![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 260 to 284 of 304. Go back in thread:
Posted by verne on May 4, 2009, at 0:42:05
In reply to Re: an issue with insects, posted by Sigismund on May 3, 2009, at 15:41:51
I think it's against Dr Bob's nature to get into the business of forgiving too much. He would rather error on the punitive side.
Perhaps, this site isn't able to handle the administrative job of weekly punishment. Yet, the site's commander seems willing to debate the issue for months and years.
Perhaps, even from an administrative level, site-running level, even a week block would be feasible. Once we get past that, why not even less time for blocks?
A "week" is arbitrary but better than a year. Why not block someone for a few DAYS. Since you can't come up with a new calendar, a week then.
Yet a year, 6-9 months blocks: that's medevial - and a little, maybe alot, sadistic. Not sure it happens anywhere else on the web. (Elsewhere, when you violate the terms of the site's agreement, you can be "banned" which is far less manipulative) It's clear. You violate the TOA and you're gone.
There's no "fanfare", no parade. No debate about the length of blocks. Here, every warning and block is a spectacule, inviting argument and debate. Why "announce" blocks anyway. Just to create the riot?
Other sites handle dysfunction so much better. Dissent isn't new. Many made the same arguments about this site 5 years ago. Many, bashed their heads against the wall (thanks Ak) and experienced true futility, finally leaving for good.
Civility doesn't have to be about shaming and big annoucements on the length of the blocks for those who stray.
In truth, the block system isn't even civil. Imagine being thrown in an Iranian prison for a year? Here the prisoners are voluntary patients with emotional or psych issues.
Verne
Posted by verne on May 4, 2009, at 5:16:36
In reply to Weak at Most, posted by verne on May 4, 2009, at 0:42:05
Before I leave for awhile these are my four favorite videos. Sure I like Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen but these are my fav vids.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/the-cranberries/8350/zombie.jhtml#artist=1251
http://www.mtv.com/videos/brandi-carlile/141620/the-story.jhtml#artist=1774595
best song and video ever: http://www.mtv.com/videos/michelle-branch/16547/all-you-wanted.jhtml#artist=1164813
http://www.mtv.com/videos/crash-test-dummies/55296/mmm-mmm-mmm-mmm.jhtml
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2009, at 3:42:49
In reply to Weak at Most, posted by verne on May 4, 2009, at 0:42:05
> I think Dr Bob tired of his own game, or dance number, and almost overnight, lightened up.
>
> Dr Bob has changed and we posters must now catch up - upgrade. This is Dr Bob 2.0
>
> VerneHow did I change? I gave others more time to apologize to me. Some did, some didn't. Those that did avoided being blocked. But the "apology box" isn't new.
> ONE MONTH.
> 1 month.
> a week.
> a week
Thanks for your input. I'll discuss this with the deputies.
> I think it's against Dr Bob's nature to get into the business of forgiving too much. He would rather error on the punitive side.
>
> a year, 6-9 months blocks: that's medevial - and a little, maybe alot, sadistic. Not sure it happens anywhere else on the web. (Elsewhere, when you violate the terms of the site's agreement, you can be "banned" which is far less manipulative) It's clear. You violate the TOA and you're gone.
>
> VerneBut even a cap of a year is a lot more forgiving than being banned forever!
I may or may not change the cap. But I'm not planning on changing what's considered civil here. I let some incivility to others go while I focused on incivility to me recently. But that doesn't mean the rules have changed. The deputies and I will continue to enforce the civility policies.
> Now PsychoBabble is a ghostland. No one ventures to say the least bit anything, the least bit chancy.
>
> VerneI disagree, five people ventured to be uncivil to me recently.
> People spoke with their feet
>
> After they became too injured politely knocking
> Then repeatedly bashing 'gainst the brick wall
>
> alexandra_kMaybe what people said with their feet was they preferred peace to shooting and bashing.
What about Poster 2.0?
