![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 44 to 68 of 68. Go back in thread:
Posted by teejay on January 10, 2006, at 8:58:13
In reply to Larry's Block and a civil atmosphere, posted by Nickengland on January 8, 2006, at 12:16:45
Well I can only speak for myself, but i've said many times that I find the admin board a very negative place to come!
Someone mentioned to me yesterday however that lar had been blocked so I came here briefly today to see why. I'm none the wiser now but lar, if you are listening mate.......there are stacks of people on here who really, really appreciate and in fact need your input and as such I feel getting into wrangles on the admin board doesnt do you any favours and lets those who rely on your input down.
I have to say though having scrolled down this board to find this thread that I dont like the increasingly rigid way in which this whole site is being run.....log this, store that, notify isp the other etc etc. I get the distinct impression that the smooth running of the site is more important that people actually being helped..........i'm sure thats not the case, but it IS how i'm beginning to think of babble.
I wonder for example how many people are reluctant to really express how they feel or detail their symptoms for fear of their posts being kept or logged and identified at a later date. There are occasions when I feel at my worst and would love to just pour it all out on here but the fact it doesnt just fade into the ether over the following days prevents me doing this........I doubt i'm the only one who feels this way?
Regards
TJ
Posted by Berberis on January 10, 2006, at 9:57:46
In reply to Re: Larry's Block and a civil atmosphere, posted by teejay on January 10, 2006, at 8:58:13
> I wonder for example how many people are reluctant to really express how they feel or detail their symptoms for fear of their posts being kept or logged and identified at a later date. There are occasions when I feel at my worst and would love to just pour it all out on here but the fact it doesnt just fade into the ether over the following days prevents me doing this........I doubt i'm the only one who feels this way?
>
Believe me, you're not the only one! I just changed my posting name for that very reason. I've regretted several times posting when I was particularly vulnerable. It's upsetting knowing those posts will never "fade into the ether" as you say.
Posted by thuso on January 10, 2006, at 20:24:34
In reply to Re: Ideas?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:17:20
> What I was thinking was, their posts would have to go through someone else (be approved by them) before being posted. Like having a mandatory "civility buddy".
>
> BobWould everyone have to have one of these or just those who have been blocked? Say...if you've gotten a 6 week block, from now on you have to have posts go through a "civility buddy"?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 23:06:22
In reply to Re: Ideas? » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on January 10, 2006, at 20:24:34
> > What I was thinking was, their posts would have to go through someone else (be approved by them) before being posted. Like having a mandatory "civility buddy".
>
> Would everyone have to have one of these or just those who have been blocked? Say...if you've gotten a 6 week block, from now on you have to have posts go through a "civility buddy"?Not everyone, I was thinking it could be an alternative to being blocked. It could even be up to the poster, to be blocked for 6 or moderated for 12. Or something like that.
Bob
Posted by thuso on January 10, 2006, at 23:27:50
In reply to Re: Ideas?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 23:06:22
> Not everyone, I was thinking it could be an alternative to being blocked. It could even be up to the poster, to be blocked for 6 or moderated for 12. Or something like that.
>
> BobHere's another option for you to consider. Say a person is blocked for 4 weeks. They could have the choice of either being blocked for the entire 4 weeks or being blocked for 2 weeks and moderated for 4 weeks. Kind of like a probation. That way the person being blocked is still "punished" for their offense. Basically, if they chose the moderated route, they would still have the block for 1/2 the time and then they would be moderated for whatever the length of the original block was. (i.e. the punishment would be 1 1/2 times as long as if they took only the block)
I personally would call 12 weeks of being moderated with no block just a slap on the wrist. I'd take that over a full block without a doubt! And if I knew I had the choice between the two...I would be less cautious in my choice of words within certain posts or with certain posters. If I knew I had a choice, I could easily behave myself for 12 weeks. Being uncivil by letting out some frustration would totally be worth it to me if I only had to worry about being moderated for 12 weeks. Being uncivl wouldn't be worth it to me if I was blocked for 6 weeks.
ummmm...on second thought...maybe I shouldn't have publicly announced that, just in case you do decide to give us a moderated choice. hahaha! :-P
Posted by Jakeman on January 11, 2006, at 21:20:18
In reply to Re: Larry's Block and a civil atmosphere » teejay, posted by Berberis on January 10, 2006, at 9:57:46
> > I wonder for example how many people are reluctant to really express how they feel or detail their symptoms for fear of their posts being kept or logged and identified at a later date. There are occasions when I feel at my worst and would love to just pour it all out on here but the fact it doesnt just fade into the ether over the following days prevents me doing this........I doubt i'm the only one who feels this way?
