![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 133 to 157 of 185. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on June 30, 2007, at 9:46:26
In reply to Re: block history » Sigismund, posted by Klavot on June 30, 2007, at 8:49:30
Posted by muffled on June 30, 2007, at 9:59:27
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Honore on June 30, 2007, at 9:17:55
Interesting, yours and klavots stuff have similiarities.
I like your ideas, but I still wonder bout length, but that may just be me, cuz I find the blocks so hurtful.
Thanks for working on this Honore, its been a LONG process trying to figger how to do blocks....
M
Posted by muffled on June 30, 2007, at 10:01:38
In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 30, 2007, at 6:49:44
> I did try to give sensible reasons based on past practice.
>
> You ignored my post in your reply.
>
> I suppose you didn't find them as compelling as I did. :(I found them compelling Dinah....
He ignores me too ofttimes...
Thanks for pitching in, this all sucks bad don't it :-(
Maybe we will achieve some thing.
Ya just never know.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Honore on June 30, 2007, at 9:17:55
> If my formula had been used to determine the block length, Zenhussy would have probably gotten a 1 week block:
>
> B = S + D*exp(-P/r) = 1 + 48*exp(-147/r) = 1.
>
> Here I assume that S = 1, since the incivility is minor. The duration of the previous block is D = 48, and time passed since the previous block expired is P = 147. For any reasonable value of r, we get exp(-147/r) very close to 0, so the term 48*exp(-147/r) vanishes.
>
> KlavotThat's an interesting suggestion, thanks. What do you think would be a reasonable value of r in that formula?
--
> --have 2 types of infractions
>
> 1. personal things
>
> --use the rule bob has now, with with the current limitation
>
> 2. nonpersonal
>
> -use the rule, but have two further rules
>
> ---a.. No banning for over a month (or maybe six weeks) at a time.
>
> ---b. If a long time passes– say six months– after a month ban, reduce to a week for next ban
>
> this introduces greater incentives for good behavior.
>
> 2. if someone has a long block for having committed things under the more serious type of incivility, you can have a separate system of blocks for them, relating to their impersonal acts.
>
> HonoreThanks for your suggestions, too. The current formula is essentially:
B = S * (D - P / r)
with r = 10 and S = 3 when it's personal, 2 when it's impersonal. So if it were impersonal and D were 4 (1 month), P would need to be 36 (9 months), not 24 (6 months), for B to be 1 (with rounding).
I suppose a case could be made for a lower cap for impersonal incivility. Keeping the same 2:3 ratio would mean 35 weeks?
IMO, it makes sense for the personal and impersonal systems not to be separate.
Thinking of blocks in terms of incentives is tricky, since the longer the blocks, the greater the incentives...
Also, I still like the idea of a mandatory civility buddy option:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/596986.html
Finally, as Dinah said:
> The thread had already escalated quite a bit.
It would've been nice if all these blocks could've been prevented in the first place...
Bob
Posted by Honore on July 2, 2007, at 12:12:43
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
B = S * (D - P / r)
b= s * (D - (P/r) ) ?
In that case, if d= 48, P=147, and r=10, then the block is, as you said, 33 weeks. I'd be interested in seeing more of how Klavot's system works.
I don't mean to be personal, Bob, but I wonder if you aren't underestimating the degree of loss involved in being blocked from a place that you go to, and get some important emotional solace, for as long as two weeks or even a month.
Maybe your thinking on this has evolved, but you aren't aware of it, or maybe it hasn't evolved since earlier when using the internet a lot was considered addictive, and all that. Whereas now, the internet has clearly changed into a major source of connection for many people.
I also know, for me, not being able to post here for a month would be a really great sacrifice. Yet there are moments when one impulsively does things, and then is taken up short by what one has done.
If it's a question of giving people a chance to repeat an experience, so as to learn enough from the repetitions that it would actually help change behavior, allowing people to come back and make mistakes and being blocked more often would, for me, make the learning process more probable.