Showing other posters how they might interpret things more charitably, encouraging them to apologize, suggesting they not address those they can't get along with, and helping them avoid being blocked -- all would mean more peace.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 5, 2009, at 11:46:39
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2009, at 3:42:49
> Maybe what people said with their feet was they preferred peace to shooting and bashing.I suppose one could simply disregard what the posters actually said about their motivation in favor of Bob's favorite theory.
And the wheels go round.
Goodbye
Posted by alexandra_k on May 5, 2009, at 12:05:54
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by alexandra_k on May 5, 2009, at 11:46:39
You got your upgrade already. The posters you carefully selected for by way of blocking the other ones. Maybe it comes as a surprise to you that people would actually leave after being blocked by you. Or maybe that was the whole point. You got your oligarchy of rulers carefully selected because they agree enough with you to feel that they can in good conscience both divine what you would do were you here and implement it. You got your small boards as people left. Maybe you prefer things this way. I guess it must feel kinda cool to only allow whoever you want on your boards on your boards and have a handy excuse to get rid of other ones (their fault of course). Bet you can't find a poster still posting on your boards (including you) who hasn't said something comparable to what another poster was blocked for. You get to choose. How... Nice for you. Or something.
Nothing has changed really. I guess accepting that... Well a number of posters have explicitly stated that that is why they move on. Something about the draconian blocking system and your just making the wheels go round when people offer concrete suggestions of how you can have a more humane system. Professionals told you it was harmful and arbitrary but really none of that matters so long as Bob gets to do what Bob wants to do.
Nothing has changed. You got that right.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 5, 2009, at 12:06:25
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by alexandra_k on May 5, 2009, at 12:05:54
Much more of an upgrade and you really would be just playing with yourself
Posted by Dinah on May 5, 2009, at 12:42:56
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by alexandra_k on May 5, 2009, at 12:05:54
Mind you, that's just the posters who *say* why they leave. Not the ones who just leave.
Posters quit posting because they have hurt feelings too. They just don't come to Admin and say so. In fact, posters who just quit posting because they don't feel welcome, or get their feelings hurt, likely outnumber the ones who leave because of Bob.
And people might not start posting if a board seems contentious.
I've always been very strong in arguing against "disappearing" posts. But after hanging out on a few (non mental health related) sites, I have grown to see the upside of it. The site stays more on topic. For those who are very regular posters, it might be way more upsetting. But for those who are considering posting, it might be encouraging.
Posted by raisinb on May 5, 2009, at 13:46:56
In reply to There are pros and cons, posted by Dinah on May 5, 2009, at 12:42:56
I think what Dinah says here is important. Sometimes I hang out on the Craigslist psychology board. The things people say to each other on there demonstrate what can happen if civility rules don't exist.
Again, if the rules are inconsistently enforced, that's different.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2009, at 20:50:21
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by alexandra_k on May 5, 2009, at 12:05:54
> a number of posters have explicitly stated that that is why they move on. Something about the draconian blocking system and your just making the wheels go round when people offer concrete suggestions of how you can have a more humane system.
I'm interested in suggestions. Two heads are better than one. But when it comes to the system, I have more power and posters have less, change can be slow, and you don't always get what you want:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
Or, posters can be the change they wish to see. Do they wish to see fewer blocks? Posters have the power to help other posters avoid them. Friends don't let friends get blocked.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 3:27:07
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2009, at 20:50:21
> Friends don't let friends get blocked.
What an *ssh*l* thing to say. HAVEN"T WE JUST BEEN THROUGH THIS. For f*cks sake.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 10:40:04
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2009, at 20:50:21
> I'm interested in suggestions.Funny how you keep saying that then keep on basically ignoring them.
> Two heads are better than one.You might want to really think about whether you believe this.
> But when it comes to the system, I have more power and posters have less
No. You have ALL and posters have NONE. You 'you have options you have choices you have power' remarks remind me of when I was a little kid and by brother would get my hand and hit me in the head with it and go 'Mum Alex is hitting herself in the head again - stop it Alex' like I was doing it voluntarily but really of course it was completely out of my hands. Posters haven't been asking you about what it is that YOU think it means to be a friend. Posters have been saying to you (as have professionals) that your blocks do more harm than good. So: Challenge for you. If you really do give a sh*t about what is best for the boards (rather than expressing power just because you can) then why don't you trial a different system and see. Or... Do you take this same approach to medication management too? - Do what I say because I know best. What reason do you have? Oh... Bob has a theory...
