![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on October 20, 2006, at 21:00:14
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
Ohhh!
VERY good Li.
Very logical etc. Bob'd proly like that!
Good for you!
I like it too.
More fair, IF you must be blocked,
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 21:26:39
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm?, posted by mike lynch on October 20, 2006, at 15:12:40
> People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
Hi Mike,
I find your response to my post offensive.Do you think my voice is unimportant?
If I thought I had zero chance of changing anything, I would not have spent so much time searching archives for four contrasting examples.
Perhaps I have little chance of changing Bob's mind, but I cannot admit that I do not hold out some small sliver of hope.
That hope is all we have sometimes. If you find the system hopeless, perhaps you should write your own thread about that, rather than question my ability to make a difference.
If nobody says anything? If we all hang our heads and accept the current mathematics, despite the idiosyncrasies I demonstrated?
Well, learned helplessness and detached acceptance of abuse are some of my past daemons. Part of my healing process is that I'm learning how to speak my own voice. It sounded to me that you may think my voice of no consequence, but it's all I have.
Sometimes it only takes one voice, Mike Lynch.
-Li
Posted by Toph on October 20, 2006, at 22:04:26
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
I would like to see a poll of posters to evaluate if having a complicated blocking algorithm: (yes or no)
a) makes the punishment system seem more fair
b) makes Bob appear more compassionate
c) encourages posters to be more civil
d) makes disciplined posters feel as if considered circumstances mitigated their punishment
Posted by ClearSkies on October 20, 2006, at 22:39:35
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm? » mike lynch, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 21:26:39
> > People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
>
> Hi Mike,
> I find your response to my post offensive.
>
I interpreted Mike Lynch's comment to be about the futility of trying to change the block system. I don't think he was intending to denigrate others' discussions and suggestion to improve it, rather, that these efforts haven't had much success in the past.ClearSkies
Posted by muffled on October 20, 2006, at 23:51:19
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm? » Lindenblüte, posted by ClearSkies on October 20, 2006, at 22:39:35
> > > People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > I find your response to my post offensive.
> >
> I interpreted Mike Lynch's comment to be about the futility of trying to change the block system. I don't think he was intending to denigrate others' discussions and suggestion to improve it, rather, that these efforts haven't had much success in the past.
>
> ClearSkiesWell right now I'm fighting a major anxiety attack and can't find my xanax and am trying to distract, but anyways I think in the time I've been here, which isn't long. I think the blockings have changed some. I think mebbe Bob is trying to cvome up w/something, and I think something mathmatgical like this will appeaL to him, HGowever I been wrong before.
Yeah well, i'l,l just keep rocking away
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by mike lynch on October 21, 2006, at 2:07:02
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm? » mike lynch, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 21:26:39
> > People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
>
> Hi Mike,
> I find your response to my post offensive.
>
> Do you think my voice is unimportant?
>
> If I thought I had zero chance of changing anything, I would not have spent so much time searching archives for four contrasting examples.
>
> Perhaps I have little chance of changing Bob's mind, but I cannot admit that I do not hold out some small sliver of hope.
>
> That hope is all we have sometimes. If you find the system hopeless, perhaps you should write your own thread about that, rather than question my ability to make a difference.
>
> If nobody says anything? If we all hang our heads and accept the current mathematics, despite the idiosyncrasies I demonstrated?
>
> Well, learned helplessness and detached acceptance of abuse are some of my past daemons. Part of my healing process is that I'm learning how to speak my own voice. It sounded to me that you may think my voice of no consequence, but it's all I have.
>
> Sometimes it only takes one voice, Mike Lynch.
>
> -Li
>
My post was more of a jab at the babble administration being unwilling to consider constant member complaints about the blocking policy, not your attempt to speak out about it. Sorry if it was taken the wrong way.
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 21, 2006, at 9:04:10
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm?, posted by mike lynch on October 21, 2006, at 2:07:02
> > > People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > I find your response to my post offensive.
> >
> > Do you think my voice is unimportant?
> >
> > If I thought I had zero chance of changing anything, I would not have spent so much time searching archives for four contrasting examples.
> >
> > Perhaps I have little chance of changing Bob's mind, but I cannot admit that I do not hold out some small sliver of hope.
> >
> > That hope is all we have sometimes. If you find the system hopeless, perhaps you should write your own thread about that, rather than question my ability to make a difference.
> >
> > If nobody says anything? If we all hang our heads and accept the current mathematics, despite the idiosyncrasies I demonstrated?
> >
> > Well, learned helplessness and detached acceptance of abuse are some of my past daemons. Part of my healing process is that I'm learning how to speak my own voice. It sounded to me that you may think my voice of no consequence, but it's all I have.
> >
> > Sometimes it only takes one voice, Mike Lynch.