If I acted impulsively and were blocked for a month, it would be less likely that I'd learn anything--other than that I felt badly treated, and perhaps had to be very very careful, which also could lead to moments of rebellious impulsivity-- than if I were blocked several times for briefer periods, during which I felt I had chances to act differently each time.
[I get the sense that your concern is not taking short blocks seriously, but I think people generally do.]
To me, the system of blocks isn't really just. That's my personal feeling. I do think it's important to separate grammatical impulses from interpersonal impulses, so to speak. So that's just a disagreement on principles. I could argue, but it's probably just based on some fundamental beliefs.
I do think, though, from a practical point of view, or teaching new behaviors, allowing people more chances to make mistakes, suffer the consequences, and come back with another chance, would lead to people's feeling more consistency in their lives (ie participation) and also to have chances to adapt to the rules, which may not be natural, initially.
Honore
Posted by muffled on July 2, 2007, at 12:28:16
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
> That's an interesting suggestion, thanks. What do you think would be a reasonable value of r in that formula?
*I love the look of the numbers and all, but am unable to figger it exactly...
> > ---a.. No banning for over a month (or maybe six weeks) at a time.
*THIS I agree with. Unless a person is *ongoingly* being disruptive, then maybe 6 mo.
> >
> > ---b. If a long time passes– say six months– after a month ban, reduce to a week for next ban* YES YES YES!!!
> >
> > this introduces greater incentives for good behavior.*hmmm. Incentives? or mebbe a better way to say it would be not so much incentives, but *repercussions* for bad behaviour. I do not feel rewarded for not being blocked, but I DO feel punished when I am...
As for incentives, meaning your blocks go away for good behaviour, again, I don't think I'd feel rewarded, so much as *releived* of some of my fear...So IMHO theres not incentives, but just the looming possibility of punishment...> I suppose a case could be made for a lower cap for impersonal incivility. Keeping the same 2:3 ratio would mean 35 weeks?
*sigh, numbers aside, impersonal civility is less bad I guess......
>
> IMO, it makes sense for the personal and impersonal systems not to be separate.*its a little subjective at times....I forsee many arguments....
>
> Thinking of blocks in terms of incentives is tricky, since the longer the blocks, the greater the incentives...*again NOT an incentive to me. Longer blocks are not more incentive, just more hurt, more fear. If I screw up and uncivil its most likely I will have done so in the heat of the moment, and 'incentives' mean absolutely nothing to me at that point, all that would happen is I would be blocked and further hurt. When/if I came back, I would just be fearful and quite possibly angry and resentful(depending on the block...). But for me to get a block, for a moment of upset, ESP if it weren't all that bad....well, I not saying it well, just we DEALING WITH PEOPLE HERE, not machines....we DO screw up, but the punishment IMHO often FAR outstrips the crime....:-(
>
> Also, I still like the idea of a mandatory civility buddy option:*potentially useful...very challenging....
>
> > The thread had already escalated quite a bit.
>
> It would've been nice if all these blocks could've been prevented in the first place...*if you read the thread Bob, you *will* notice that others DID try.Doesn't always work.Esp if you got strong feelings bout it...
Also on a diff thread it *was* successful, and deputy said thanks for apologies, and it was good. So mebbe we need to do more of that...
But really, oftimes all thats needed is a breather......
NOT BANISHMENT and SHAME.
I think thats mebbe another thing you don't fully understand Bob, is the shame component...
One day, when my brain is working good(it DOES sometimes...) I will take the time and write a dissertation explaining the interpersonal stuff and the shame and the deterrence, time factors of relevancy, etc of blocks...
For now I am tired.
I still beleive VERY strongly that you NEED to revisit Z block above.
IT IS JUST WRONG.
Respectfully,
M
Posted by muffled on July 2, 2007, at 12:39:14
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Honore on July 2, 2007, at 12:12:43
> I'd be interested in seeing more of how Klavot's system works.