> >
> Believe me, you're not the only one! I just changed my posting name for that very reason. I've regretted several times posting when I was particularly vulnerable. It's upsetting knowing those posts will never "fade into the ether" as you say.I agree... myself and others have posted our concerns on this issue. The fact is, when you post on Psycho-babble it is permanently recorded in Goggle and other databases and may stay there forever for everyone to see.
~Jake
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 11, 2006, at 22:51:37
In reply to Re: Ideas?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 23:06:22
I really like that idea a lot. I wouldn't consider it a "slap on the wrist", actually having to go through a civility buddy would probably lessen the amount I post drastically, as well as annoy the hell out of me.
However, it's really nice to know that if someone is having a hard time, that they aren't shut off from the community, the way they are when blocked
Thanks for being open to alternatives.
Posted by Deneb on January 11, 2006, at 23:15:19
In reply to Re: Ideas?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 23:06:22
> Not everyone, I was thinking it could be an alternative to being blocked. It could even be up to the poster, to be blocked for 6 or moderated for 12. Or something like that.
>
> BobI really like that idea Dr. Bob. I think being moderated will better teach one how to be civil. I find that after a long block I can forget the reason I was blocked for. With moderated posts, people will learn how to be civil in all ways and be able to practice being civil.
Deneb
Posted by muffled on January 12, 2006, at 9:40:30
In reply to Re: Ideas?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 23:06:22
this, sorry I'm no help. Keeping away mostly for now.
Take care,
Muffled
Posted by MidnightBlue on February 3, 2007, at 16:37:50
In reply to Re: that 'to do' list, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2007, at 22:55:51
Dr. Bob,
So are you suggesting that a "moderator/civility buddy" would screen someone's posts if they get a PBC? Would this moderator/civility buddy have the ability to approve or disapprove the publishing of posts by uncivil people? How long a lag time would there be between initial post and publishing? This sounds like one more job for our overtaxed deputies.
Some of the Yahoo groups are set up so that all posts have to be approved. There is also the provision to unmoderate someone if they are considered trustworthy, or if the site isn't concerned about post content. It is hard to get that balance between freedom and civility.
Still waiting for those trigger flags....
Midnightblue
Posted by muffled on February 3, 2007, at 16:37:51
In reply to Re: that 'to do' list » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on January 29, 2007, at 23:31:03
Sigh, blocks are so awful.
Glad Bob is trying to consider alternatives...
Anything but blocks is good I guess.
But I dunno how this civility buddy will quite work?
Depending on the poster etc, it could be alot of work?
And then remaining neutral could be a challenge.
And I dunno, but I don't think I could do such a thing cuz I'd get overwhelmed. Its alot of resposibility, and what if you screw up???????
And then what if someone was gonna get blocked but noone stepped forward to be their civility buddy? How hurtful that would be....
Mebbe I not seeing it right?
Or mebbe they should be able to post a set # of posts/wk? Thats saying if anybody ever volunteered for such a job...
Yup, back on my wagon of saying cap the blocks at one week etc, you've all heard it b4. SO much easier.....
But I been wrong before.
Muffled
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2007, at 23:48:29
In reply to Re: that 'to do' list, posted by muffled on January 30, 2007, at 0:02:05
> So are you suggesting that a "moderator/civility buddy" would screen someone's posts if they get a PBC? Would this moderator/civility buddy have the ability to approve or disapprove the publishing of posts by uncivil people? How long a lag time would there be between initial post and publishing? This sounds like one more job for our overtaxed deputies.
Right, they'd either approve them or not. They'd be "published" as soon as they were approved. I agree, the deputies have enough to do already, I was thinking anyone could volunteer.
> It is hard to get that balance between freedom and civility.
>
> MidnightblueIt sure is!