> >
> > -Li
> >
>
>
> My post was more of a jab at the babble administration being unwilling to consider constant member complaints about the blocking policy, not your attempt to speak out about it. Sorry if it was taken the wrong way.I apologize to you too, because I may have spoken hastily. When I said that I found your post offensive, that's not exactly right. I felt offended, but actually your post was not offensive.
Sorry about my incivility.
Sometimes trying to change things on babble feels like trying to parallel park a cruise liner. I totally understand the instinctive reaction of frustration at the "system". I think that's pretty justified.
Well, nice to meet you, Mike, even if it is under these less than ideal circumstances.
-Li
Posted by muffled on October 21, 2006, at 11:54:06
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm?, posted by mike lynch on October 21, 2006, at 2:07:02
Posted by Toph on October 21, 2006, at 13:30:46
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Toph on October 20, 2006, at 22:04:26
> I would like to see a poll of posters to evaluate if having a complicated blocking algorithm: (yes or no)
> a) makes the punishment system seem more fair
> b) makes Bob appear more compassionate
> c) encourages posters to be more civil
> d) makes disciplined posters feel as if considered circumstances mitigated their punishment
>I would have to respond with identical answers to all four.
Posted by damos on October 21, 2006, at 19:33:46
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
Hi Li,
Thanks for your post, it's much appreciated. It is a valuable contribution and I've more to say on the subject. Just wanted to say thanks and that I'm really glad we have people like you here. I'm up for some tilting at windmills if you are.
Hope al your works stuff went okay this week.
Take good care okay,
Damos
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 22, 2006, at 8:29:32
In reply to Re: Block length algorithm poll, posted by Toph on October 21, 2006, at 13:30:46
> > I would like to see a poll of posters to evaluate if having a complicated blocking algorithm: (yes or no)
> > a) makes the punishment system seem more fair
yes It "seems" more fair, but on closer examination has flaws that need to be addressed (i.e. the rounding errors that may potentially be multiplied several times over!)> > b) makes Bob appear more compassionate
no comment.> > c) encourages posters to be more civil
block is a block. I try to be civil independent of external sources of punishment. I am plenty capable of punishing myself.> > d) makes disciplined posters feel as if considered circumstances mitigated their punishment
The current blocking system does not accomplish this.
> >
>
> I would have to respond with identical answers to all four.
>If forced to respond yes/no, I would respond "no" to all of the above.
good questions.
-Li
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 22, 2006, at 8:41:43
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm? » Lindenblüte, posted by damos on October 21, 2006, at 19:33:46
> Hi Li,
>
> Thanks for your post, it's much appreciated. It is a valuable contribution and I've more to say on the subject. Just wanted to say thanks and that I'm really glad we have people like you here. I'm up for some tilting at windmills if you are.Your welcome, Damos. When you are ready to say your stuff, you SHOULD! Our benevolent dictator seems to be open to hearing pleas, if not immediately acting on them.
I may or may not continue trying to tilt windmills. I'm kind of sensitive, so if I feel that the Admin board is getting too hot, I'd rather duck out for a day or a month.
I was just struck by this particular bias in the blocking system that seemed so arbitrary, counter-conventional etc. It seemed very un-pdoc-ish, and I felt the need to bring it to Dr. Bob's attention (as well as the rest of the community who hve to oblige by Dr. Bob's block length calculations.
> Hope al your works stuff went okay this week.
One of the glories of doing 5 days worth of work in 2 days is that the other 3 days are spent exhausted, stressed out, on vacation lol. No, in all seriousness, yesterday evening and this am is the first time I feel "like myself" in a week or more. I realize now that a regular, reasonable, predictable schedule is VERY important for my mental stability. (Cat helps too)
-Li
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
> My modest proposal is that a block of 1 week be expunged from the records after minimum 5 weeks of civil behavior. 2 weeks = 10 weeks and so on.
>
> Futhermore, I believe that a reduction in block length should be taken into account without rounding, and after multiplication.Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round. But 10 felt to me like a good number to divide by. And reducing after multiplying would mean less of a reduction, are you sure that's what you want to propose?
> Let's take Example 4.
>
> If we take a block length of 2 weeks (for being uncivil towards a particular individual or group) and add 4 weeks (the length of the previous block), we have 6 weeks.That's adding, not multiplying...
Bob
Posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 13:09:50
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round.
So how about rounding up at either 5 or and above or 6 and above ?
Posted by gardenergirl on October 22, 2006, at 18:45:17
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 13:09:50
Posted by muffled on October 22, 2006, at 23:16:28
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 13:09:50
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 7:54:13
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
> > My modest proposal is that a block of 1 week be expunged from the records after minimum 5 weeks of civil behavior. 2 weeks = 10 weeks and so on.