*me too
>
> I wonder if you aren't underestimating the degree of loss involved in being blocked from a place that you go to, and get some important emotional solace*sigh..I been trying to explain this to Bob for a long time....
>
>Whereas now, the internet has clearly changed into a major source of connection for many people.*nicely said!
>
>Yet there are moments when one impulsively does things, and then is taken up short by what one has done.*EXACTLY, and I KNOW you can review your post but sometimes when I in the mode I'm in, it don't make a diff, seems OK, then I read it later and go 'oh sh*t', but tooooooooooo late :-(
>
> If it's a question of giving people a chance to repeat an experience, so as to learn enough from the repetitions that it would actually help change behavior, allowing people to come back and make mistakes and being blocked more often would, for me, make the learning process more probable.*again, well said. I too have felt that we don't learn from too strong punishment. Just twists us...
>
> If I acted impulsively and were blocked for a month, it would be less likely that I'd learn anything--other than that I felt badly treated, and perhaps had to be very very careful, which also could lead to moments of rebellious impulsivity-- than if I were blocked several times for briefer periods, during which I felt I had chances to act differently each time.*catch more flies w/honey....or something like that.
>
> [I get the sense that your concern is not taking short blocks seriously, but I think people generally do.]**again EXACTLY. Ohhh good using words honore!
> I do think, though, from a practical point of view, or teaching new behaviors, allowing people more chances to make mistakes, suffer the consequences, and come back with another chance, would lead to people's feeling more consistency in their lives (ie participation) and also to have chances to adapt to the rules, which may not be natural, initially.* yup you said it good honore!
Glad you could make the words come out right.
Do your words do that all the time? Or do they sometimes not work? Mine seem to get all stuck in my head some how, and sometimes they flow like a mighty river. And sometimes the river floods!!!!ROFL!!!
:-)
M
Posted by Klavot on July 2, 2007, at 13:54:17
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
> What do you think would be a reasonable value of r in that formula?
What about r = 39. To keep the formula simple, and considering that many people are not familiar with the exponential function, one can perhaps replace exp(x) = e^x with 3^x, since e = 2.71828... is close to 3. In fact, I just plotted the two functions on my computer, and for 0 <= P <= 52 (i.e. within the first year of a previous block having expired), it turns out that 3^(-P/39) is nearly identical with exp(-P/39).
Then the formula would be
B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)].
Then the extent to which a previous block would be used against a poster diminishes as follows:
1 week (P = 1): 3^(-P/39) = 0.97;
2 weeks (P = 2): 3^(-P/39) = 0.95;
1 month (P = 4): 3^(-P/39) = 0.89;
2 months (P = 8): 3^(-P/39) = 0.80;
3 months (P = 12): 3^(-P/39) = 0.71;
6 months (P = 24): 3^(-P/39) = 0.51;
1 year (P = 52): 3^(-P/39) = 0.23.Thus, within the first month of another incivility occuring, the poster would be penalised with a block consisting of S plus roughly his previous block. After 3 months, the poster would be penalised with a block consisting of S plus roughly 70 % of his previous block. After 6 months, you would get S plus half your previous block, and after a year, you would get S plus roughly one quarter your previous block.
(That is the reason I chose r = 39. It is the smallest r that guarantees that after 6 months, previous incivility will still factor. So even if the previous block was only one week, and that expired 6 months ago, then
B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = S + 1*[3^(-24/39)] = S + 0.51 -> S + 1 week.)
If people consider that to be too strict, then r can be lowered; if people consider that to be too lenient, then r can be raised.
In Zenhussy's case, we would then get
B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = 1 + 48*[3^(-147/39)] = 1.76 -> 2 weeks.
It turns out that here, previous incivility would still factor, because of the great length of the previous block (48 weeks).
