![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 18:34:18
i tried to be civil
i did all along.once. i figured i would get blocked... but i was in SI mode. i got myself blocked. but i didn't cut myself or jump off anything or take an OD. just got blocked... and suffered for a week... or so.
but aside from that...
i tried to be civil
i did all along.but still i get blocked.
for others protection
for consistency i can only imagine.you don't understand the hurt.
you don't.
i thought i'd get over it
(see i'm being just like my mother)
i've been beating myself up...
trying not to...
beat myself up...why bob.
matter of principle...
i don't understand anymore.i'm here in terror
resigned to thinking i'll get blocked again sooner or later
i'm hanging my head
is that what you want?
us to resign ourselves to the notion that a block can come at us at any minute???did ya babblemail little jimmy to make sure he knew he was unblocked? why wouldn't he know? maybe he thought 'typical bob' when he was blocked for something he couldn't understand.
one person.
declan.
one person.
had the courage to say they didn't understand.
and you misread.but one person had the courage to say they didn't understand.
doesn't that tell you something?
you might think you make sense but you f*cking don't
no
you don'tand i guess i'm gonna be blocked soon enough for this kind of sh*t...
but i can't figure what is up
'cause i'm tossing up
ignorant or malevolent
and i can't get it
i can't be charitable
i don't see how to bethe pattern...
seems to be excluding a charitable interpretation.but then...
it is rare that you interpret a poster charitably.
very rare indeed.
you think we should trust you
when you don't trust us
you ask us to give you the benefit of the doubt when you
don't extend the same courtesy to ushypocritical.
and no doubt i'll get blocked for that...
but i don't support you anymore :-(
Posted by Deneb on April 7, 2006, at 19:36:24
In reply to i tried, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 18:34:18
((((((((((((((((((special k))))))))))))))))))))
Sorry you're hurting. I wish I could make it go away for you.
I don't think Dr. Bob is ignorant. Lots of people have expressed hurt over being blocked.
I don't think he's malevolent either. I think it's just his personality.
Deneb*
Posted by 10derHeart on April 7, 2006, at 19:44:17
In reply to i tried, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 18:34:18
Posted by greywolf on April 7, 2006, at 22:15:48
In reply to i tried, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 18:34:18
Can I respectfully make a suggestion?
Recently, controversy over blocks seems to be on the upswing, with several people becoming very upset about the issue. Of course, it is not for me to say who's right or wrong in any of these situations, but the solution seems pretty obvious: adjust your expectations to the standards of the site.
There are plenty of sites out there where you can go hog wild without fear that you'll be banned for anything you say. There are also sites where your posts don't hit the thread for hours because they must be approved first.
Dr. Bob's site is somewhat thin-skinned when it comes to free and open debate, but he's not exactly holding us to monastic silence here. I think all that is really required is a pause before you hit that submit button to give yourself an opportunity to back off or rephrase.
As to the fairness of blocks, look at any blog site on the net and you'll see the same debate. Some posters who should get blocked don't, and some posters who understandably retaliate get blocked while their antagonizers emerge unscathed. What do you call this dynamic? The real world, where fairness is not absolute, and penalties are not always measured out in equal and appropriate doses.
I'll put my soapbox away now, but not before I suggest that everyone weigh how insignificant the blocking issue is when compared to all the great things this site gives every day.
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 22:36:13
In reply to Re: i tried, posted by greywolf on April 7, 2006, at 22:15:48
> Can I respectfully make a suggestion?
of course you can.
i agree that there are lots of places to play on the internet... and that there must be some good things about this site otherwise people wouldn't stay here they would bugger off to another one.
i think there are two issues
warnings / blockings
length of blockings
i'm not sure that anybody has a problem with people NOT being blocked when they think they should be blocked.
the problem seems to be perceived as the other extreme with people being blocked for what are perceived to be relatively minor infractions.
but it doesn't stop there... then there is the length issue. i'd be a lot more tolerant about the first if the lengths of blocks were significantly shorter.
have you been blocked from a site where you typically make a number of posts every day?
can you imagine what it would feel like to be blocked for 6 weeks or 8 weeks or one year? i got 2 weeks for IMO a decidedly uncharitable interpretation of my post and that is when i started to really hear what people have been goin on about for a long time: blocks are handed out too readily and block lengths seem to be (for the majority of cases) far too long.
sure you get the odd person just here to cause trouble...
but how often when you compare that to the harm done to people who arne't here just to cause trouble. when you consider they try with the civility rules... and when they do their best and STILL find themselves getting blocked...
well... yeah people get a little pissed about then.