--
> Depending on the poster etc, it could be alot of work?
> And then remaining neutral could be a challenge.
> And I dunno, but I don't think I could do such a thing cuz I'd get overwhelmed. Its alot of resposibility, and what if you screw up???????
> And then what if someone was gonna get blocked but noone stepped forward to be their civility buddy? How hurtful that would be....
>
> MuffledI agree, it could be a lot of work if they tried to post a lot. If their buddy said something, they might let up a little? Or maybe another buddy could take over after a while.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining neutral"...
If someone would be overwhelmed, it might be better if they didn't volunteer. Approving an uncivil post might be treated like posting an uncivil post, and they might be blocked themselves.
I agree, it might hurt if no one stepped forward. But sometimes people ask questions and no one answers. There isn't *always* support here. But at least there's the possibility.
Bob
Posted by muffled on February 4, 2007, at 10:14:48
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy, posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2007, at 23:48:29
Its an interesting utopian idea Bob. But I just can't see it working...:( But mebbe its just where I at right now.
Once again, the basic 1 wk would be the simplest......
Thanks.
Muffled
Posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 11:11:32
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy, posted by muffled on February 4, 2007, at 10:14:48
A more utopian idea would be for people to have buddies== maybe consulting buddies, but not oneswho would be blocked if the person posted an uncivil post.
I'd be very uncomfortable with being in the role of blocking a "civility buddy's" posts-- or at least forcing them, on pain of my also being blocked, to change what they wrote. There also is a role for spontaneity and the safety valve of blowing off steam and seeing if you get blocked. Maybe you do, maybe you don't-- but you have the right to say something angry or unkind-- and then others have the right to handle it, in many ways. It's part of the process that's valuable, if sometimes painful.
But I like the idea of having buddies-- although it wouldn't be as interesting if people paired off with their favorite people (even if that would be more doable- it raises the "in" group issues-- and the "popular crowd" issues). Still, it would have to be a person you felt the potential for a beneficial and instructive time.
Maybe it should be random-- or people should pair off with people they have trouble with. Maybe for a period of time, and then people would have the option of changing (or staying with that buddy for another period of time), so people would get to know more people better. I think it would be interesting to try to have a productive relationship with someone whom I intuitively respond to in a negative way. At least I feel I might learn a lot-
Honore
Posted by MidnightBlue on February 4, 2007, at 22:30:49
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy, posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2007, at 23:48:29
Dr. Bob,
At any given time, how many people are blocked?
MidnightBlue
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2007, at 20:04:00
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on February 4, 2007, at 22:30:49
> I'd be very uncomfortable with being in the role of blocking a "civility buddy's" posts-- or at least forcing them, on pain of my also being blocked, to change what they wrote.
I agree, it might feel like a difficult position to be in, and people might not volunteer for that reason. So if no one does, someone who's blocked shouldn't necessarily take it personally...
> There also is a role for spontaneity and the safety valve of blowing off steam and seeing if you get blocked. ... you have the right to say something angry or unkind
Well, people have that right until they're blocked. Your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
> it would have to be a person you felt the potential for a beneficial and instructive time.
>
> Maybe it should be random-- or people should pair off with people they have trouble with. ... I think it would be interesting to try to have a productive relationship with someone whom I intuitively respond to in a negative way. At least I feel I might learn a lot-
>
> HonoreIt definitely could be a learning opportunity, that's a really positive way of looking at it. But I think it would work better if both people agreed...
--
> At any given time, how many people are blocked?
>
> MidnightBlueGood question, I don't know. How many do you think?
Bob
Posted by Honore on February 5, 2007, at 22:11:46
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy, posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2007, at 20:04:00
>>> There also is a role for spontaneity and the safety valve of blowing off steam and seeing if you get blocked. ... you have the right to say something angry or unkind
>>Well, people have that right until they're blocked. Your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
Of course-- but I don't know how that relates to what I said. I meant that, assuming a context in which what's being discussed is how I (as theoretically like some other people) might feel about being in the position of controlling someone else's access to a board where the line isn't a bright line.
