![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 42. Go back in thread:
Posted by tensor on November 26, 2006, at 16:31:40
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by zenhussy on November 26, 2006, at 9:13:56
Posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 17:23:12
In reply to Re: the cap on block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 13:08:54
"But what if they never realize? Or realize, but don't change how they act? I think it would be disruptive if people were posting something uncivil every 2 weeks..."
I guess I see what you mean now.
really really heavy sigh.
maddie
Posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 17:37:55
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure » madeline, posted by ClearSkies on November 26, 2006, at 8:53:53
I reckon z knew exactly what he was doing.
It's just that it's such a pity to lose him.
Posted by Jost on November 26, 2006, at 17:50:44
In reply to Adults? » ClearSkies, posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 17:37:55
Who knows if he did considered the consequences, or if he had a momentary spasm of something that caused him not to be thinking.
I think blocks beyond a certain number of days/weeks (much shorter than 9, to be honest) make much more sense than protracted blocks that wipe the person out of existence.
First of all, people are much more likely to inhibit incivility if they get something out of it-- like being here- in a meaningfully immediate way-- a week, two weeks--something that could motivate behavior.
As the blocks get longer, the value of being here diminishes in significance-- and the anger about various injustices (perceived or real, I 'm not saying which in any particular case) becomes more significant-- and in reaction evoke (to the action of erasure that blocks invokes) erasure of the goodness of Pbabble, and of civility.
Plus what about the people who haven't been uncivil. Should we be deprived of the companionship of people because they've been uncivil, for such long periods of time? Should we be forced to protect ourselves from the loss by having to view them as expendible. It's not good for me to feel that people are so expendible that we can, or even would, erase them-- for anything less than truly very disruptive acts?
Which personally I can't imagine anyone thinking the comments about Bush, even under the aegis of extensive calculations about the consequences thereof, were.
I'm really surprised and disappointed that Bob takes this position Don't understand any rationale for it. Sorry.
Jost
Posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 18:01:14
In reply to Re: Adults?, posted by Jost on November 26, 2006, at 17:50:44
I'd hate anyone to think that *I* thought Zeugma had been uncivil. Blocks relating to opinion are silly, IMO, because no one takes offence anyway. (Offence as against strong disagreement)
But if you see things in terms of truth vs civilty, you may opt in favour of truth.
It's not for me to speak for Zeugma, but he has said in the past that he sees it like that.
Posted by henrietta on November 26, 2006, at 18:40:21
In reply to I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 7:48:29
Length is a major issue. Anything beyond 2 weeks seems counter-productive. ("What if they never realize?" feels like jumping to thumpin conclusions, predicting future behavior, making assumptions). But the bias and inconsistency are what bother me more. For instance, Nikkit4 accuses someone on the board of "childish acts", and assumes (yes assumes) that SHE is being "threatened" because "SHE doesn't do cr@ppy fluff, or was it fluffy cr@p?" Does that imply that others are offering fluffy cr@ap? (Racer, you're good as this, this implication stuff. What do you think?) Major jump. Major accusation. Major assumption. And then seal of approval immediately stamped by deputy clear skies. Can't say that went unnoticed, or was noticed too late to address.. Zazenducky gets PCBd for saying exactly the same thing deputy gg has said, a time or two, i.e. that sometimes how another person responds to you has more to do with that person's issues than with whatever it was you said. Somebody decided (leapt to the conclusion, made the assumption) that because ZZD said it, it was SARf'in'castic???? When gg says it, it isn't?
Posted by dreamboat_annie on November 26, 2006, at 19:06:23
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by henrietta on November 26, 2006, at 18:40:21
I agree with everything you have said, and I applaud your having said it! The double-standard is so glaringly obvious and repugnant it has become like one of those big hairy moles that cause people to look the other way. Dislaimer: This is not to say that I don't like bigm, hairy moles, and I don't want anyone with big, hairy moles to feel put down or unsupported.
People should be working together to build a strong, safe and supportive community for all of the participants, not just a select few.
> Length is a major issue. Anything beyond 2 weeks seems counter-productive. ("What if they never realize?" feels like jumping to thumpin conclusions, predicting future behavior, making assumptions). But the bias and inconsistency are what bother me more. For instance, Nikkit4 accuses someone on the board of "childish acts", and assumes (yes assumes) that SHE is being "threatened" because "SHE doesn't do cr@ppy fluff, or was it fluffy cr@p?" Does that imply that others are offering fluffy cr@ap? (Racer, you're good as this, this implication stuff. What do you think?) Major jump. Major accusation. Major assumption. And then seal of approval immediately stamped by deputy clear skies. Can't say that went unnoticed, or was noticed too late to address.. Zazenducky gets PCBd for saying exactly the same thing deputy gg has said, a time or two, i.e. that sometimes how another person responds to you has more to do with that person's issues than with whatever it was you said. Somebody decided (leapt to the conclusion, made the assumption) that because ZZD said it, it was SARf'in'castic???? When gg says it, it isn't?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2006, at 19:24:40
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure » henrietta, posted by dreamboat_annie on November 26, 2006, at 19:06:23
> I agree with everything you have said, and I applaud your having said it! The double-standard is so glaringly obvious and repugnant it has become like one of those big hairy moles that cause people to look the other way. Dislaimer: This is not to say that I don't like bigm, hairy moles, and I don't want anyone with big, hairy moles to feel put down or unsupported.