> change can be slow, and you don't always get what you want:
Yeah. Change can be non-existent and posters leave. You get what you want though. Smaller boards. The posters you basically hand pick. Well done Bob. Quite the kingdom.
> Or, posters can be the change they wish to see.
How can I be a one month max blocking system? Trying really hard to visualize this... Having trouble. Do you even understand what it is that people have been saying to you? Speak English? Are you getting stuff from the post-modernist essay generator or something??
> Do they wish to see fewer blocks?
What the f*ck do YOU think people have been saying?
> Posters have the power to help other posters avoid them. Friends don't let friends get blocked.
Yes Bob. Friends say 'Okay Nazi let me shoot that Jew so I can avoid your having to shoot me'. Friends say 'get your N*gg*r *ss up and to the back of the bus'. For f*cks sake.
The wheels go round.
And what I really don't understand... Is how there is anyone here playing with Bob at all. I mean... There really is some serious pathology behind all this. That is the only thing that could explain it. I don't think there is a difference between Bob wilfully ignoring and simply being incapable. Get help Bob. I'm outta here. Can't believe I didn't see this sooner. Get help. If you really care about these boards you gotta take someone besides yourself (e.g., professionals) seriously. Get help.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 11:09:52
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 3:27:07
> > Friends don't let friends get blocked.
I mean really, what the hell is this supposed to mean? That you have figured out the rationale behind your blocks and it as as follows: The posters who get blocked don't have friends here.
Oh, I see, that is why Nikki didn't get blocked for saying 'sh*t' unasterisked in a post you redirected (so you must have read it) whereas Zen does, and Muffled gets blocked for saying 'f*rt' without an asterisk. You think that Nikki had friends here (that had this miraculous power to affect whether you blocked her or not) whereas Muffled and Zen did not?
Gee, I must really have no friends here given the number of times I've been blocked. It isn't Bob choosing to block me after all, it comes down to my not having friends here, I see. So much for all the friends I thought I had... Dinah and Muffled and Zen and Nikki and more than I can name, really.
What a f*ck*ng *ssh*l* thing to say. Surely you didn't mean it like this... But I've given up trying to work out what is going on in your f*ck*ng head anymore.
Been there done that. I'm done. Through. I won't ask you to block me because then you will ask who is my friend (like friendship can be sorted by simply asking people). Most of my friends wouldn't play that little game thats for sure (I'd have more trouble respecting them if they did).
Fayerody is a very good friend. I showed my respect to her by allowing her block. Would Socrates 'friends' have been better friends if they hadn't stupidly and futily (if that is a word) persuaded him to avoid his sentence?
You don't know what friendship is. I thought we had established that already. How dare you.
Posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 11:17:10
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 10:40:04
I don't see those examples as being the same of Dr. Bob asking that we be respectful of each other and at least minimally respectful of him.
I'm not sure I'd want to be somewhere where that wasn't expected. Isn't it what everyone deserves, everywhere? For myself, the rules seem closer to "Don't ask someone to sit on the back of the bus because they have a different color skin. Respect that person, and treat them as you would wish to be treated yourself. If you do ask someone to sit at the back of the bus, you will be asked to leave this bus. You are welcome to return when you agree to ride in accordance with bus rules."
I understand that people don't see it that way, but for the life of me I don't understand why. What is so bad about Dr. Bob wanting people to be treated respectfully on this board, and asking people, if they choose to post on this board, to please post respectfully.
I also don't think we're victims here. We can protest, to an amazing degree really. Dr. Bob can and does change his mind, if appealed to in such a way that he comes to agree with what posters are saying. I think that's not unreasonable. Dr. Bob listens to posters. Sometimes he agrees. Sometimes he doesn't. He has that right. And he has that responsibility. And yes, with that responsibility comes power.
