![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by greywolf on April 6, 2006, at 0:36:21
In reply to Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by Racer on April 4, 2006, at 19:44:04
I guess I'm jaded when it comes to civility (probably from spending too much time on Fark), but my sense is that civility is being over-enforced here. I'm not talking about posts that are abusive or threatening or obviously insensitive to someone. Rather, civility seems to sometimes be interpreted to prohibit posts that are pretty innocuous simply because someone else may not like them. That's sounds a little like the heckler's veto to me.
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 6, 2006, at 10:23:36
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » NikkiT2, posted by Racer on April 5, 2006, at 23:54:11
Its OK, I'm not making much sense to myself this week (strong painkillers make my head a little.. interesting!)
OK..
How do you determine what a serious infraction is?! At what point do you "ban their IP into infinity" (you really shouldn't mention the I word around me though.. My head doesn't deal with infinity very well *L*)?
This has been the best suggestion so far though.. standard 1 week blocks.. with rules set down for certain circumstances where they could be longer (ie, threats to a person, release of personal information etc)..
Worth pondering for sure
Nikki x
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 10:45:53
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » NikkiT2, posted by Racer on April 5, 2006, at 23:54:11
>>What about people that are unable "to learn from their block".. or, to put it another way, being serially blocked?
Its because when punishment far exceeds what the offence deserves, the subject won't learn anything, they will forget why it happened and associate it with other things and they will feel angry.
If the punishment is too harsh, it usually will never prevent anything, sometimes teach ways around it and others ways of offending until that becomes an offence. Severity/harshness of punishemnt has a positive relationship with repeat offending (off the baords, and probably on too)
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 6, 2006, at 11:13:23
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 10:45:53
I think you're probably lucky that you've never been repeatedly hurt by someone online
Nikki
Posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 11:53:53
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 10:45:53
Maybe this doesn't fit here at all and I apologize in advance but when someone is put in jail how come they get out and do the same thing over and over like robbery. Some people don't learn. Love Phillipa ps I could name a particular poster from the past and I think you remember him but I won't.
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 11:57:15
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » LegWarmers, posted by NikkiT2 on April 6, 2006, at 11:13:23
> I think you're probably lucky that you've never been repeatedly hurt by someone online
>
> NikkiMaybe, But I wasn't including in that the grossy inapropriate events that occur. I should have included that in actually. Thsoe people should recieve the year ban or lifetime whatever.... but I was referring more to the regular group of posters who in general isnt out to hurt anyone... but I don't have much online experience so... you have a point.
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 11:59:47
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » NikkiT2, posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 11:57:15
>.... but I was referring more to the regular group of posters who in general isnt out to hurt anyone...
I have let the spelling go and the punctuation go... to fast typing... but grammer! no I can't do that.
That was meant to be **aren't** not ISN'T
Posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 12:00:27
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » LegWarmers, posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 11:53:53
My post was to Nikki. Love Phillipa
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 12:01:30
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » Racer, posted by NikkiT2 on April 6, 2006, at 10:23:36
>
> How do you determine what a serious infraction is?! At what point do you "ban their IP into infinity" (you really shouldn't mention the I word around me though.. My head doesn't deal with infinity very well *L*)?
>
> This has been the best suggestion so far though.. standard 1 week blocks.. with rules set down for certain circumstances where they could be longer (ie, threats to a person, release of personal information etc)..hey! i liked mine too ; ) j/k
>
> Worth pondering for sure
>I agree!
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 12:03:51
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » LegWarmers, posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 11:53:53
> Maybe this doesn't fit here at all and I apologize in advance but when someone is put in jail how come they get out and do the same thing over and over like robbery. Some people don't learn. Love Phillipa ps I could name a particular poster from the past and I think you remember him but I won't.
if you really want to know... babble me... because Im sure the rest are sick of me by now lol But there are reasons, its not so much about "not learning" it has a lot to do with rules and .... STOP IT LEGWARMERS
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 12:04:31
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 12:00:27
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 6, 2006, at 12:08:49
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » LegWarmers, posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 11:53:53
>Maybe this doesn't fit here at all and I apologize in advance but when someone is put in jail how come they get out and do the same thing over and over like robbery. Some people don't learn. Love Phillipa ps I could name a particular poster from the past and I think you remember him but I won't.