> adjust your expectations to the standards of the site.that would be one solution.
another would be to adjust the blocking system to met expectations.maybe... a middle ground?
> I think all that is really required is a pause before you hit that submit button to give yourself an opportunity to back off or rephrase.do you think this is the case for everything people get blocked for? i used to think so... but over time the exceptions, the 'how the f*ck was i supposed to know that' kind of blocks are stacking up...
> As to the fairness of blocks, look at any blog site on the net and you'll see the same debate. Some posters who should get blocked don't, and some posters who understandably retaliate get blocked while their antagonizers emerge unscathed.ah. i'm not protesting the block i think you think i'm protesting... oh no. i agree that you shouldn't lash out whether another lashed out at you first or not. no excuse. i don't have a problem with those kindsa blocks. it is the more 'technical / terminological' blocks that get to me...
> I'll put my soapbox away now, but not before I suggest that everyone weigh how insignificant the blocking issue is when compared to all the great things this site gives every day.
well... gives to those who are allowed to participate by the almighty decision maker...
Posted by greywolf on April 8, 2006, at 10:38:25
In reply to Re: i tried » greywolf, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 22:36:13
I understand what you're saying, special k, but my point is that the blocking/length of blocking stuff falls into my "it is what it is" category. That being the case, generally posting in a constructive, supportive way seems not to get people blocked, and posting in any other way seems to increase the risk you'll be in TO for a while.
There's a certain amount of imprecision or arbitratriness built into every system, and this one seems to err on the side of discouraging dispute, controversy, and tension by requiring an unusually high degree of sensitivity. But, given the focus of the site, I can see why.
I've seen blocking that I thought was a little heavy-handed, and I've seen blocking not employed when I felt it should have been. That's the way it goes. For instance, I totally agree with the blocking in the "provocative" thread that got so much attention above, and I wondered at the decision not to block the poster who started it all with what I felt were unnecessarily strong comments. I tended to agree with her assessment of the situation, but would not have phrased it like she did--in a way I would have bet would have resulted in a block.
But it didnt', and it left me wondering, and it caused me to again reach my regular conclusion: it's not a big enough deal to lose sleep over. Especially when I've got enough on my own plate as it is.
Posted by Declan on April 8, 2006, at 15:05:27
In reply to i tried, posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 18:34:18
I thought lill'jimmi WAS meant to be blocked, but there was a slip up in the justification (which to me often looks a little hasty, but why not? It must take time to go through all these posts) and because we are notionally rule based here, ended up escaping on a technicality. I still haven't gone to the links, but even then you'd have to compare them with previously unacceptable links in view of the civility policies etc. What I'd like to know, just for myself, is why he gets blocked so quickly.
Declan
Posted by muffled on April 8, 2006, at 23:31:29
In reply to Re: i tried, posted by greywolf on April 8, 2006, at 10:38:25
Greywolf, you sound wonderfully well adjusted.
I'm not.
I'm rather mentally f*cked over.
I find blocks shocking and very ostracisuing and hurtful
Stupid, stupid me.
I goto get a life I guess.
Got to get over being f*cked up.
Yup.
Then I don't goto be scared.
Mebbe this is a place for well adjusted people only.
But I didn't think that was the case.
I'm not perfect.
I got a temper.
Sometimes I get lost .
But I don't think i should be ostracized for that.
Sigh
Nice to meet ya,
Guess you not glad to meet me.