However, we do have power here. When I was growing up, my mother was more an explainer than a punisher, and with a few memorable exceptions, when I received consequences for my behavior, they really were consequences for my behavior. But when I did have to go to my room, or wasn't able to do something I wanted to do, I was expected to verbalize what I had done and take responsibility for my choices. We all, as adults, have choices. Once we have knowledge of the guidelines of any situation, it is our choice to follow them or not. If we choose not to, there are consequences. If we choose to, there are consequences. It's up to us to choose the consequences we prefer.
I suppose it could be said that I'm just saying this because I agree with Dr. Bob. In this case, to an extent, I do. I do believe we should be respectful to each other, and minimally respectful to Dr. Bob. I do recognize that there is no other way, on an internet bulletin board, to enforce site guidelines. And I don't think we're passive victims, whatever choices we make here. We're adults. We can choose to follow site guidelines, possibly while simultaneously trying to change them. We can choose to not follow site guidelines, and accept the consequences of that decision. Even wear them as a badge of honor if that is our choice. Or we can choose to leave. What we can't do is choose to change site guidelines without Dr. Bob's consent.
I do realize that there are times when the consequences do not seem to be in line with the choices we've made. I think Dr. Bob is aware of that and does try, to the best of his ability, to improve that. I know deputies do as well. I am also aware that sometimes people don't understand the guidelines well enough to recognize that they are not complying with them. Perhaps there could be better ways to explain them, including posters reaching out to fellow posters.
Posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 11:25:22
In reply to Re: posters must now upgrade, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 11:09:52
Alex, I think he was just using a play on words, for the well known advertising slogan "Friends don't let friends drive drunk."
I don't think it's an equivalent situation.
I think, as you say, friends sometimes do let friends get blocked, if they think that the friend is choosing to be blocked for philosophical reasons.
And certainly there are times when friends don't have any power to prevent friends from being blocked.
But I think friends can talk to a friend and find out if they are doing what they really believe to be in their best interests. If this is the choice they wish to make.
Dr. Bob knows that people who are blocked have friends here. He certainly knows you do.
I'm way too late for work. But I'll be around later if you want to talk.
Posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 11:27:01
In reply to Subject line change » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 11:25:22
I am guessing Dr. Bob became aware of the issues with cursewords, which is why he instituted autoasterisking and really that issue is behind us, unless someone is clearly overriding the autoasterisking system.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:00:30
In reply to Subject line change » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 11:17:10
> Dr. Bob asking that we be respectful of each other and at least minimally respectful of him.
That isn't the issue here. There are a SMALL minority of posters who think that it is okay for someone to post disrespectfully. THE MAJORITY of posters seem to be saying that Dr Bob is too ARBITRARY with respect to whether someone gets blocked or not (despite his protests it does seem to come down to who posted that post) AND that Dr Bob is too DRACONIAN with the penalties for what he perceives as infractions. While some degree of arbitrariness is inevitable the issue of arbitrariness is compounded by the length of the blocks.
> I'm not sure I'd want to be somewhere where that wasn't expected. Isn't it what everyone deserves, everywhere?Only a SMALL MINORITY would disagree with this. THAT ISN'T THE ISSUE
> For myself, the rules seem closer to "Don't ask someone to sit on the back of the bus because they have a different color skin. Respect that person, and treat them as you would wish to be treated yourself. If you do ask someone to sit at the back of the bus, you will be asked to leave this bus. You are welcome to return when you agree to ride in accordance with bus rules."
For others, the rules seem closer to Socrates living in a community where there were laws against 'corrupting the young'. Who thinks it is okay to corrupt the young? A small minority. The issue IS NOT whether corrupting the young is okay or not, however. The courts ruled that Socrates was guilty of corrupting the young. To say that Socrates hadn't done anything wrong isn't to say that you think it is okay to corrupt the young. Similarly, to say that a poster shouldn't be blocked for something they said is not to say that you think it is okay to be disrespectful or uncivil. Here the issue is in how you interpret 'civil' or 'respectful' or 'corrupting the young' so a judgement applies to a particular case, not the issue of whether it is okay to be 'uncivil' or 'disrespectful' or 'corrupt the young'. Can you hear the difference?