I think we're on the same wave length ;)
Nikki x
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 12:12:08
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » Phillipa, posted by NikkiT2 on April 6, 2006, at 12:08:49
>
> I think we're on the same wave length ;)
I wish I was on the same wavelength as someone else...
Posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 12:33:08
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » Phillipa, posted by NikkiT2 on April 6, 2006, at 12:08:49
Another question seriously not pertaining to me or anyone I know but in general I was thinking bad thing for me to do. If a poster is blocked. And two people can't post from the same computer. While the person is blocked can the other person post from that computer while the other is blocked. That way only one person is posting from that computer during the block? Love Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2006, at 14:09:32
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 10:45:53
Oh, it warms my heart when someone can use stuff from psychology class in other areas. And when they do it correctly. :)
Not that I can take credit for your brilliance. But having taught this before, it's so nice to see that it actually does get retained.
Yeah LW!
gg
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 18:06:09
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » LegWarmers, posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2006, at 14:09:32
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2006, at 3:55:16
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 12:33:08
> Have you ever considered reducing the block lengths? ... maybe changing them all to one week, with a few exceptions that would be considerably longer? (I'm actually thinking lifetime bans...)
>
> RacerThis is an important issue, but I don't think there's an easy answer. For one thing, I think some situations are in-between...
> I don't know what the intended purpose is, but if it's to modify behavior, I think that blocks beyond a few weeks max gets into a question of diminshing returns.
>
> If it's to protect the community, well...I suppose you could go on the premise that each "infraction" contributes an additive amount of potential harm, and so increased protection by blocking longer could conceivably be warranted. I wouldn't agree with that reasoning, however.
>
> ggWhy wouldn't you agree? I think I see it as both...
What if block lengths could decrease as well as increase? The duration of a block is based on the duration of the previous block. If it's been a while since the previous block, maybe it could be based on a shorter period of time?
For example, say a poster is blocked for 3 weeks, returns, and the next day posts something uncivil. The standard procedure would be to double the 3 weeks and block them for 6 weeks. If, however, they follow the guidelines for a while before being blocked again, it could be 3 - 1 = 2 weeks that's doubled, and they'd be blocked for 4 weeks.
How does that sound? The question, of course, would be how long "a while" should be...
--
> If a poster is blocked. And two people can't post from the same computer. While the person is blocked can the other person post from that computer while the other is blocked. That way only one person is posting from that computer during the block?
>
> PhillipaIf either of them were blocked, the other would be, too:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/614125.html
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 8:36:57
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2006, at 3:55:16
Isn't the cooling off block now in effect? So that if someone has followed the rules for (insert number of months here) and the civility guideline breach wasn't incredibly egregious, they could be blocked for one week no matter how long they've previously been blocked for.
Allowing someone to make a bad choice every now and again without remembering every past bad choice (or lack of knowledge) they ever made seems like good administrating (just like parenting). Who wants to hear they're grounded for a month, because in third grade they snuck out their window to meet with friends when they were told to study.
On the other hand, ignoring the fact that they snuck out last night, and last week, and ten days ago seems unwise as well.
If I were blocking king, this would be my choice.
1) I agree with Dr. Bob that if someone's blocked, comes back, and is soon in violation of the civility guidelines for similar infractions, the block should be doubled. If a post is particularly uncivil to another poster, or Dr. Bob, the block should be doubled or tripled as now.
2) Each time a poster posts while blocked, the block should be doubled, and not capped at one year.
3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster) or Poster X (posting to someone who has requested a DNP) or Poster X (violating Faith or Politics guidelines).
4) Depending on circumstances, if someone clearly doesn't understand their PBC, makes an effort to reply that would ordinarily get them a block, but again, clearly doesn't understand what they've done wrong, a deputy (because Dr. Bob probably doesn't have time for this) or fellow poster with knowledge of the topic can suggest they rephrase, with a reasonably detailed explanation of what would be an allowable rephrasing. I think a lot of anger comes when people don't understand why what they've done wrong is in violation of civility guidelines, or how to phrase an I statement.
5) As now, there could be judgement applied by Dr. Bob. So that something could fall in teh middle. No doubling, a reduction, or anything else that seems appropriate under the circumstances. Only for a lesser block, not a greater block.
6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted. Maybe along with alternative suggestions.
