![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 23, 2009, at 9:26:27
In reply to for posters who don't understand blocks., posted by fayeroe on January 23, 2009, at 8:48:59
ditto
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 23, 2009, at 10:09:53
In reply to for posters who don't understand blocks., posted by fayeroe on January 23, 2009, at 8:48:59
Me three
Posted by SLS on January 23, 2009, at 10:59:05
In reply to Re: for posters who don't understand blocks. » fayeroe, posted by Partlycloudy on January 23, 2009, at 10:09:53
I don't recall Psycho-Babble ever being like some other Internet venues where flame wars were allowed to develop unchecked. I think we always attracted some very mature and sober people.
However,
I would liken the old Psycho-Babble to a rodeo. It was a lot of fun at the time, I must admit, but you would lose something on the reruns. Some people had nothing better to do than to shoot their mouths off. It was bloody, but fun to watch. Some people were all bull, and left an odor trail everywhere they went. I never bothered riding the bull. What's the point? If you don't get thrown off and land in crap, you still have to step in it. Then you had the stallions with their notions of grandieur. I loved to ride their backs until they broke. And then, there were the clowns.
Thank God for the clowns.
- Scott
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 23, 2009, at 11:14:53
In reply to Re: for posters who don't understand blocks., posted by SLS on January 23, 2009, at 10:59:05
>
> Thank God for the clowns.
>
>
> - Scott
We still have those!!
Posted by stellabystarlight on January 23, 2009, at 12:48:11
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » wittgensteinz, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 23, 2009, at 0:21:14
Re: a recent sequence... » wittgensteinz
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 23, 2009, at 0:21:14
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » twinleaf, posted by wittgensteinz on January 22, 2009, at 19:08:05
> I don't get it - where was the warning? It looks like Twinleaf returned, made a single post and immediately was blocked again for 4 weeks without even a caution.
Yes, that is essentially what happened.
>I just don't see how this block and its length are justified.
We don't always post requests to be civil (warnings) prior to blocking. It depends on the poster's history and other circumstances, e.g., experienced poster vs. a new poster, reasons for prior block, nature of incivility, time since end of last block, etc. One typical time we may choose not to post a PBC first actually is when a poster posts in violation of the guidelines immediately after a block. As for the length, it is double the length of the last one, as has been done in the past. The formula in the FAQ -
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
actually calculates 6 weeks here, but Dinah chose not to use it. Dr. Bob has given us the choice of using that tool, or not. When I don't use it, it's always because I feel the block length it suggests is too long. I'm fairly confident that goes for Dinah, too, although she may have additional reasons for not preferring the formula.
>Was this really the best thing to have been done?
I'm unsure there's any answer to that question that would be "the answer" for everyone. Babblers have many strong and differing opinions about using blocks in general, as well as about when they should be used, and for how long. In the archives and even currently, you will find many threads on the topic. As deputies, we try to follow Dr. Bob's prior practices, and be fair and just in each situation, to the best of our abilities. Dinah did follow prior practice in this case.
Dr. Bob has been alerted, and asked to review the block and its length. He, of course, can change it to whatever he wishes, including no action, if he disagrees with what we did.
> Until now, I hadn't realised Twinleaf had been blocked the last couple of weeks.
The prior block was actually over on Jan 6th.
Witti, I'm sorry your infrequent visit to Admin had been focused on this topic. As deputies we really dislike blocking, and use it only as a necessary tool, with reluctance. However, we also believe in the civility guidelines and think it's best for the community they continue to be firmly enforced. Reasonable people can definitely disagree, and often do. There are, for example, let's say - "spirited" discussions between the deputies and and Dr. Bob at times over the most appropriate rules for this site and actions to be taken in given situations.
I hope, even though you may not agree, you understand some of our considerations a bit better.
-- 10der
**********************************************************************************************I don't get it either.
So, some posters get warnings before getting blocked and some don't, because it depends on factors outside of formula?
Her block ended on 1/6...if she'd waited longer before posting again, she would have gotten a warning?These are my feelings, but Twinleaf's last post didn't make me feel unsafe in any way.