Socrates punishment (for a 'crime' most people didn't think he committed - much as most people don't think posting 'sh*t' or 'f*rt' without an asterisk is to commit the 'crime' of incivility or disrespect) was to drink Hemlock. His friends argued that he was justified in fleeing to escape the 'consequences of his actions' or his 'punishment' because the punishment was too harsh. The state thought that he would flee - perhaps Bob has a similar ideology. Socrates chose not to flee his punishment, however.
Would a friend of Socrates show friendship by trying to persuade Socrates that it was wrong to corrupt the young? No. Of course not, Socrates would agree that it is wrong to corrupt the young. That isn't the issue. Would a friend of Socrates show friendship by trying to persuade Socrates that his process of questioning was in fact corrupting the young such that Socrates could change his behavior and stop philosophizing (which I'm sure we agree was something that he had control over)? That seems to be what Bob thinks a friend would do.
I disagree. Vehemently.
> What is so bad about Dr. Bob wanting people to be treated respectfully on this board, and asking people, if they choose to post on this board, to please post respectfully.
Do you understand now how that misses the point?
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:12:04
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:00:30
> Would a friend of Socrates show friendship by trying to persuade Socrates that his process of questioning was in fact corrupting the young such that Socrates could change his behavior and stop philosophizing (which I'm sure we agree was something that he had control over)? That seems to be what Bob thinks a friend would do.
And that is the issue, really. That Bob thinks he has some direct line to a verdict from on high such that he (and only he) can be trusted with judgements of whether someone is in violation or not. His careful selection of people who do their best to do 'exactly would Bob would do were he here' (and their acceptance of his ultimate authority).
That Bob thinks that the way to be a friend to a person is to work hard to justify HIS judgements. To basically question ones friends - to basically accept Bob's judgement and come to view them as guilty. To work hard to get ones friends to change in order to tow Bob's line.
He isn't God.
He doesn't respect our point of view. He side-tracks the process by bringing up false dichotomies like 'my way or total anarchy and hate speech'.
He posted something before about the progression from Monarch to Oligarchy to Democracy (often by killing the monarch) to Anarchy to Monarchy again. I guess there was something to that that grabbed him... Instead of questioning 'does it have to be that way? What are the factors responsible for the progression such that we might alter things and have things progress differently' he seems determined to embrace this thing where we will... Kill him. I guess a friend might try and bring this kind of thing to his attention... The self destructive nature of it all. Is that good for the boards I wonder? Professional help is probably what is needed. Good luck to him finding a health professional who can adequately empathize lol.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:44:53
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:12:04
Sigh. And I can even anticipate the next move in the dialogue:
'But Bob's not forcing anyone to drink Hemlock. Other sites block people forever (which is more directly analogous) this site is less harsh in the sense that people have a limited imprisonment capped at one year'.
Being charitable and all... Can't you anticipate my next move in response to that? Would be nice to move things along a little instead of going around the same futile circles...
Sigh.
I give up. There really is no point. I refuse to accept that a community would be better off without my presence in it. Know Bob wants my friends to persuade me and all about the harm I've done to others and about how I could change to be less harmful. I won't internalize that. I won't accept or attempt to get my friends to internalize the notion that saying 'f*rt' without an asterisk harms others such that the boards are better off without their presence. How would that be... Civil? Or respectful for that matter?
F*ck off Bob. You don't know what friendship means.
Posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 16:56:47
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:12:04
I really don't understand.
> And that is the issue, really. That Bob thinks he has some direct line to a verdict from on high such that he (and only he) can be trusted with judgements of whether someone is in violation or not. His careful selection of people who do their best to do 'exactly would Bob would do were he here' (and their acceptance of his ultimate authority).
The rules are his, so the judgment of whether someone is in violation of the rules really is his. The judgment on what the rules should be might differ. But the rules are what he says they are. This is his site.
If I ran a site, or owned a company, I think I'd want to appoint people to deputize who basically agreed with my goals and who were willing to do what I asked them to do. That Dr. Bob does this is not particularly bothersome to me. Why would he wish to have deputies that acted in ways that would be contrary to what he would wish for Babble.