7) More deputy and fellow poster (and administrator) warnings on what look to be heated threads. After such warnings, people would post at their own risk, and PBC's and blocks would be based on the fact that a warning has been given.
8) Additions to the standard language on those warnings, and on PBC's and posts that are reactive in nature, that posts be reported on Admin (with only a single line URL and a "Please review this") or by emailing deputies and/or Dr. Bob. And that if one chooses to reply, one should be very very careful on wording.
8) I don't think that every PBC or block needs a committee meeting, but perhaps an open minded discussion of longer blocks could be addressed by committee.
9) If shorter blocks are given, it might be a good idea to briefly give the reason. e.g. This was a new infraction, or this falls under the guidelines for a cooling off block because there hasn't been any infractions for xx months.
10) New posters should have added to their PBC's the consequences of further rule infractions, or a very specific link to the FAQ on that. This site is unusual, and most sites I post at have major rules and consequences clearly stated on the opening page. I realize Babble doesn't have an opening page, but still...
I know it seems complicated when written out like that. But it also seems to be based on common sense factors. IMHO, longer blocks should be reserved for situations where the poster clearly isn't making an effort to comply with the rules, or the spirit of the rules or where shorter blocks haven't had the desired effect.
But on the other hand, longer blocks *are* appropriate for those circumstances. Even if it's just for repeatedly saying *ss without blocking out the a. Because it's Dr. Bob's site, and he has the right to make the rules, since he has the responsibility and the ownership. And he has a right to expect that we make an effort to comply with them, if we choose to post here.
Or at least that's my take on it.
Posted by greywolf on April 11, 2006, at 10:26:45
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 8:36:57
This is all so easy to resolve. Dr. Bob could hire an agency to develop a training program to teach the mods how to employ the blocking formulas, then he could outsource the mod work to call centers in India.
Works for me.
> Isn't the cooling off block now in effect? So that if someone has followed the rules for (insert number of months here) and the civility guideline breach wasn't incredibly egregious, they could be blocked for one week no matter how long they've previously been blocked for.
>
> Allowing someone to make a bad choice every now and again without remembering every past bad choice (or lack of knowledge) they ever made seems like good administrating (just like parenting). Who wants to hear they're grounded for a month, because in third grade they snuck out their window to meet with friends when they were told to study.
>
> On the other hand, ignoring the fact that they snuck out last night, and last week, and ten days ago seems unwise as well.
>
> If I were blocking king, this would be my choice.
>
> 1) I agree with Dr. Bob that if someone's blocked, comes back, and is soon in violation of the civility guidelines for similar infractions, the block should be doubled. If a post is particularly uncivil to another poster, or Dr. Bob, the block should be doubled or tripled as now.
>
> 2) Each time a poster posts while blocked, the block should be doubled, and not capped at one year.
>
> 3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster) or Poster X (posting to someone who has requested a DNP) or Poster X (violating Faith or Politics guidelines).
>
> 4) Depending on circumstances, if someone clearly doesn't understand their PBC, makes an effort to reply that would ordinarily get them a block, but again, clearly doesn't understand what they've done wrong, a deputy (because Dr. Bob probably doesn't have time for this) or fellow poster with knowledge of the topic can suggest they rephrase, with a reasonably detailed explanation of what would be an allowable rephrasing. I think a lot of anger comes when people don't understand why what they've done wrong is in violation of civility guidelines, or how to phrase an I statement.
>
> 5) As now, there could be judgement applied by Dr. Bob. So that something could fall in teh middle. No doubling, a reduction, or anything else that seems appropriate under the circumstances. Only for a lesser block, not a greater block.
>
> 6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted. Maybe along with alternative suggestions.
>
> 7) More deputy and fellow poster (and administrator) warnings on what look to be heated threads. After such warnings, people would post at their own risk, and PBC's and blocks would be based on the fact that a warning has been given.
>
> 8) Additions to the standard language on those warnings, and on PBC's and posts that are reactive in nature, that posts be reported on Admin (with only a single line URL and a "Please review this") or by emailing deputies and/or Dr. Bob. And that if one chooses to reply, one should be very very careful on wording.
>
> 8) I don't think that every PBC or block needs a committee meeting, but perhaps an open minded discussion of longer blocks could be addressed by committee.
>
> 9) If shorter blocks are given, it might be a good idea to briefly give the reason. e.g. This was a new infraction, or this falls under the guidelines for a cooling off block because there hasn't been any infractions for xx months.