Klavot
Posted by sunnydays on July 2, 2007, at 15:22:39
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Honore on July 2, 2007, at 12:12:43
I agree with Honore's presentation of the issues. Being able to come back within a relatively short time and change one's behavior would facilitate learning a lot more than being gone for so long you may not even remember what got you blocked in the first place by the time you get back.
sunnydays
Posted by muffled on July 2, 2007, at 16:55:18
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
>It would've been nice if all these blocks could've been prevented in the first place...
**It'd be nice if we were all perfect...
M
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2007, at 22:10:01
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on July 2, 2007, at 16:55:18
I believe if a therapist or a pdoc blocked their patient cause they didn't agree with what they were saying and didn't hurt anyone that could cause abandontment issues and worse. When we need help the most we should be able to support each other. As far as gg she's had a rough time and has helped so many others I personally don't think she should be blocked. Now I base this only on gg as I don't go to many boards and know her and not the others. Same could be true for them don't know. But 33 weeks is in my opinion like being in jail. Love Phillipa
Posted by Sigismund on July 3, 2007, at 1:29:35
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
I don't agree with that 2:3 ratio thing.
I think personal incivility is *much* more important, although in fact I wonder if it is possible to codify.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2007, at 16:35:34
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Klavot on July 2, 2007, at 13:54:17
> there are moments when one impulsively does things, and then is taken up short by what one has done.
>
> If it's a question of giving people a chance to repeat an experience, so as to learn enough from the repetitions that it would actually help change behavior, allowing people to come back and make mistakes and being blocked more often would, for me, make the learning process more probable.
>
> HonoreI agree, it can be hard if someone's impulsive or needs many repetitions to learn, but if people can't make mistakes as often, there's less overall incivility and more supportive overall atmosphere.
--
> What about r = 39.
>
> It is the smallest r that guarantees that after 6 months, previous incivility will still factor. So even if the previous block was only one week, and that expired 6 months ago, then
>
> B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = S + 1*[3^(-24/39)] = S + 0.51 -> S + 1 week.
>
> KlavotThanks for working on this. Hmm, powers of e probably are about as intuitive than powers of 3, and if we set:
0.5 = exp(-24/r)
then:
r = 24/ln2 ~ 35
Another issue is when a poster is immediately uncivil again. Currently, if it's impersonal and S = 2:
B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * D
But with your formula and S = 1:
B = S + D * exp(-P/r) = 1 + D
It makes the formula more complicated, but to add the exponential decay and keep the current doubling (exponential growth), it could be:
B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r)
with S = 2 or 3. So if D = 48 and P = 147 and it were impersonal, we would still get:
B = 1 + (2 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 2.42 -> 2 weeks
In Zenhussy's case, however, it was personal, not impersonal, so it would've been an extra week:
B = 1 + (3 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 3.14 -> 3 weeks
Bob
Posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 22:09:34
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2007, at 16:35:34
> I agree, it can be hard if someone's impulsive or needs many repetitions to learn, but if people can't make mistakes as often, there's less overall incivility and more supportive overall atmosphere.**Ya but you know what, I myself would be willing to put up with a little incivility now and again, cuz I KNOW we not perfect. I realize people have their moments. I don't feel that constantly smashing them on the head (obvo figuratively speaking, and IMO only) is truly all that beneficial. It just frikken HURTS :-(
Like I say to my kids..."use your words", rather than smacking each other.
Don't always work, but sometimes it does, and they learn, mebbea little slower, but kinder...
And now that I've re read this, I DON'T feel its more supportive atmosphere to be blocking too freely and so long. It just becomes more FEARFUL. Thats all...
Short blocks, more PBC usage is better.
Did you not notice Bob that the deps did VERY well in your absence? The times that there were bigger troubles was because there needed to be backup from an actual administrator, and that wasn't there...It was situations where they had involvement or other dep involvement, so they (understandably) were reluctant to intervene, or they got caught and needed backup, but there was none...
Other than that they done REAL good, with less blocks...
An occasional backup I think is all they really need, but you goto come when they call, or its no good.
Thats my thots.