I don't think of him as feeling like he has a direct line to a verdict from on high. I think of it as him having a direct line to the pocketbook that pays for this site.
That being said, I agree with his overarching rules, although we of course differ on specific interpretations at times.
>
> That Bob thinks that the way to be a friend to a person is to work hard to justify HIS judgements. To basically question ones friends - to basically accept Bob's judgement and come to view them as guilty. To work hard to get ones friends to change in order to tow Bob's line.
>
> He isn't God.I don't think of it this way either. Dr. Bob isn't God. He's the owner of this facility. I don't think he wants anyone to view their friends as guilty because he says so. And I always support you to do what's best for you, and that's got nothing to do with Bob or his rules. If it's best for you to post here, and give and receive support from other posters, I would support that which would enable you to do that. If it's best for you not to post here, I would totally support you in that choice too.
>
> He doesn't respect our point of view. He side-tracks the process by bringing up false dichotomies like 'my way or total anarchy and hate speech'.He can respect our point of view without agreeing with it. I can respect your point of view without agreeing with it. If we convince him that we're right, he is willing to change. But convincing is getting him to see things in a way other than how he now sees them. I doubt anyone can yell loudly enough to get him to change. Or express enough anger at him to get him to change.
> He posted something before about the progression from Monarch to Oligarchy to Democracy (often by killing the monarch) to Anarchy to Monarchy again. I guess there was something to that that grabbed him... Instead of questioning 'does it have to be that way? What are the factors responsible for the progression such that we might alter things and have things progress differently' he seems determined to embrace this thing where we will... Kill him. I guess a friend might try and bring this kind of thing to his attention... The self destructive nature of it all. Is that good for the boards I wonder? Professional help is probably what is needed. Good luck to him finding a health professional who can adequately empathize lol.I hope that isn't true. I empathize with him. I empathize with you. My therapist empathizes with Dr. Bob, and with disaffected posters (including me at times).
Sometimes I agree with Dr. Bob, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I agree with fellow posters, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I get angry with Dr. Bob or fellow posters. But that doesn't mean I can't empathize with any of them.
Even if I don't understand why, I can understand that you're angry and hurt.
And I don't want to add to that. So if it's better that I not add my two cents worth, I'll try to refrain.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:57:46
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:44:53
It is funny really... We had this whole thing...
It really is better for me not to be here. Not because there aren't wonderful posters here or anything like that but because the prospects of a one year block from on high for something arbitrary where I really didn't see it coming is... Not pleasant. Positively destructive.
Think it was the... 4 week block that did it. Something snapped about then. Not sure if it was the four weeks that was too much or whether it was the prospect of more than four weeks that was too much but that was when I basically 'lost it'. Dysregulation... Indeed. Not something that happens to me anymore...
I need to... Be careful about constructing my environment so that it is pleasant and rewarding to me. Need to avoid places where I don't feel safe.
I need to not be posting here. Given that 'change is slow' and so on and so forth. It is better for me not to be here.
And my take... Is that a friend would accept that and wish me well. I mean they could try and persuade me that I'd be better off here... But then the fact that I could well get blocked for a year for arbitrary reasons, well, who would want to put a friend through that?
Maybe I'm just too sick for the boards. That was an idea that was floated... Maybe I am. I mean... Functioning pretty highly in the sense of finishing up a PhD and teaching at university and so on and so forth... But sure, this place requires something more or... Whatever. This place is a f*ck*ng joke. Rapidly turning into a wasteland. Not a comment on the posters here... Comment on the wonderful human beings who have moved on because of issues with admin. Students is a wasteland indeed. Does it even exist anymore? If I have regrets it is that I didn't move on long ago... Once I realized Bob's reaction to the 'f*rt' thing. The arbitrary enforcement. The way he wouldn't face up to that or apologize or reconsider what the hell civility was supposed to be about.
Moving on now... For my own sanity.
Goodbye.
Posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 17:04:04
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:44:53
> I give up. There really is no point. I refuse to accept that a community would be better off without my presence in it.
