone would like to discuss this by email, I could offer support from my perspective, if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 23:11:51
In reply to Re: Adults? » Jost, posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 18:01:14
'But if you see things in terms of truth vs civilty, you may opt in favour of truth'
What I meant to say was that truth may seem much more important than someone else's version of civility.
All the civility rules (on Politics) have accomplished in my case is allowing me practice at irony, which is OK.
But zeugma is a gem.
Posted by muffled on November 26, 2006, at 23:51:47
In reply to Re: the cap on block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 13:08:54
> But what if they never realize?
**But what if they do???
Or realize, but don't change how they act?
**But what if they do???
I think it would be disruptive if people were posting something uncivil every 2 weeks...
***IF they did....
>
> I agree, it's unfortunate if people can't post. But at least they can still receive support via babblemail.***Its SO not the same Bob, its just not the same at all. Its frustrating and mostly its just painful to read posts and not be able to respond normally to them. It TOTALLY just reinforces the bad feelings that come with the block.(Leper, leper, stay AWAY)
>
> > I also know that nobody here wants anyone to be blocked for extended periods of time and I hope we can come to some sort of resolution where this doesn't happen anymore.
>
> That would be nice, but I don't know if it's possible. But I do think we can continue to try to improve how the guidelines are enforced, and I do appreciate suggestions (even if I don't end up implementing them).**Yeah, nice thot if Bob weren't SUCH a mule about it.
See, the prob with Bobs obsession with GUIDELINES, is that the guidlines are rather nebulous by nature of humaness, and as a result of trying to improve them, they become more nebulous.....and then people feel they are unfair, because they are inconsistant(due to being nebulous).
So I feel BOB, that in order to compensate for 'nebulosity' as it were, that it would become less of an issue ALL ROUND, if you would just CAP the friggin blocks.
Why don't you try it?????????????????????????
It would seem that people can get on and post anyways.....
So there's bad feelings about :-(
There's been good people hurt , that DIDN'T need to be hurt.
Muffled
Posted by Declan on November 27, 2006, at 2:01:49
In reply to Re: the cap on block length » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on November 26, 2006, at 23:51:47
If you are blocked you can't receive babblemail, as far as I've experienced it.
That's the way it is?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2006, at 4:59:43
In reply to Babblemail, posted by Declan on November 27, 2006, at 2:01:49
> What I meant to say was that truth may seem much more important than someone else's version of civility.
It may, and there's something to be said for being true to one's principles.
> All the civility rules (on Politics) have accomplished in my case is allowing me practice at irony, which is OK.
Yes, irony is OK.
> If you are blocked you can't receive babblemail, as far as I've experienced it.
>
> That's the way it is?That's the way it was, but you're supposed to be able to receive now.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2006, at 4:59:57
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by henrietta on November 26, 2006, at 18:40:21
> Nikkit4 accuses someone on the board of "childish acts"
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help-enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by verne on November 27, 2006, at 9:49:12
In reply to Re: the cap on block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 13:08:54
Dr. Bob, you say: "But what if they never realize? Or realize, but don't change how they act? I think it would be disruptive if people were posting something uncivil every 2 weeks"
I think long blocks are more disruptive to the community. For every blocked person, several posters leave or protest. Countless threads have been started on this board complaining about the administration or length of blocks.
In contrast, blocking even the most persistent troublemaker every two weeks, wouldn't cause the hue and cry among the community that long blocks engender. The constant administrative battles over the civility guidelines, the constant protests, and the collateral damage (posters falling on their swords), would no longer be necessary.
Long punitive blocks beget self blocks, self-exiles, and even deliberate offensive posts leading to blocks. How disruptive is that?
I think, if we must have longer blocks (more than 2 weeks), it should only be for deliberate personal attacks. Even the law makes a distinction between crimes against property and persons.
Here, the slightest misstep, a wrong word, receives the same punishment as an all-out personal attack. Sometimes a carefully crafted personal attack escapes blocking altogether, while a missing asterisk reaps a long banishment.
It seems like the spirit of civility is being lost to the letter of the law.
verne
Posted by verne on November 27, 2006, at 9:59:47
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by henrietta on November 26, 2006, at 18:40:21
Good observations, Henrietta.
A subtle personal attack, if well-crafted enough, will not violate the babble guidelines. I've seen some real woodshed scoldings allowed.
I think I'll go back into exile.
verne
Posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 10:39:29
In reply to Spirit or Letter of the Law? » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on November 27, 2006, at 9:49:12
One very important point that Bob seems to miss is that the imposition of blocks is quite inconsistent here.
I've seen very accusatory posts on many boards go unremarked.
I've seen very inoffensive posts get long blocks. (I mean: inoffensive, on any meaningful scale-- doesn't mean no one could not-like the post, but being offended enough to justify a block, much less a long block seems really too much)
I've seen posts posted and not blocked for several weeks-
This, conveying the impression that they aren't blockable-- Then suddenly, Bob sweeps through a hands out a few long-delayed blocks about something you've long forgotten was even posted
How does that encourage knowledge of what the guidelines mean?
I personally have no idea what will or won't get blocked-- other than if you're on the politics board, and make a point about a political leader, you're much more likely to get blocked than if you make quite hurtful comments on other boards about an individual or individuals.
Jost
Posted by ClearSkies on November 27, 2006, at 11:19:39
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law?, posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 10:39:29
> One very important point that Bob seems to miss is that the imposition of blocks is quite inconsistent here.
>
> I've seen very accusatory posts on many boards go unremarked.
>I wonder if it is reasonable for me (on behalf of the deputies) to ask for notification if you see a post that you consider to be uncivil? Rather than waiting for a deputy or Dr Bob to see it and act on it.
I know that the "notification" button is new. My understanding of how it can work is that *anyone* can notify the deputies and Dr Bob, that you have read a post that might not meet Babble's guidelines. It's not just the receiver of the post who can do it. Maybe that would help the guidelines be more consistently applied.
ClearSkies
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.