Muffled
Posted by greywolf on April 9, 2006, at 0:47:29
In reply to Re: i tried » greywolf, posted by muffled on April 8, 2006, at 23:31:29
> Greywolf, you sound wonderfully well adjusted.
> I'm not.
> I'm rather mentally f*cked over.
> I find blocks shocking and very ostracisuing and hurtful
> Stupid, stupid me.
> I goto get a life I guess.
> Got to get over being f*cked up.
> Yup.
> Then I don't goto be scared.
> Mebbe this is a place for well adjusted people only.
> But I didn't think that was the case.
> I'm not perfect.
> I got a temper.
> Sometimes I get lost .
> But I don't think i should be ostracized for that.
> Sigh
> Nice to meet ya,
> Guess you not glad to meet me.
> Muffled--Of course I'm glad to have met you, Muffled. And the idea of me being well-adjusted would be amusing to anyone who knows me. I've been struggling with BP and some ridiculous OCD problems for a long, long time, so well-adjusted is not an adjective commonly thrown my way.
My point, made with no intention of disrespect to you or anyone else, is that the issue of blocks and lengths of blocks seems to have taken on a life of its own--to an extent that one could say it defeats what I believe to be a necessary amount of moderation.
Remember, I deal with BP, and often find myself in rapid transitions from short term (a few days) euphoric states to long term periods (2 weeks) of very severe depression. I have been advised by psychiatrists that I am treatment resistant and that the only alternative I have is ECT, and I just can't bring myself to do it.
Consequently, I consciously seek moderation in my behavior, including my reactions to others. I am all too often not successful, causing pain to people I care about (as well as myself, but that's a secondary concern). In my manic stages, moderation sometimes helps prevent me from those "life of the party" behaviors that everyone loves while I'm making an *ss of myself, and never let me forget about after the party's over.
But I find moderation is most important when I'm at rock bottom and feel like people are giving me that extra kick to the head. I've had to learn and force myself to remember that there are times when things I want, feel I deserve, or simply depend on just won't be there--and unless I moderate my negative response, more misery will ensue.
I view blocking in those terms. I understand participation in this site is of significant importance for some, while it is merely a diversion for others. In either case, I think it's important to accept that participation in any community carries a risk that things will not always go as you prefer, and that sometimes you will disagree with the way the community's rules are enforced. That's completely understandable, and my main point was simply that it may be wise to build some room into your expectations that will allow you to more happily absorb events that you believe are unfair or undeserved.
I don't call that well-adjusted on my part. I call it misery avoidance. :)
Posted by Dinah on April 9, 2006, at 1:43:29
In reply to Re: i tried, posted by greywolf on April 9, 2006, at 0:47:29
:)
I admire that in a person. I need to work on it a bit myself.
Posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 4:55:50
In reply to Re: i tried, posted by greywolf on April 9, 2006, at 0:47:29
> My point, made with no intention of disrespect to you or anyone else, is that the issue of blocks and lengths of blocks seems to have taken on a life of its own
Yes. It comes up every now and then. I don't think the issue ever really goes away. But typically the issue escalates and then people get blocked and then people keep away from the issue (maybe out of fear).
> --to an extent that one could say it defeats what I believe to be a necessary amount of moderation.
????
I don't have a problem with the majority of blocks.
I do have a problem with the LENGTH of a fair few of the blocks, however. Not ALL of them, but a few of them.
> In my manic stages, moderation sometimes helps prevent me from those "life of the party" behaviors that everyone loves while I'm making an *ss of myself, and never let me forget about after the party's over.Wouldn't a warning do the trick?
If not then how long a block do you think would be appropriate to 'prevent' your making an *ss of yourself?One week?
Two weeks?
Six weeks?
One year?
> But I find moderation is most important when I'm at rock bottom and feel like people are giving me that extra kick to the head. I've had to learn and force myself to remember that there are times when things I want, feel I deserve, or simply depend on just won't be there--and unless I moderate my negative response, more misery will ensue.Okay. So sometimes blocks are appropriate. I don't mean to deny that. I don't have a problem with the majority of the blocks that are being handed out. Just a few of them... Just a few... And then there is the issue of the length of blockings...