> >
> > Futhermore, I believe that a reduction in block length should be taken into account without rounding, and after multiplication.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round. But 10 felt to me like a good number to divide by. And reducing after multiplying would mean less of a reduction, are you sure that's what you want to propose?
I would like to reduce block length. I'm not exactly sure why a block longer than a few weeks is necessary. I certainly find it hard to justify a block that lasts months. It seems awfully harsh and punitive, and not at all in the spirit of a supportive website. I guess I don't really like multiplication at all.> > Let's take Example 4.
> >
> > If we take a block length of 2 weeks (for being uncivil towards a particular individual or group) and add 4 weeks (the length of the previous block), we have 6 weeks.
>
> That's adding, not multiplying...
>
> BobGood noticing, Dr. Bob.
Can you please address the issue of BIAS in terms of ROUNDING ERROR?
notfred's suggestion, of rounding "up" for 5 and above (as per scientific convention) seems to eliminate a lot of my concerns.
-Li
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 10:43:09
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 7:54:13
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 10:45:30
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 7:54:13
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 11:10:28
In reply to Who votes for a block cap at say 4 wks max????? (nm), posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 10:45:30
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:13:51
In reply to Who votes for a block cap at say 4 wks max????? (nm), posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 10:45:30
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:21:06
In reply to I don't. (nm), posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:13:51
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:24:25
In reply to How come Dinah? (nm) » Dinah, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:21:06
I don't even agree with the one year cap. Why would I agree with a four week one?
I believe in stratifying offenses. That's a different thing altogether.
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 15:13:53
In reply to Re: How come Dinah?, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:24:25
> I don't even agree with the one year cap. Why would I agree with a four week one?
>
> I believe in stratifying offenses. That's a different thing altogether.***I'm sorry if this is a difficult topic for you Dinah.
You don't need to reply if you don't want.
I guess I haven't been burnt by another poster badly, so I can't really say....
I guess what I was thinking is that there would be a eg. 4 week cap, but if the person re offends, there would be another 4 wk block etc.
Its just for me, there have been times when I have been somewhat in less control of myself than I am happy with. And I work on gaining control, but sometimes that takes a bit of work.
I just would hate to be blocked for a long time, cuz what if I mananged to get myself into a good place, and felt ok, and bad bout my behaviour, and wanted to talk to my babblefriens bout it all, but I couldn't cuz I was blocked for a long period of time......
So even though the state I was in that prompted the block was over, I would still be blocked. This is not supportive to me.
Keeping in mind that this IS a mental health site.
Some of us are in fact mentally ill, and w/med changes, and lkife changes etc etc, our moods may vary more than some people.
I often live just day to day. Changing ina short time period.
I don't tend to think long term.
Long term blocks are HUGE to me. HUGE. GIANGTIC.
Maybe they aren't to others.
And thats why the misunderstandings with the blocking process. Cuz blocking seems to be MUCH more hurtful to some than others.
And there's the prob. with Bob trying to have a generic blocking sysytem. Cuz we have a wide variety of people here. We are not all the same.
So that being said.....maybe its not a good place for some. But also that being said....I thot that Bob was trying to have a site that was SAFE for those that can't handle other , less civil sites....
So I dunno.
I just know that for me, blocks are INCREDIBLY painful.
And unexpected blocks INCREDIBLY triggering to me.
But that is me, Muffled.
Maybe I don't belong here?
Sometimes I get awful scared when I know I'm iffy. But I been doing good so far at staying away when I iffy.
But I still get scared sometimes, and don't talk, because I not sure I can talk right. When its noisy in my head, its not always clear to me.
I luv ya Dinah.
Hope things are going better for you.
You deserve good to happen.
((((Dinah))))
Take care,
Muffled
Posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 15:42:20
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round. But 10 felt to me like a good number to divide by.
>>>
Because the blocks are doubled (or tripled) the credit for time without blocks should also be doubled. This will be1 week without blocks=1 week credit
2 weeks without =2 weeks credit
3 weeks without =4 weeks credit
4 weeks without =8 weeks credit
5 weeks without =16 weeks credit
etc
8 weeks without=128weeks credit
etc
etc
14 weeks without=8192 weeks creditYou could then plug it into your formula dividing by 10 (which is a lovely number I agree)
This will allow even people who have a year block to begin over after 14 weeks without a block in contrast to the present wait of 10 YEARS to have a new start. An eight week block could be returned to a new beginning in 12 weeks rather that a year and a half.I think that is more likely to provide an incentive to stay block free.
At the same time it will take 4 weeks to erase a one week block. This might provide a reasonable incentive to keep block free for longer at the beginning.
PS Rounding up would be no less complicated than rounding down :)
> >
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.