>
> People should be working together to build a strong, safe and supportive community for all of the participants, not just a select few.
>
>
>
>
> > Length is a major issue. Anything beyond 2 weeks seems counter-productive. ("What if they never realize?" feels like jumping to thumpin conclusions, predicting future behavior, making assumptions). But the bias and inconsistency are what bother me more. For instance, Nikkit4 accuses someone on the board of "childish acts", and assumes (yes assumes) that SHE is being "threatened" because "SHE doesn't do cr@ppy fluff, or was it fluffy cr@p?" Does that imply that others are offering fluffy cr@ap? (Racer, you're good as this, this implication stuff. What do you think?) Major jump. Major accusation. Major assumption. And then seal of approval immediately stamped by deputy clear skies. Can't say that went unnoticed, or was noticed too late to address.. Zazenducky gets PCBd for saying exactly the same thing deputy gg has said, a time or two, i.e. that sometimes how another person responds to you has more to do with that person's issues than with whatever it was you said. Somebody decided (leapt to the conclusion, made the assumption) that because ZZD said it, it was SARf'in'castic???? When gg says it, it isn't?
>
Friends,
It is written here,[...the double standard..obvious and (deleted by respondant..)...all.,..not..a..>select few<...].
I am following this thread with interest, for I think that it is important at this time.
If anyone would like to discuss this by email, I could offer support from my perspective, if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 23:11:51
In reply to Re: Adults? » Jost, posted by Declan on November 26, 2006, at 18:01:14
'But if you see things in terms of truth vs civilty, you may opt in favour of truth'
What I meant to say was that truth may seem much more important than someone else's version of civility.
All the civility rules (on Politics) have accomplished in my case is allowing me practice at irony, which is OK.
But zeugma is a gem.
Posted by muffled on November 26, 2006, at 23:51:47
In reply to Re: the cap on block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 13:08:54
> But what if they never realize?
**But what if they do???
Or realize, but don't change how they act?
**But what if they do???
I think it would be disruptive if people were posting something uncivil every 2 weeks...
***IF they did....
>
> I agree, it's unfortunate if people can't post. But at least they can still receive support via babblemail.***Its SO not the same Bob, its just not the same at all. Its frustrating and mostly its just painful to read posts and not be able to respond normally to them. It TOTALLY just reinforces the bad feelings that come with the block.(Leper, leper, stay AWAY)
>
> > I also know that nobody here wants anyone to be blocked for extended periods of time and I hope we can come to some sort of resolution where this doesn't happen anymore.
>
> That would be nice, but I don't know if it's possible. But I do think we can continue to try to improve how the guidelines are enforced, and I do appreciate suggestions (even if I don't end up implementing them).**Yeah, nice thot if Bob weren't SUCH a mule about it.
See, the prob with Bobs obsession with GUIDELINES, is that the guidlines are rather nebulous by nature of humaness, and as a result of trying to improve them, they become more nebulous.....and then people feel they are unfair, because they are inconsistant(due to being nebulous).
So I feel BOB, that in order to compensate for 'nebulosity' as it were, that it would become less of an issue ALL ROUND, if you would just CAP the friggin blocks.
Why don't you try it?????????????????????????
It would seem that people can get on and post anyways.....
So there's bad feelings about :-(
There's been good people hurt , that DIDN'T need to be hurt.
Muffled
Posted by Declan on November 27, 2006, at 2:01:49
In reply to Re: the cap on block length » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on November 26, 2006, at 23:51:47
If you are blocked you can't receive babblemail, as far as I've experienced it.
That's the way it is?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2006, at 4:59:43
In reply to Babblemail, posted by Declan on November 27, 2006, at 2:01:49
> What I meant to say was that truth may seem much more important than someone else's version of civility.
It may, and there's something to be said for being true to one's principles.
> All the civility rules (on Politics) have accomplished in my case is allowing me practice at irony, which is OK.
Yes, irony is OK.
> If you are blocked you can't receive babblemail, as far as I've experienced it.
>
> That's the way it is?That's the way it was, but you're supposed to be able to receive now.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2006, at 4:59:57
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by henrietta on November 26, 2006, at 18:40:21
> Nikkit4 accuses someone on the board of "childish acts"
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help-enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by verne on November 27, 2006, at 9:49:12
In reply to Re: the cap on block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 13:08:54
Dr. Bob, you say: "But what if they never realize? Or realize, but don't change how they act? I think it would be disruptive if people were posting something uncivil every 2 weeks"
I think long blocks are more disruptive to the community. For every blocked person, several posters leave or protest. Countless threads have been started on this board complaining about the administration or length of blocks.
In contrast, blocking even the most persistent troublemaker every two weeks, wouldn't cause the hue and cry among the community that long blocks engender. The constant administrative battles over the civility guidelines, the constant protests, and the collateral damage (posters falling on their swords), would no longer be necessary.