I refuse to accept that too. A community is infinitely better off with your presence in it.
> Know Bob wants my friends to persuade me and all about the harm I've done to others and about how I could change to be less harmful.
I do not believe that Bob wishes us to persuade you of anything of the kind.
> I won't internalize that. I won't accept or attempt to get my friends to internalize the notion that saying 'f*rt' without an asterisk harms others such that the boards are better off without their presence. How would that be... Civil? Or respectful for that matter?
You shouldn't internalize that. Can you imagine me ever trying to persuade you of anything of the sort?
> F*ck off Bob. You don't know what friendship means.
I don't know what Dr. Bob understands about friendship. But I know that you understand a heck of a lot about it.
Still, those aren't the only ways to think about this. Do you in any possible way imagine that your friends, who respect and care about you, would ever consider talking to you about this with what you said above in mind? And, although you may not believe this, and I certainly can't prove it, I don't think Dr. Bob sees you that way either.
Posted by verne on May 6, 2009, at 17:04:53
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:12:04
http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000516.html
I love Dinosaur Comics, especially when the topic is logic fallacies, faulty arguments, or philosophy in general. Have you checked this site out Alex K?
I think you have the same sharp logical mind as the Dinosaur Comics creator. There's even a book: "the best of Dinosaur Comics: 2003-2005 A.D"
much of the author's musings are above my head. I still don't understand many of the logical fallacies he describes in his comic strip. I was once told by a pdoc that I had "intuitive logic" - just don't ask me how I ever arrive at any conclusion.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 17:05:06
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 16:56:47
> I really don't understand.
>
> > And that is the issue, really. That Bob thinks he has some direct line to a verdict from on high such that he (and only he) can be trusted with judgements of whether someone is in violation or not. His careful selection of people who do their best to do 'exactly would Bob would do were he here' (and their acceptance of his ultimate authority).
>
> The rules are his, so the judgment of whether someone is in violation of the rules really is his. The judgment on what the rules should be might differ. But the rules are what he says they are. This is his site.But that is the thing... He doesn't seem to think that it is just about his site. He seems to think that friends would persuade their friends to tow his line. He seems to think that the way he views civility and respect and friendship is constitutive of exactly what those things are. Not just on his boards but more generally. If he were to say 'this is the way I'm doing things and it is my site' then that would be one thing. We would know where we stand. But for him to say 'this is what it is to be civil or respectful' or 'friends would persuade friends that I have special insight into these matters' or 'I'm doing what I'm doing for the good of the group' are quite different claims. They make it sound like... He really is interested in what is best for these boards. Or he really is interested in the nature of friendship. But of course he isn't.
So the issue then becomes: False advertising.
There should be a warning: These boards are my boards and I will block posters for up to one year if I feel they are posting in violation of the civility rules. Civility is a technical term here on psychobabble and it has been defined extensively in the FAQ and according to precedent on the boards (ignorance of precedent or definition is no excuse). My judgement is final and overrides definition and precedent. Please think carefully before posting here. Many posters feel that this policy does more harm than good to both the boards as a whole and to individual members of these boards. My overriding concern is with the boards as a whole (will sacrifice individuals for it) but really I'm not even concerned about that since I won't systematically alter anything in order to actually observe what is best.
It just becomes more of a sick joke the further I go along, huh.
Sometimes if you care. You just gotta let it go.
Posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 17:15:27
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:57:46
> I need to... Be careful about constructing my environment so that it is pleasant and rewarding to me. Need to avoid places where I don't feel safe.
>
> I need to not be posting here. Given that 'change is slow' and so on and so forth. It is better for me not to be here.
>
> And my take... Is that a friend would accept that and wish me well. I mean they could try and persuade me that I'd be better off here... But then the fact that I could well get blocked for a year for arbitrary reasons, well, who would want to put a friend through that?If what is best for you is to move on, then of course a friend would accept that and... Wait. I refuse to wish you well. That would imply that I'm not going to see you again. A friend would accept that and support you in whatever is best for you, in this and everything else.