I thought she was voicing her feelings and perceptions in a respectful way.I understand it's a complicated situation. And it's subjective, but I sincerely don't perceive her post as uncivil or unsafe.
Thank you.
Stellabystarlight
Posted by Sigismund on January 23, 2009, at 13:50:18
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by stellabystarlight on January 23, 2009, at 12:48:11
Was account taken of Twinleaf's posting history?
Posted by Nadezda on January 23, 2009, at 16:11:48
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by stellabystarlight on January 23, 2009, at 12:48:11
For what it's worth, I do understand the blocks.
I understand why things happen-- not every time, but usually.
I'm sure I'll be blocked at some future time, when I lose my cool and post in a less than careful or kind way. I've done it before (not been as kind or careful as I'd like) and I'm concerned that I'll do it again.
It does depend on how the person at the receiving end of the unkindness reacts. Some people are okay; others report and ask for a sanction. This results in what seems like erratic and in that sense unfair results. But it makes sense.
Could it be done in another way? yes. Would it be better, or worse? possibly both.
I happen, for better or worse, to think this is a pretty fair system, given the complexity of running a large and complicated board.
I know it feels really bad at times, and I empathize with that. One wants to change it, protest against it, and have one's voice heard. That's why we have the admin board. We can at least protest--if not protect the person from feeling hurt--, even if not change the outcomes.
I wish it could be more ideal.. And it's part of why it's important for people to show support and caring for people who're blocked and sanctioned. Here-- or where the posts were made. I'm glad people are doing that.
But I do understand the way things are done.
Nadezda
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2009, at 17:32:08
In reply to Re: a recent sequence..., posted by Nadezda on January 23, 2009, at 16:11:48
> It does depend on how the person at the receiving end of the unkindness reacts. Some people are okay; others report and ask for a sanction.
I just want to clarify one thing. Reports are not necessarily made by the poster involved. Anyone can notify Administration, including deputy/posters.
But definitely we prefer things to be worked out if possible, and if posters involved respond in such a way as to facilitate rapprochement, it decreases the chance of administrative involvement.
I'm obviously not thrilled when posters get angry with Administration, but I'd hate to see those feelings turned toward other posters.
It definitely did serve a purpose when Dr. Bob was around. Even I routinely deflect my anger towards him. And he *seems* able to handle that. I think I'd fall off my chair if I found out anything I've ever said actually hurt Dr. Bob's feelings.
All these comments are very general in nature and do not directly bear on any particular situation.
Posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 5:45:56
In reply to Blocked for four weeks » twinleaf, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 21, 2009, at 14:08:23
I can see how Twinleaf's comments regarding Gardenergirl's post could have led her to feel put down, but that said, I can also see how GG's suggestion that Twinleaf has 'cognitive distortions' could also be upsetting/offensive to Twinleaf, but there was no recognotion of this at the time from the deputies, and I can see how Twinleaf might have felt victimised as a result and had a need for this to be recognised.
There are situations where using the notification button just doesn't seem appropriate or enough. I can think of a personal example where a poster posted two upsetting posts in quick succession. He was blocked for the first post. The second post, directed at me left me feeling very upset but because he had already been blocked for his first post there was no recognition for his behaviour in the second. In these situations, the person at the receiving end can get the feeling "well it's ok if someone says that to me but not if they say something like that to someone else". I can see a similar situation arising if someone is blocked and shortly afterwards receives a comment from antoher poster that they take to be offensive.
It is no secret that GG is a mental health professional and therefore any suggestions she does make regarding a person's mental health might be taken with more authority by the community and the recipient than if someone was simply going by personal experience and sharing about what benefitted them personally. It is one thing to give advice and make suggestions regarding what a person should be working on in terms of their mental health if that advice is asked for, but in the context, it would seem this advice had the effect of undermining or invalidating the concerns that Twinleaf was expressing.
My worry now is that this experience will put Twinleaf off from ever returning to Babble and that would be a great loss for the community here.
Witti
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 9:36:07
In reply to Regarding Twinleaf's block, posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 5:45:56
> ...I can also see how GG's suggestion that Twinleaf has 'cognitive distortions' could also be upsetting/offensive to Twinleaf, but there was no recognotion of this at the time from the deputies, and I can see how Twinleaf might have felt victimised as a result and had a need for this to be recognised.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870270.html
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, even if they have already received a PBC.