> In either case, I think it's important to accept that participation in any community carries a risk that things will not always go as you prefer, and that sometimes you will disagree with the way the community's rules are enforced. That's completely understandable, and my main point was simply that it may be wise to build some room into your expectations that will allow you to more happily absorb events that you believe are unfair or undeserved.Okay.
Now imagine finding yourself blocked for...
6 weeks.
?
Posted by greywolf on April 9, 2006, at 10:45:39
In reply to Re: i tried » greywolf, posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 4:55:50
> In my manic stages, moderation sometimes helps prevent me from those "life of the party" behaviors that everyone loves while I'm making an *ss of myself, and never let me forget about after the party's over.
Wouldn't a warning do the trick?
If not then how long a block do you think would be appropriate to 'prevent' your making an *ss of yourself?One week?
Two weeks?
Six weeks?
One year?<<----I guess I'm not making myself very clear. There's a distinct difference between spontaneously acting out in a manic state publicly and going too far in a post on dr-bob.org. It's the difference between lying in the street pinned down by a couple bouncers while two mounted patrol ring you with horses (and you're not drunk) and posting "'X' is a liar."
I've found there are usually no blocks in real life (though there's plenty of encouragement--like the time people in a cave tour (none of whom I knew) thought it was funny for me to sneak off the path and play tunes on some beautiful stalagtites in a cave in the southwest. They also laughed while the park service ranger screamed bloody murder at me), so the analogy to the web is, in my opinion, inapt. If I did anything on this site even close to what I've done during manic states in the brick and mortar world, I wouldn't be looking at a block, I'd be appealing a lifetime ban.
So, we'll agree that you and I view bans and lengths of bans differently. Given my history, I'm just happy that blocks are an option and, if I view a block as unwarranted, I get a chance to appeal to Dr. Bob. If it works, great. If not, looks like I'll be catching up on my reading. Either way, I get a second chance here that I normally don't get when I f*ck up off the web.
And if I'm ever blocked for six weeks, I'll bet it means either that I did something incredibly obnoxious or had not learned a lesson from several other blocks. In either instance, a block of that length would give me pause to consider whether this site is appropriate for me.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 9, 2006, at 11:48:15
In reply to Re: i tried, posted by greywolf on April 9, 2006, at 0:47:29
> I don't call that well-adjusted on my part. I call it misery avoidance. :)
Still, misery avoidance seems like it contributes to feeling better than one might if one didn't actively avoid it. And moderation as one of your strategies sounds like a quite adaptive approach. Thanks for your post. I'm going to bookmark it so that I can remind myself when I find myself caught up in negative feelings about something.
gg
>
Posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 21:43:13
In reply to Re: i tried, posted by greywolf on April 9, 2006, at 10:45:39
> ----I guess I'm not making myself very clear.
sorry... i can be a bit dense sometimes...
> There's a distinct difference between spontaneously acting out in a manic state publicly and going too far in a post on dr-bob.org. It's the difference between lying in the street pinned down by a couple bouncers while two mounted patrol ring you with horses (and you're not drunk) and posting "'X' is a liar."
Ah. So you think that when people get blocked they are acting out on the boards rather than IRL. This may be the case sometimes... But is this the case all the time? It is the latter times I'm worried about...
>If I did anything on this site even close to what I've done during manic states in the brick and mortar world, I wouldn't be looking at a block, I'd be appealing a lifetime ban.Lifetime ban?
I thought blocks maxed out at one year on this site...
> So, we'll agree that you and I view bans and lengths of bans differently. Given my history, I'm just happy that blocks are an option and, if I view a block as unwarranted, I get a chance to appeal to Dr. Bob. If it works, great. If not, looks like I'll be catching up on my reading.Okay. What is the longest block you have got here?