> Thanks for working on this. Hmm, powers of e probably are about as intuitive than powers of 3, and if we set:
>
> 0.5 = exp(-24/r)
>
> then:
>
> r = 24/ln2 ~ 35
>
> Another issue is when a poster is immediately uncivil again. Currently, if it's impersonal and S = 2:
>
> B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * D
>
> But with your formula and S = 1:
>
> B = S + D * exp(-P/r) = 1 + D
>
> It makes the formula more complicated, but to add the exponential decay and keep the current doubling (exponential growth), it could be:
>
> B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r)
>
> with S = 2 or 3. So if D = 48 and P = 147 and it were impersonal, we would still get:
>
> B = 1 + (2 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 2.42 -> 2 weeks
>
> In Zenhussy's case, however, it was personal, not impersonal, so it would've been an extra week:
>
> B = 1 + (3 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 3.14 -> 3 weeks**OMG!!!!!!!Klavot and Bob are math BUDS!!! Its like reading a foreign language to me!!!
Kinda cool actually.
Wonder if it would work...
(IMEO)(in my EXALTED opinion) !
I'm kidding around, cuz this is hard for me this blocking stuff :-( When I freaked some I joke alot.
But actually I am VERY SERIOUS bout the hurt factor :-(
:-(
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2007, at 2:39:51
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 22:09:34
> Ya but you know what, I myself would be willing to put up with a little incivility now and again, cuz I KNOW we not perfect.
And no system is going to be, either...
> And now that I've re read this, I DON'T feel its more supportive atmosphere to be blocking too freely and so long. It just becomes more FEARFUL. Thats all...
That's a good point, I wouldn't want it to be civil just because people were too afraid to post.
> Did you not notice Bob that the deps did VERY well in your absence?
I did, and I really appreciate and feel proud of them.
> this is hard for me this blocking stuff :-( When I freaked some I joke alot.
> But actually I am VERY SERIOUS bout the hurt factor :-(I am, too, and though I think other factors in the equation are also important, I'm glad we might be able to reduce this one.
Bob
Posted by Klavot on July 5, 2007, at 3:11:14
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2007, at 16:35:34
> > there are moments when one impulsively does things, and then is taken up short by what one has done.
> >
> > If it's a question of giving people a chance to repeat an experience, so as to learn enough from the repetitions that it would actually help change behavior, allowing people to come back and make mistakes and being blocked more often would, for me, make the learning process more probable.
> >
> > Honore
>
> I agree, it can be hard if someone's impulsive or needs many repetitions to learn, but if people can't make mistakes as often, there's less overall incivility and more supportive overall atmosphere.
>
> --
>
> > What about r = 39.
> >
> > It is the smallest r that guarantees that after 6 months, previous incivility will still factor. So even if the previous block was only one week, and that expired 6 months ago, then
> >
> > B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = S + 1*[3^(-24/39)] = S + 0.51 -> S + 1 week.
> >
> > Klavot
>
> Thanks for working on this. Hmm, powers of e probably are about as intuitive than powers of 3, and if we set:
>
> 0.5 = exp(-24/r)
>
> then:
>
> r = 24/ln2 ~ 35Yes, when working with exp(x) you would need r = 35. But for 3^x you get r = 39. But we can stick to exp(x) if you are interested, that's fine by me. My concern was simply that the calculator that comes bundled with MS Windows does not seem to have a function for retrieving e. This means some posters would have no way of calculating block lengths or verifying the arithmetic behind block lengths, which might cause complaints.
