![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 8:04:39
I have been thinking about he whole "blocking" thing and IMHO I think it can cause much harm to fragile members of the website. I think it would cause feelings of shame and embarassment. Not only that, but it inflicts further isolation on a population that struggles with isolation as it is.
We use this board for understanding and support and for some of us it is the only support we have. I think of the harm it can cause to lose it, (even for a week or two).So I have to agree with Lou. Ostracizing can cause emotional and psychological harm. I don't have all the answers but I would be more comfortable in akinder system that reserved blocking for more serious infractions.
Posted by stargazer2 on January 2, 2008, at 11:30:23
In reply to I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm, posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 8:04:39
More serious infractions is the key here, what Phillipa said was so insignificant I'm still not clear why she was blocked.
So many of us state things as a matter of how we talk in real life and not everyone is on the same playing field in terms of how we "speak". Just like some use incorrect grammar, poor spelling, etc. sometimes those things bother me but I understand that not everyone has the same ability to put into words what they mean, it is not as easy for some as it is for others. I know there are some truly gifted in words and since this forum is based largely on this, many here are not seen as serious or educated, or whatever it is. Those things have to be overlooked when it comes to blocking based on a true offense and not just a figure of speech.
"more often than not" is a figure of speech, not a calculated reference to startistical probability.
I don't think this issue is ever going away but at least it has generated alot of food for thought. Uh oh, I said "ever", can I be blocked for that? Talk about becoming paranoid.
Stargazer
Posted by seldomseen on January 2, 2008, at 11:39:39
In reply to I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm, posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 8:04:39
Well, I sometimes have a problem with what the blocks are for, but I can't argue with the thought behind them.
MY biggest issue is with the escalating block length, but I digress...
Reserving blocks for the serious infractions seems like a great idea, but I've been on babble for a long time (in various names) and I think determining what rises to the level of "serious" would be a tough thing to determine. Sometimes I have enough trouble just determining what is "civil".While the pain of blocks should always be at the forefront of posters, deputies and Dr. Bob's mind, I'm not sure that this site is designed to be a forum to promote good mental health. Now, I'm no expert on the FAQs, but it seems to me that Dr. Bob is very clear that this site is for mutual support and education. Even on the psych board where I've seen people really receive a lot of help, Dr. Bob is very clear that that board is not itself psychotherapy.
However, there is a form to report adverse events found in the FAQ. I don't know if the pain from a block would be classified as an adverse event or would be considered an acceptable risk of participating here at babble.
Maybe that is something that Dr. Bob could answer.
Seldom.
Posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 11:48:33
In reply to Re: I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm » star008, posted by seldomseen on January 2, 2008, at 11:39:39
Personal experience yes I was very pained and confused was a time when we worked things out on our own on the meds board. And the block thread through e-mails the poster and I have worked out and remain friends. my goal is to at least answer the people that post and no one answers how lonely they must feel. But a generalization clarification would be helpful. Thanks for you support and kindness. phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 11:51:11
In reply to I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm, posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 8:04:39
Star I'd like to publicly thank Lou for coming to my support as he is now blocked because of me and he did work hard. At least to me. Thank-you Lou. Phillipa
Posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 15:36:28
In reply to Re: I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm » star008, posted by seldomseen on January 2, 2008, at 11:39:39
seldom..
I know what you are saying. Maybe it IS a risk of using babble. It would be hard to determine what is more "severe", it would still be a matter of opinion.. I am just worried about the damage that blocks can cause. Sometimes just more more things going wrong can send a person into a downward spiral. I am sad that those people lose the support they depend on..
it's just my opinion. I do realize how complicated it is and why there are rules and no disrespect is intended
Posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 15:40:15
In reply to Re: I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm » star008, posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 11:51:11
oh.. i am sorry Lou got blocked.. he did try to change their minds.. A few people did.. I didn't see his block..I am sure you have read the posts of support and I hope that it made u feel a little better to see that people did fight for you
Posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 15:42:12
In reply to Re: I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm, posted by stargazer2 on January 2, 2008, at 11:30:23
I know.. i am paranoid too. Keep waiting to get into trouble for sticking up for Phillipa.. Her block is over so I will let it go but it really bothered me.,
Posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 18:21:14
In reply to Re: I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm » Phillipa, posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 15:40:15
Star yes it definitely did help to see the positive too. Love Phillipa
Posted by Justherself54 on January 2, 2008, at 18:21:48
In reply to Re: I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm » stargazer2, posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 15:42:12
I have to agree..this whole generalization thing has me scratching my head..when I read Phillipa's post, it didn't even hit me that the BP cuff thing would be considered a generalization..I enjoy babble, but it bothers me when people are blocked..maybe an icon stating a thread is "flaming" like on other websites, so one knows there is controvesy..and you can choose whether or not you want to jump into the fray..it would allow for more freedom to blow off steam without the fear of being blocked..just a rambling thought..
Posted by karen_kay on January 3, 2008, at 7:51:40
In reply to I have to agree with Lou. ostracizing can harm, posted by star008 on January 2, 2008, at 8:04:39
litterally, since i am reading this!
but, what woudl you suggest is a 'serious' infracture, as opposed to a 'not so serious' infracture?
Posted by Justherself54 on January 3, 2008, at 10:04:07
In reply to i can see your point » star008, posted by karen_kay on January 3, 2008, at 7:51:40
> litterally, since i am reading this!
>
> but, what woudl you suggest is a 'serious' infracture, as opposed to a 'not so serious' infracture?That's where the problem would arise, but I would like to see some generalizations softened and the possibility of being blocked not so high. The BP cuff blocking is a good example..still struggling with that one..I would like to see a board with very limited or no blocking, as long as people remember it's on the web forever, so if they are horribly offensive, they can't take it back..reminds me of those Hallmark figurines "don't drink Merlot and email"! It would be interesting so see how much traffic it would generate..It's been my experience on other forums that when somebody gets out of hand and rude, other posters will let them know in no uncertain fashion..but on the other hand..it's Dr. Bob's website and it's his policies that we have to abide by..which can be hard sometimes when you're not feeling so well and have a trigger fingers..
I just think it would allow for people to be able to debate controversial issues without so much fear of being blocked..probably can never happen on babble but would be nice to let the fingers type whatever comes into brain first, without having to reread everything to make sure you're not breaking any rules..
>
>
Posted by star008 on January 3, 2008, at 11:06:02
In reply to i can see your point » star008, posted by karen_kay on January 3, 2008, at 7:51:40
I have to let this go since it is over and i don't want to get into trouble.. but i think a more serious infraction is someone is demeaning to someone else or says hurtful things. there is a fine line and it ends up being a matter of opinion in the end anyway.
Posted by star008 on January 3, 2008, at 11:07:54
In reply to Re: i can see your point, posted by Justherself54 on January 3, 2008, at 10:04:07
I definately did not see the bp cuff thing as anything to get blocked for.. I wonder if there were other things that they were bothered by and used this one to block her.. I jsut don't know.. doesn't make sense to me
Posted by star008 on January 3, 2008, at 17:45:08
In reply to Re: i can see your point » Justherself54, posted by star008 on January 3, 2008, at 11:07:54
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.