> And if I'm ever blocked for six weeks, I'll bet it means either that I did something incredibly obnoxious or had not learned a lesson from several other blocks.I think that is how Bob looks at it, yes. He used to double the block length as a matter of course. You used to be able to get a one year block for forgetting to put an asterisk in the work '*ss'. Not so anymore with automated asterisking. He also seems to be doing repeat lengths rather than doubling as a matter of course (which I view as a good thing mostly).
I don't want the discussion to turn into polarities...
Either preserve the status quo or have no moderationI just think things could / should be revised a little more...
>In either instance, a block of that length would give me pause to consider whether this site is appropriate for me.
Yes.
I think we lose a fair few posters because of the blocking system...
Posters who might well stick around to give and receive support if they had shorter blocks. The block would still be a shock, it would still be a punishment etc etc. But they might return whereas they don't under the present system.
Posted by greywolf on April 9, 2006, at 22:22:04
In reply to Re: i tried » greywolf, posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 21:43:13
I've never been blocked here, or anywhere else. I've posted tens of thousands of times over the past several years on several sites, and I've managed to find the edge, but not cross it.One rule of thumb I follow is that I try not to post here when I'm either way up or way down. Sometimes when things are really bad, I do post here, but I'm usually in a state of sadness rather than anger, and that attitude doesn't normally lend itself to abusive or insensitive comments.
I'm really not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I understand the points that you and some other posters have made, and most of them aren't unreasonable. But I've learned over decades of dealing with the real suffering of BP, and a divorce, and raising 4 kids (one of whom is just 4 months old), and an overwhelming job, that there's just so much energy I can devote to conflict and debate.
Some things we just have to accept as they are. If we were able to accomplish that, maybe some of the good posters who've been blocked and not returned would have just looked at it as a cost of doing business at dr-bob.org, accepted their block good-naturedly even if it seemed heavy-handed, and returned eager to contribute once again.
Posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 22:33:54
In reply to Re: i tried, posted by greywolf on April 9, 2006, at 22:22:04
> I'm really not trying to convince you that you're wrong.
And I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong either...
> I understand the points that you and some other posters have made, and most of them aren't unreasonable. But I've learned over decades of dealing with the real suffering of BP, and a divorce, and raising 4 kids (one of whom is just 4 months old), and an overwhelming job, that there's just so much energy I can devote to conflict and debate.
Sure. I understand.
> Some things we just have to accept as they are. If we were able to accomplish that, maybe some of the good posters who've been blocked and not returned would have just looked at it as a cost of doing business at dr-bob.org, accepted their block good-naturedly even if it seemed heavy-handed, and returned eager to contribute once again.Yeah. If only I could look at it that way...
Sometimes... Blocks hurt too much for one to be able to do that.
It comes and goes for me. Sometimes I'm over it, othertimes I'm not.
I have tried.
Really.I don't post out of maliciousness.
I don't accuse or attack other people.
I get blocked for apologising / trying to make amends to people I've been requested not to post to...
And for critiquing ideas / ideology / govt. policy because people who like the idea / ideology / govt policy might feel put down...Regarding the latter... I don't know what to say...
I don't.
But I understand how people can get the blocks stacking up... Without going off. I don't know. I just think that a fair few blocks are simply too harsh.
But it wasn't till I got blocked that I saw that..
Before that... I was defending the blocking system... Defending Bob's decisions... Most of them sure I see the sense in...
But IMO the system is too harsh.
And for someone who gets blocked for a lengthy time (and they didn't just go off at someone) the boards feel unsafe because it feels like you could get blocked at ANY MINUTE for something you ahve said... Even if you haven't said anything wrong.
And for people who rely on this place for support (rightly or wrongly)
Being blocked...
I dunno. How would you feel if your therapist said they would'nt see you for 6wks because you critiqued a govt policy.
I don't know.
Sometimes I think the blocks hurt the poster far far more than their post hurt anybody else...
I don't understand :-(
Posted by muffled on April 13, 2006, at 0:18:52
In reply to Re: i tried » greywolf, posted by special_k on April 9, 2006, at 22:33:54
I don't understand either :-(
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.