>
> Another issue is when a poster is immediately uncivil again. Currently, if it's impersonal and S = 2:
>
> B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * D
>
> But with your formula and S = 1:
>
> B = S + D * exp(-P/r) = 1 + D
>
> It makes the formula more complicated, but to add the exponential decay and keep the current doubling (exponential growth), it could be:
>
> B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r)
>
> with S = 2 or 3. So if D = 48 and P = 147 and it were impersonal, we would still get:
>
> B = 1 + (2 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 2.42 -> 2 weeks
>
> In Zenhussy's case, however, it was personal, not impersonal, so it would've been an extra week:
>
> B = 1 + (3 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 3.14 -> 3 weeks
>
> BobOK. My thinking was that with a formula of the form
B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r),
you have a situation where the severity of a current incivility is extrapolated to previous incivilities, which is why I would prefer not to multiply the term D*exp(-P/r) with S. However, if this is the direction you want to go, then what about the original formula that I posted lower down in another thread:
B = S(D*exp(-P/r) + 1).
This formula allows for doubling or tripling as you see fit, while also being applicable to both repeat incivilities as well as first incivility. For a first incivility, we get
B = S(0*exp(-0/r) + 1) = S.
For the other formula, we get
B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r) = 1 + (S*0 - 1)*exp(-0/r) = 0,
which means you would have to split the formula into cases for a first offense versus repeat offense.
But all this is just a gimmick. The basic idea is to introduce some kind of exponential decay for previous blocks. After that one can build a formula to fit your desired blocking model.
Klavot
Posted by muffled on July 5, 2007, at 9:07:10
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Klavot on July 5, 2007, at 3:11:14
Posted by muffled on July 5, 2007, at 9:18:35
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2007, at 2:39:51
> And no system is going to be, either...**no, its not, maybe a stock formula for blocks is OK as long as it keeps the time down, but maybe where the variable of safety and kindness, and *education*esp is, is in giving the poster more opportunities for rephrases, apologies etc BEFORE a block even occurs. I think a PBC etc from a long time ago has little bearing on present day doings. But if a PBC within the actual thread is ignored then to me that is a very obvo case for a block.
I think with a greater use of PBC's that there will be more learning and less fear. Esp once people realize that a PBC DOESN'T mean a block is gonna allasudden unexpectedly leap out of nowhere and 'get' them, which is unfortunately the way it is now. I think thats partly why people get upset at PBC's, cuz they get afraid.
> > And now that I've re read this, I DON'T feel its more supportive atmosphere to be blocking too freely and so long. It just becomes more FEARFUL. Thats all...
>
> That's a good point, I wouldn't want it to be civil just because people were too afraid to post.**exactly...
Its not good to have someone, eg my kids, behave just cuz they are blindly terrified of me...
> > Did you not notice Bob that the deps did VERY well in your absence?
>
> I did, and I really appreciate and feel proud of them.**WOW. Nicely said :-)
>
> > this is hard for me this blocking stuff :-( When I freaked some I joke alot.
> > But actually I am VERY SERIOUS bout the hurt factor :-(
>
> I am, too, and though I think other factors in the equation are also important, I'm glad we might be able to reduce this one.**I hope so.
I honestly have no idea of what to make of you Bob, I really don't...
And thats a concern to me.
M
Posted by confuzyq on July 5, 2007, at 11:56:59
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2007, at 16:35:34
> In Zenhussy's case, however, it was personal, not impersonal, so it would've been an extra week:
>
> B = 1 + (3 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 3.14 -> 3 weeks
>
> Bob...once mom or dad has said that much, generally they should follow through and grant the thing, rather than raise and dash false hopes! Like, "Ok then, if I look at it this way instead, you'd only be grounded for one week, not two months..." Therefore it must be done! ;-)
Note: This does not mean I am projecting any parent-child power issues on my own part onto the administration here. I think it's a fair analogy.
And re this:
> > If it's a question of giving people a chance to repeat an experience, so as to learn enough from the repetitions that it would actually help change behavior, allowing people to come back and make mistakes and being blocked more often would, for me, make the learning process more probable.
> >
> > Honore
>
> I agree, it can be hard if someone's impulsive or needs many repetitions to learn, but if people can't make mistakes as often, there's less overall incivility and more supportive overall atmosphere.