As of course I do.
I've never thought you were too ill for Babble. I do think you care an awful lot about it, and that really increases the chances of being hurt by it. Especially with regard to Dr. Bob. There are elements of blank slate there that are a bit like therapy relationships, but without the chance for rapprochement and repair. Believe me, I understand.
Is there anything Dr. Bob *could* do that would help? Short of promising never to block you again? I don't think he can promise any of us that.
Personally, I think he's gotten a whole lot better about arbitrariness. But I suppose that's a matter that's open to debate.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 17:33:43
In reply to Re: Subject line change, posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 17:04:04
I really do... Think he does think that. He seems to think that everyone can see when someone is posting in violation of his rules and he thinks that what a friend would do would be to point out to the person that what they have done is in violation and then try and persuade the person that what they have done is harmful to others and emotionally manipulate them into apologizing for what they posted and endeavor not to do it again. I really do think that that he what he thinks.
What he fails to see is that people do violate the civility rules as an act of civil disobedience. They do it to protest the rules. In the spirit of 'go on then punish me the way you think you are justified in punishing me' and then there it is on record as a counter-example to the thought that Bob does have some special insight into the nature of civility and respect.
Hard to think that the civility rules are about the ordinary notion of civility and disrespect when someone gets blocked for one year for posting 'sh*t' without an asterisk. To see that he does such things... Shows people how unsafe things are here. How arbitrary blocks can be (sometimes he will sometimes he won't). To show people how unfair the punishments can be (one year for that? how does saying f*rt without an asterisk harm vulnerable people here?)
He can do what he wants since it is his site. But if that is the way he views it (my way or the highway) then he owes it to people to be honest about this and to stop playing fr*gg*ng games pretending that it is about something other than that.
Socrates friends railed against the laws (because they genuinely thought they were arbitrary and that the punishment was too harsh). Not saying that is what a friend HAS TO do but I do think that that is a viable way of showing friendship. Note: They didn't protest merely out of a gesture of friendship where they really secretly thought that the laws were okay and they hoped they would stay the same. Bob seems to think that that is what protest is about here. Socrates friends genuinely thought a change to the laws was in order. It is true that the persecution of a friend really brought the unfairness of the interpretation of the laws to their attention, however (sure they didn't think corrupting the young was acceptable - that isn't the issue). Of course some of Socrates other friends might well have thought that the interpretation of the law was okay and that really Socrates should have altered his behavior (stopped questioning the young). I suppose a friend could think that. Still, seems that friends aren't required to do that. Indeed... I think friendships are likely to be strained when there is such fundamental disagreement.
There was another option for Socrates. He could have left the state once it became clear to him that he was going to be persecuted for being himself. Yeah, he made people feel uncomfortable sometimes. But he wasn't malevolently motivated. Don't know what he was like when talking about emotional matters but not so hard to imagine him being sensitive to the feelings of others while simultaneously persisting in asking the hard questions... People could have chosen not to interact with him, I suppose. I think... It is time for me to go. I don't think people should be uncivil or disrespectful to one another. I do think... That what I think civility and respect requires is different from Bob's such that I could be blocked at fairly much any time he feels like it. I... Refuse to change my posting style. I always was willing to help sort things out if people expressed they were hurt with me. Maybe not as fast as Bob would have liked... But I did my best with that. If that isn't within the spirit of civility well... So much for whatever it is that civility means here.
I do have IRL communities that accept me for who I am. The community here well... Could be blocked at any time, really. I realize that that is making me less likely to accord with my own notion of what civility and respect requires than I was before I came here. So... Time for me to move on. For my own mental health. I know you are a good friend Dinah. I know I similarly supported Dr Bob when I thought I could see where he was coming from. Trouble is that certain things glare at me (Zen got one year for saying 'sh*t' in a heartfelt post where she was really struggling with a great deal). He... Never apologized for that. He never thought that one year blocking was too harsh for that. I... Can't respect a person who thinks that that is okay. And... He hasn't really changed. So... I need to hold on to what I think civility and respect require and... Move on from here. That is basically what I need to do.
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.