>
> 10) New posters should have added to their PBC's the consequences of further rule infractions, or a very specific link to the FAQ on that. This site is unusual, and most sites I post at have major rules and consequences clearly stated on the opening page. I realize Babble doesn't have an opening page, but still...
>
> I know it seems complicated when written out like that. But it also seems to be based on common sense factors. IMHO, longer blocks should be reserved for situations where the poster clearly isn't making an effort to comply with the rules, or the spirit of the rules or where shorter blocks haven't had the desired effect.
>
> But on the other hand, longer blocks *are* appropriate for those circumstances. Even if it's just for repeatedly saying *ss without blocking out the a. Because it's Dr. Bob's site, and he has the right to make the rules, since he has the responsibility and the ownership. And he has a right to expect that we make an effort to comply with them, if we choose to post here.
>
> Or at least that's my take on it.
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 15:29:33
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by greywolf on April 11, 2006, at 10:26:45
Well, perhaps at least Dr. Bob will find something in my ideas to consider.
Posted by greywolf on April 11, 2006, at 15:40:27
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 15:29:33
> Well, perhaps at least Dr. Bob will find something in my ideas to consider.
I was just kidding around, Dinah. I thought your ideas were great.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 11, 2006, at 15:51:38
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 15:29:33
I can tell you put a lot of thought into your ideas, and I think there are good things to consider there.
The logistics, however, sort of makes my head hurt. But then again, we never get to see that darned spreadsheet. So perhaps under a plan such as yours, the logistics of determining block length is not something deputies will have to deal with.
I'm glad you posted this.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on April 11, 2006, at 16:02:34
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2006, at 3:55:16
>> > I don't know what the intended purpose is, but if it's to modify behavior, I think that blocks beyond a few weeks max gets into a question of diminshing returns.
> >
> > If it's to protect the community, well...I suppose you could go on the premise that each "infraction" contributes an additive amount of potential harm, and so increased protection by blocking longer could conceivably be warranted. I wouldn't agree with that reasoning, however.
> >
> > gg
>
> Why wouldn't you agree? I think I see it as both...I hesitate to say this, because I'm sure that others' experiences differ widely. But suppose a poster with one PBC used a vulgur word without the asterisk, then negatively characterized another poster's post which was itself uncivil, then quoted uncivil material in their reply to someone, then mistyped and used another vulgar word accidentally. Under the old system, this person would be now be blocked for 16 weeks. Do we really need to be "protected" from this person for 4 months? It's not that simple. I can't imagine that each uncivil post could lead to an equivalent "amount" of harm. Viewing all uncivil posts as additive just seems too simplistic given the complexity of all the factors related to blocks.
>
>> For example, say a poster is blocked for 3 weeks, returns, and the next day posts something uncivil. The standard procedure would be to double the 3 weeks and block them for 6 weeks. If, however, they follow the guidelines for a while before being blocked again, it could be 3 - 1 = 2 weeks that's doubled, and they'd be blocked for 4 weeks.If you feel confident that you could keep track of that and apply it consistently, sounds fine. I have no such confidence in my own abilities to apply a system like this. I think I'd have to ask you to determine block lengths for anyone I would block, unless we have a better way of knowing each poster's "status".
>
> How does that sound? The question, of course, would be how long "a while" should be...True. And I believe we also need to determine that for the cooling off blocks as well?
gg
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 16:12:35
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on April 11, 2006, at 15:51:38
That was an issue I thought about addressing, but I wasn't sure how I felt about it. Certainly I don't want to determine block lengths. But it would be nice to know if someone's already been pbc'd or blocked. Now I always have to start with a PBC no matter what unless I specifically remember something, or it's on the same page.
On the other hand, there may be things on there that we're not supposed to be privy to.
I probably made my suggestion too complex. I've been rambly lately so I tried to break it down into small parts. The overall idea is to reduce block lengths in most circumstances, while allowing for longer blocks when circumstances call for it. And maybe to make public what dr. bob probably privately considers. And to try to do something about some situations that aren't covered under any rules, but seem to cause upheaval.
Which maybe is a complex goal.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 11, 2006, at 17:20:52
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2006, at 3:55:16
You found something with a grey area!
>>This is an important issue, but I don't think there's an easy answer. For one thing, I think some situations are in-between...
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.