There are lots of posts on or around the line-- As you presented it, I (or anyone in that position) would be imposing my self-protective idea of where the line might be on someone else. My idea could (perhaps likely would) presumably be pretty much more self-protective, because I had no investment in the things being posted-- ie would get no personal payoff from them--
My point was not to object to your blocking people who were (possibly) unkind or uncivil-- it was to suggest that one person would have no spontaneity or expression value in a post-- but would be blocked-- on your account-- if they weren't quite self-protective against the potential interest of someone who did have spontaneity or self-expression interests in posting the thing.
That seemed to me like a very problematic conflict of interest for the mandatory civility buddy.
Honore
Posted by muffled on February 5, 2007, at 22:18:32
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy » Dr. Bob, posted by Honore on February 5, 2007, at 22:11:46
the more I realize my many limitations....
Sigh.
I could never be a civility buddy I am afraid.
Muffled
Posted by MidnightBlue on February 6, 2007, at 16:54:42
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy, posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2007, at 20:04:00
> At any given time, how many people are blocked?Good question, I don't know. How many do you think?
Dr. Bob,You don't know that? Don't you keep records? Wouldn't you WANT to know that? Isn't it important to know that?
MidnightBlue
Posted by sunnydays on February 6, 2007, at 22:19:20
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on February 6, 2007, at 16:54:42
>
> > At any given time, how many people are blocked?
>
> Good question, I don't know. How many do you think?
>
>
> Dr. Bob,
>
> You don't know that? Don't you keep records? Wouldn't you WANT to know that? Isn't it important to know that?
>
> MidnightBlue
>
>
**** I don't mean to be facetious, and I really do think that your concern is valid... but to speed things up I can anticipate that Dr. Bob's reply might be something like.... do YOU think it's important? why would it be important to you? something like that... He seems to like answering questions with questions lately. :)sunnydays
Posted by muffled on February 6, 2007, at 22:42:28
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy » MidnightBlue, posted by sunnydays on February 6, 2007, at 22:19:20
Maybe he don't wanto know how many is blocked?
Mebbe it makes him sad?
:-(
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 16:25:52
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on February 6, 2007, at 16:54:42
> one person [the buddy] would have no spontaneity or expression value in a post-- but would be blocked ... if they weren't quite self-protective against the potential interest of someone [the blocked poster] who did have spontaneity or self-expression interests in posting the thing.
>
> That seemed to me like a very problematic conflict of interest for the mandatory civility buddy.
>
> HonoreThe buddy might be unlikely to approve a post that wasn't clearly civil, that's true. So during that time, the blocked poster might not be able to post as much as if they were posting directly. But that might still be better than being blocked. And if the buddy were too strict, they could try to find another buddy...
--
> > At any given time, how many people are blocked?
>
> You don't know that? Don't you keep records? Wouldn't you WANT to know that? Isn't it important to know that?
>
> MidnightBlueNo, I don't know that. I do keep records, but not records of that. As sunnydays said, do YOU think it's important?
Bob
Posted by MidnightBlue on February 25, 2007, at 23:54:30
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy, posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 16:25:52
Dr. Bob,
As a researcher, I would think you would be interested in knowing at least what percentage of people who post are blocked. I am not as interested in knowing exactly how many people are blocked as I am in knowing the ratio of blocked to unblocked, taking into account of course, how often someone posts. I know you have people who join and never post. In my opinion, those people should not be part of the equation because their risk of being blocked is zero.
Are people who post more frequently more likely to be blocked? Do people with a certain diagnosis have more difficulty following the civility guidelines? Are people who are long time members vs new members more likely to be blocked? Is there a particular time of the year there are more blocks? Are more males or females blocked? The questions could be endless!
My thought is if you could figure out why people are blocked (not just that they were uncivil) then maybe you could configure the board in such a way so that fewer people would be blocked. So yes, I do think it is important.
One more question: how many people who are blocked never come back at all?
MidnightBlue
Posted by muffled on February 26, 2007, at 0:22:15
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on February 25, 2007, at 23:54:30
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2007, at 5:07:25
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on February 25, 2007, at 23:54:30
> As a researcher, I would think you would be interested in knowing at least what percentage of people who post are blocked.
Speaking of research, there's another thread here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/721552.html
Would you be interested in joining that project? :-)
Bob
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.