> There are situations where using the notification button just doesn't seem appropriate or enough.> I can think of a personal example where a poster posted two upsetting posts in quick succession. He was blocked for the first post. The second post, directed at me left me feeling very upset but because he had already been blocked for his first post there was no recognition for his behaviour in the second.
I recognize that there are times when the rules at Babble do not seem adequate for expressing our pain and frustration. In fact, since as a deputy the rules that apply to me are even more stringent, and enforcement of the existing rules toward me is somewhat (but not infinitely) more relaxed by Dr. Bob's expressed wish, I am very much aware of this. However, the rules were created by Dr. Bob for the good of the board. And if there was no enforcement of the rules, there is no real purpose in having them. Everyone on Babble is likely frustrated by the civility guidelines at times, but they are also protected by the civility guidelines. Frustrated or not, Dr. Bob asks that we abide by the civility rules. Posters always have the option of deciding whether breaking the rules is worth the consequences, for reasons of conscience or satisfaction or various and sundry other reasons, although since I think there are valid reasons for the civility rules in fostering a supportive community, for the most part I hope that posters find a way to do what their conscience or feelings of dissatisfaction require while keeping the civility guidelines and the spirit of the civility guidelines in mind. (I am not at all suggesting that this is the only reason for posting in violation of board guidelines.)
The standard practice of not PBC'ing posts for a poster who has since been PBC'd and not blocking on posts where a poster has already been blocked has two purposes IMO. Dr. Bob can correct me if I am wrong. The first purpose is frankly related to the blocked poster. It may be harder for people to understand in some cases than others, but Dr. Bob is in favor of making rules that apply to *everyone* on the board. The second reason is practical. Once a poster is PBC'd or blocked for one post, Dr. Bob does not act on posts previous to that, so from an administrative point of view it is moot rather posts made before that time were uncivil so Dr. Bob's limited time is spent on future posts.
However, since that time, deputies suggested and received permission to post reminder posts to persons already blocked or PBC'd on posts made around the same time. Particularly if they are on different boards. Because we recognize that not everyone reads every thread or every board. So if in the future you would like to do that, please let Administration know, and if it falls into those parameters we will do it.
> My worry now is that this experience will put Twinleaf off from ever returning to Babble and that would be a great loss for the community here.
No one respects Twinleaf or her contributions to the Board more than I do. No one regrets this situation more than I do. Particularly since I post frequently on the Psychology Board, and I consider it my second family. We've had many valuable and interesting discussions over the many years of our acquaintance that I cherish, and I would hate to see those end. While I don't wish to speak for anyone else, I believe Twinleaf's contributions to Babble are greatly respected by Dr. Bob and deputies. I very much hope as well that Twinleaf comes back to Babble.
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:16:33
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » wittgensteinz, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 9:36:07
Could you please explain then why Twinleaf was blocked rather than given a warning for her post? I don't believe that the formula makes it clear to the community.
Inquiring minds sincerely want to know.
Thank you
pc
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 10:18:04
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » Deputy Dinah, posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:16:33
I think Deputy 10derheart addressed that as well as I could.
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:25:38
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » Partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 10:18:04
> I think Deputy 10derheart addressed that as well as I could.
Ah, right. Silence from you, then. Thanks for the illumination.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 10:28:20
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » Dinah, posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:25:38
I believe that Deputy 10derheart provided sufficient illumination. I do not consider that silence from me, since it is a clear endorsement of Deputy 10derheart's explanation.
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:57:48
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » Partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 10:28:20
> I believe that Deputy 10derheart provided sufficient illumination. I do not consider that silence from me, since it is a clear endorsement of Deputy 10derheart's explanation.
>
>Then that's your story, Dinah. That's all I'm saying.
Posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 11:35:36
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » wittgensteinz, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 9:36:07
My apologies for having potentially caused offense to you, Gardenergirl.