Long punitive blocks beget self blocks, self-exiles, and even deliberate offensive posts leading to blocks. How disruptive is that?
I think, if we must have longer blocks (more than 2 weeks), it should only be for deliberate personal attacks. Even the law makes a distinction between crimes against property and persons.
Here, the slightest misstep, a wrong word, receives the same punishment as an all-out personal attack. Sometimes a carefully crafted personal attack escapes blocking altogether, while a missing asterisk reaps a long banishment.
It seems like the spirit of civility is being lost to the letter of the law.
verne
Posted by verne on November 27, 2006, at 9:59:47
In reply to Re: I'm not the first and I won't be the last I'm sure, posted by henrietta on November 26, 2006, at 18:40:21
Good observations, Henrietta.
A subtle personal attack, if well-crafted enough, will not violate the babble guidelines. I've seen some real woodshed scoldings allowed.
I think I'll go back into exile.
verne
Posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 10:39:29
In reply to Spirit or Letter of the Law? » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on November 27, 2006, at 9:49:12
One very important point that Bob seems to miss is that the imposition of blocks is quite inconsistent here.
I've seen very accusatory posts on many boards go unremarked.
I've seen very inoffensive posts get long blocks. (I mean: inoffensive, on any meaningful scale-- doesn't mean no one could not-like the post, but being offended enough to justify a block, much less a long block seems really too much)
I've seen posts posted and not blocked for several weeks-
This, conveying the impression that they aren't blockable-- Then suddenly, Bob sweeps through a hands out a few long-delayed blocks about something you've long forgotten was even posted
How does that encourage knowledge of what the guidelines mean?
I personally have no idea what will or won't get blocked-- other than if you're on the politics board, and make a point about a political leader, you're much more likely to get blocked than if you make quite hurtful comments on other boards about an individual or individuals.
Jost
Posted by ClearSkies on November 27, 2006, at 11:19:39
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law?, posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 10:39:29
> One very important point that Bob seems to miss is that the imposition of blocks is quite inconsistent here.
>
> I've seen very accusatory posts on many boards go unremarked.
>I wonder if it is reasonable for me (on behalf of the deputies) to ask for notification if you see a post that you consider to be uncivil? Rather than waiting for a deputy or Dr Bob to see it and act on it.
I know that the "notification" button is new. My understanding of how it can work is that *anyone* can notify the deputies and Dr Bob, that you have read a post that might not meet Babble's guidelines. It's not just the receiver of the post who can do it. Maybe that would help the guidelines be more consistently applied.
ClearSkies
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2006, at 11:20:50
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law?, posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 10:39:29
Well, you (and others) can help a lot there. If you see a post that appears to you to be hurtful to an individual or individuals, please use the report this post feature.
As you've noted, Dr. Bob is sometimes gone for a while.
And deputies don't read each and every post.
Other posters could help a lot in promoting consistency.
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2006, at 11:25:48
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law? » Jost, posted by ClearSkies on November 27, 2006, at 11:19:39
Posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 11:29:15
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law? » Jost, posted by Dinah on November 27, 2006, at 11:20:50
Yes, except that I don't believe in blocking people for those things. I generally believe they can be handled better by the individuals involved.
If the individuals involved don't feel that, they have the right to alert deputies.
That's why I don't do it.
Jost
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2006, at 11:33:39
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law?, posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 11:29:15
It won't necessarily lead to a block. It might lead to a PBC or PBS.
And, as you've probably seen, it's great when people work things out, but they don't always.
But in any case, that's the reason for inconsistencies.
Posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 11:42:19
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law? » Jost, posted by Dinah on November 27, 2006, at 11:33:39
Or, in the alternative, the reason for inconsistencies is that there's no real moderator, on a very busy board.
The deputies have no set duties (that I know of, although I may simply not know) and therefore monitoring and enforcement of rules is extremely catch as catch can.
Bob's involvement, if Bob does exist, which I begin to question, is v. haphazard and whimsical, as such, more or less hard to predict-- other than, to me, that the politics board is a relatively easy place to get blocked.
But maybe it's time for me to take a break also.
Jost
Posted by Dinah on November 27, 2006, at 11:44:08
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law?, posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 11:42:19
I'd be sorry to see that.
Posted by Declan on November 27, 2006, at 12:09:14
In reply to Spirit or Letter of the Law? » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on November 27, 2006, at 9:49:12
if we must have longer blocks (more than 2 weeks), it should only be for deliberate personal attacks
Thankyou Verne.
How come I (assume I) can't say 'Karl Rove is a bad man', but I have said on Politics 'This is the first group of leaders in my lifetime whom you can insult by listing their virtues', or 'I agree (with llil'jimi's block for the links he provided on torture) This kind of extremist position has no place on psychobabble. Plenty of decent ordinary people trust the President'?
Posted by Declan on November 27, 2006, at 12:11:38
In reply to Re: Spirit or Letter of the Law?, posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 10:39:29
other than if you're on the politics board, and make a point about a political leader, you're much more likely to get blocked than if you make quite hurtful comments on other boards about an individual or individuals.
Well, what does that say about our values?
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.