>
>
> BobBut, after long blocks and sometimes even several of them for the same person, the depth of any uncivil impulses that could exist upon return could be exponential. Therefore, not going as far toward prevention as you think. A *little* of it more often til the lesson is learned or the impulse subsides; vs. possibly a lot of it in higher concentrations indefinitely. And add in, the general board discord that often results over long blocks in themselves.
I think Klavot's proposal is stellar!
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 5, 2007, at 14:11:51
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Klavot on July 5, 2007, at 3:11:14
>My concern was simply that the calculator that comes bundled with MS Windows does not seem to have a function for retrieving e. This means some posters would have no way of calculating block lengths or verifying the arithmetic behind block lengths, which might cause complaints.
In theory, one could set up a google spread sheet that could be shared with everyone.. Or a simple form could be used where people can enter the variables, and it calculates block length
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 13:09:56
In reply to Re: Look here look here! :-), posted by confuzyq on July 5, 2007, at 11:56:59
> what about the original formula that I posted lower down in another thread:
>
> B = S(D*exp(-P/r) + 1).
>
> This formula allows for doubling or tripling as you see fit, while also being applicable to both repeat incivilities as well as first incivility. For a first incivility, we get
>
> B = S(0*exp(-0/r) + 1) = S.
>
> For the other formula, we get
>
> B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r) = 1 + (S*0 - 1)*exp(-0/r) = 0,
>
> which means you would have to split the formula into cases for a first offense versus repeat offense.
>
> KlavotI agree, it would be nice not to have to split the formula, but currently, anyway, B = 1 for a first incivility no matter how severe...
--
> Note: This does not mean I am projecting any parent-child power issues on my own part onto the administration here.
:-)
> after long blocks and sometimes even several of them for the same person, the depth of any uncivil impulses that could exist upon return could be exponential. Therefore, not going as far toward prevention as you think.
>
> confuzyqThat's another good point, some people might become more fearful, and others may become more angry...
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2007, at 19:36:46
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 13:09:56
"That's another good point, some people might become more fearful, and others may become more angry..."
Bob
and others could become more confused about this being a support website......some could be hurt more by it.....others may leave...fayeroe
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2007, at 21:05:54
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2007, at 19:36:46
> "That's another good point, some people might become more fearful, and others may become more angry..."
>
> Bob
>
>
> and others could become more confused about this being a support website......some could be hurt more by it.....others may leave...
>
> fayeroe
>
fayeroe,
You wrote,[...a support website...].
I am insure as to what you are wanting to mean by a {support website}.
Could you elaborate as to:
A. Can you give an example of a website being a support website verses an example of a website not being a support website, that is not already been posted here?
B. In your opinion, is there a difference between a website that is supportive verses a website that reinforces?
C. In your opinion, is it supportive to reinforce a false idea that is presented by a poster?
D. (redacted by respondent)
E. Can you explain what is meant by,[...good for the community as a whole...] in referrence to being supportive?
F. In your opinion, what are the major characteristics of a supportive website and what are the major characteristics of a non-supportive web site?
G. If in your opinion a website is not supportive, what could be the results to the members, if any, other than that they could leave the site?
H. other related aspects to this discussion
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2007, at 21:30:36
In reply to Lou's response to fayeroe's post-supsit » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2007, at 21:05:54
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2007, at 10:40:29
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2007, at 19:36:46
> It is the smallest r that guarantees that after 6 months, previous incivility will still factor. So even if the previous block was only one week, and that expired 6 months ago, then
>
> B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = S + 1*[3^(-24/39)] = S + 0.51 -> S + 1 week.
>
> KlavotBefore we make the decision to switch, I just want to remind people of the above. With the revised formula, too:
B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r) = 1 + (2 * 1 - 1) * exp(-24/35) = 1.5 -> 2 weeks
while currently:
B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * (1 - 24/10) < 0 -> 1 week
--
> and others could become more confused about this being a support website......some could be hurt more by it.....others may leave...
>
> fayeroeThat's true, some could be hurt more, and others may leave, but the goal here isn't to receive support from me or the deputies...
Bob
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.