![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by wendy b. on April 30, 2002, at 15:15:19
> > i, for one, am glad that she's gone - life is much better without her
(etc.)
> I've asked you to be civil before, so I'm going to block you from posting now.
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, or complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration, thanks.
Bob,Can you please explain to us why this person has only been blocked for a week? I am not asking this in an aggressive way (i.e. - telling you what you should or shouldn't do). But what criteria did you use to decide that s/he deserved 1 week instead of 2? or more? I'd be interested.
The hateful words about Sar really hurt me, and my memory of her, and disturbed many others, I would guess... because she attacked a truly good person. And the grief is still pretty strong... I don't know, it makes me sooo sad.
wendy
Posted by kid_A on April 30, 2002, at 16:00:54
In reply to Re: blocked for week scared » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on April 30, 2002, at 15:15:19
> > > i, for one, am glad that she's gone - life is much better without her
>
> (etc.)Doc Bob,
I'm familiar with the idea of the Troll, or poster who attempts to rile up or agitate others by derisive comments such as this so despite my connection to sar, I can't say I was quite "offended" as the comment is almost laughable in it's baselessness...But I am in agreement with wendy, why the choice for 1 week rather than two? I've seen two weeks handed out for less, and this comment seems to be intentionally spitefull... not to mention, considering the seriousness of the subject matter, nothing that anyone would want to peruse while surfing a site based around mutual -support-
I also agree with beardedlady in regards to the fact that some people will naturally be taken in by the bait and respond in some fashion just simply out of protection of their 'teritory'... Even though that ignoring the poster is ultimately the best weapon, I think those that have come to rely on this board as a source of information and support may tend to naturally react defensively when comments like these are made. Furthermore, I also don't think that the statement that someone is looking for attention is too far off the mark in this case... There are far too many incidents on the net that have similar modus operandi to overlook the notion that someone may just be out looking to fuel their own sick sense of need...
Only time will tell but it seems doubtfull that said poster will contribute meaningfully or suportively to the board, nor after said comments will anyone care if they do...
Do you have a contingency plan for such a poster who has claimed that they will simply re-register and come back to insite more ire...?
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 30, 2002, at 20:30:05
In reply to Re: blocked for week scared » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on April 30, 2002, at 15:15:19
In total agreement with you two. Thank you - I feel supported as well.
= k.
Posted by Zo on April 30, 2002, at 21:58:25
In reply to Re: blocked for week scared » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on April 30, 2002, at 15:15:19
I was going to start a thread on this, but Wendy beat me to it.IMO, Bob, you can go a long way to restoring peace on the boards by backing off on the routine blocking (that seems to have increased lately) and really coming down on the purely egregrious junk like this.
I think that an indefinite number of PBCs to good people would make the general atmosphere feel more safe, as well as giving the uncivil but well-meaning posters a chance to learn.
I strongly believe that blocking should be reserved for harmful posters, such as this, and for truly disruptive acting out.
And it certainly the length of the block should be consistent.
I don't know if you're aware of how badly people need consistency. I'd really appreciate it if you became more sensitive to this need.
Thanks,
Zo
Posted by mist on May 1, 2002, at 9:45:49
In reply to Re: blocked for week scared » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on April 30, 2002, at 15:15:19
The way I understand it you get two PBCs before being blocked. The first block is one week. The second is two weeks. After that it's longer.
Why certain people get PBCs and blocks and others don't I still haven't figured out. It seems kind of whimsical at times.
I believe that if a poster comes onto the board to be deliberately hateful, unkind, and destructive, they should be permanently banned at the first infraction. It's not doing them or anyone else a favor to let them post. Their posts should also be deleted.
Posted by kid_A on May 1, 2002, at 11:31:28
In reply to PBCs and Blocking, posted by mist on May 1, 2002, at 9:45:49
Posted by IsoM on May 1, 2002, at 11:40:00
In reply to I'm Dumb... what does PBC stand for.....? (nm), posted by kid_A on May 1, 2002, at 11:31:28
Posted by IsoM on May 1, 2002, at 11:40:49
In reply to Re: blocked for week scared - Dr. Bob?, posted by Zo on April 30, 2002, at 21:58:25
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 2, 2002, at 0:35:10
In reply to Re: blocked for week scared - Dr. Bob?, posted by Zo on April 30, 2002, at 21:58:25
> Can you please explain to us why this person has only been blocked for a week? ... what criteria did you use to decide that s/he deserved 1 week instead of 2? or more?
>
> wendyThis is hard enough already, so lately I've just always been starting with a week. BTW, I recently added a new section to the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
--------
> I also agree with beardedlady in regards to the fact that some people will naturally be taken in by the bait and respond in some fashion just simply out of protection of their 'teritory'... Even though that ignoring the poster is ultimately the best weapon, I think those that have come to rely on this board as a source of information and support may tend to naturally react defensively when comments like these are made.
I understand that some people will have the urge to protect their territory -- and I'm glad they feel this territory is worth protecting -- but two wrongs don't make a right.
> Furthermore, I also don't think that the statement that someone is looking for attention is too far off the mark in this case...
It may not be too far off the mark, but it may. And even if it's on the mark, it still isn't very civil.
> Do you have a contingency plan for such a poster who has claimed that they will simply re-register and come back to insite more ire...?
>
> kid_AThe condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance
--John Philpot Curran
http://www.bartleby.com/66/93/15593.html--------
> I think that an indefinite number of PBCs to good people would make the general atmosphere feel more safe
>
> Zo1. This is hard enough already, so I'd rather not try to distinguish "good" people from "bad".
2. I think it's civility that makes it safe.
Bob
Posted by kid_A on May 2, 2002, at 15:55:43
In reply to Re: why only blocked for a week, posted by Dr. Bob on May 2, 2002, at 0:35:10
sorry, this is a bit long, with no capitalization, i dont like caps much... i'm a little like e.e. cummings in that way...first,
let's be assured that i respect the idea that this is in all respects a privately owned and opperated website who's rule system is governed by it's owner and opperator...now that in mind, lets examine the life system of the board as it relates to it's users. people will come and people will go, some asking for support, some giving, some a little of both, at any point in time there will be a cadre of regulars who we can refer to as the board's 'community'...
let's also say that by and large this community respects the rules of the board and under most circumstances act in a state of decorum...
but lo, there comes an interloper who attempts to disrupt this ballance with a very obviously mallicious intent, the poster's comments are designed to hurt and the community's collective feathers are ruffled... a few react as would be exected to provocation...
now, i understand that two wrongs don't make a right, i understand that no good will come from a constant flow of bantering amoungst the 'agressors' and 'defenders', thats why there are PBC's and blocks, to prevent this, i assume...
now, what i'm positing is that you are expecting common normally civil human beings to act like saints in the face of derisive and spitefull comments, in the best world perhaps, but is it really that likely?
also, who's interests are being served when posts like those attacking sar (and those who care about her),kazoo and lilli (somehow i think the lili post disapeared... was this one deleted?) ...who's interests are being served when these posts remain, potentially doing damage while they remain?
i understand the idea of keeping examples of what exactly constitutes uncivil behaviour, but in the end, who does this benifit most? who does it hurt?
i hope you understand my point, and that i do appreciate this board a great deal, but perhaps the people who actually do contribute here should be 'protected' from those who attempt to disrupt them...? just a thought...
This is the end of the 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.