Dinah, Thank you also for clarifying what you did in your PM to me - I hadn't realised this and should have done my research properly first. I appreciate the time you took to send me this reply (on the board) - I realise there are no easy answers and there will probably never be a system where everyone is happy all of the time.
I suppose what I find hard is to see posters who have been blocked and then re-blocked in quick succession. I realise one has a choice when one follows his/her conscience and how it is gone about.
Witti
Posted by stellabystarlight on January 24, 2009, at 12:17:24
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block - Dinah/GG, posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 11:35:36
Feeling unsafe...for the first time here.While watching bad things happen to good people.
Rules don't hurt...people hurt.
I feel helpless.
I'm very sad.
I'm sorry, Twinleaf.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 13:33:03
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block - Dinah/GG, posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 11:35:36
I am often apprehensive that my posting in any detail will not be useful in terms of board harmony, so I appreciate that very much.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 24, 2009, at 14:44:35
In reply to Regarding Twinleaf's block, posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 5:45:56
> It is no secret that GG is a mental health professional...
My occupational status was certainly no secret at the time I posted it freely myself. That said, that doesn't mean that my past status is common knowledge in the present, as I certainly don't expect that all posters here have read all my posts.
My current occupational status is something I do not choose to disclose on this site, in part because of the very same assumptions and/or associations you mentioned above that someone might make about me and my posting behavior. I also have other, personal reasons for disclosing less about myself now than in the past.
Respectfully,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on January 24, 2009, at 14:49:30
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block - Dinah/GG, posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 11:35:36
> My apologies for having potentially caused offense to you, Gardenergirl.
No worries, but thanks.
gg
Posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 24, 2009, at 17:01:53
In reply to a recent sequence..., posted by twinleaf on January 21, 2009, at 13:52:30
Keep your gentle heart still open, I appreciate you and all you have ever done.
I am so sorry you are hurting, you take care of yourself.
Posted by rskontos on January 25, 2009, at 18:11:08
In reply to (((((Twinleaf)))))), posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 24, 2009, at 17:01:53
I would like to second everyone's well wishes for you Twinleaf. And this unfortunate event is why I don't ask for clarification even on Administration Board because it seems you (meaning me) are not safe to ask simple questions without appearing uncivil. I never mean to appear uncivil. I worry about asking questions and getting PBC's, or blocks, or hurting anyone so I just usually stay silent.
I worry about anyone that is blocked. It hurts to be turned away from the one site that many of us turn to because we feel IRL people can't relate to us, and to be rebuffed here is a double whammy. But the rules here are definitely confusing to someone that stays in a somewhat confused state anyway, so I walk on eggshells with what I ask or post.
It just is how Babble can be. sometimes.
sorry Twinleaf. But you are one of my favorite posters. I love your insights. I hope you come back.
take care,
rsk
Posted by softheprairie on January 25, 2009, at 21:53:16
In reply to Re: (((((Twinleaf)))))) » SlugSlimersSoSlided, posted by rskontos on January 25, 2009, at 18:11:08
Twinleaf, I mostly lurk, but I, too, like your thoughtfulness and hope you will return.
Posted by stellabystarlight on January 26, 2009, at 2:21:12
In reply to a recent sequence..., posted by twinleaf on January 21, 2009, at 13:52:30
Twinleaf,
Just in case you're still reading...
I want you to know that you are not alone and not cast out.
I know from your previous posts that's how you might be feeling, and I'm sorry.
I have read many of your posts, even the archived ones, and you are one of the most
kind and sensitive babblers here, and very much respected and valued by many.I have been tremendously helped by your replies to me as well as your replies to others -
I always get something from your posts. You are an asset here!I want you to know that you're in my thoughts, and I hope your stellar analyst is helping you
through this period. I hope you're doing alright.It would be a shame and a huge loss for babble to lose someone as insightful and thoughtful as you.
So...come back strong (or however way), Twinleaf. You are missed.
Stellabystarlight
Posted by Sigismund on February 7, 2009, at 16:58:53
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block - Dinah/GG, posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 11:35:36
Some people hold to their principles regardless of outcome.
Sdb and Twinleaf, (their posts and the lack of concern for outcome that resulted in their blocks) have that in common.
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.