![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 75 to 99 of 99. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2009, at 2:20:18
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2009, at 2:16:18
Thank you for the apology, by the way. It comes and goes, but I think it does mean something to me. Something that I can accept. At times. It will take a while. I'm sorry.
Posted by twinleaf on July 1, 2009, at 3:11:45
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2009, at 10:07:10
I am talking about a VERY RARE thing- a poster who comes on to a site with the sole purpose of tearing everyone down. This happened recently to a birdwatching site I belong to and the person was blocked permanently- but this is very very unusual.
Bob, do you ever consider eliminating long and/or escalating blocks? A number of people, from painful personal experience, have pointed out the harmful aspects of them, and a number of therapists have expressed intense concern about them also, Unless I missed it, no-one has ever written in favor of them- except YOU. But, alarmingly, you do not ever give the reasons why you want to give them- other than that they are in the rules which you wrote, and that you have the power to do it.
We all know this, because you have said it over and over. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT LONG BLOCKS ARE UNIVERSALLY CONSIDERED HARMFUL IN THIS COMMUNITY, would you consider changing your rules so that long blocks are no longer given?
Posted by gardenergirl on July 1, 2009, at 8:35:18
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by twinleaf on July 1, 2009, at 3:11:45
There are universally-held beliefs here?
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 1:22:38
Dr. Bob, I dont entirely understand what youre trying for here, but I do think its not a bad thing to encourage posters in this sort of support. But while Im entirely in favor of responsibility, Im not sure fellow posters have the power to encourage people to act in such a way to avoid a block. And as you have no doubt guessed, in some cases it would not be seen as support by either fellow posters or the poster in question to encourage them to do something they find morally wrong to avoid a block. Or maybe people are afraid of being hurt themselves if they put themselves out that way.
I think its great to, for example, thank those who did attempt to intervene, and point out that this is enormously helpful to Babble. And if people attempted to intervene, but were inadvertently uncivil in trying to follow your wishes, maybe some education is in order. But I dont think chastisement is appropriate in those cases where the community failed to make an effort to divert a poster from a path that appeared to be leading to a block. In other words, I think positive role modeling, and administrative feedback might be more effective and better received.Posters have made their proposals. Youve made your proposal, and it doesnt seem at this point to be well received. But no one has attempted to state the goal, and try to mesh out something that may not be ideal to anyone, but may be better than one now exists.
One thing that might help is to post some statistics that show the scope of the issue. How many people are currently blocked for long periods of time (or at all)? How many PBCs have been granted recently?Its your job as site administrator to be clear which proposals are just not going to happen, so that posters can move onto new ideas.
For example, I doubt that a two week cap will be ok with you. But perhaps something shorter than a year would be open to discussion. Or better yet, IMO, other alternatives can be offered.
I propose something that emphasizes the responsibility of posters. After all, the goal of a block is not to punish or extract vengeance. The goal of a block is to enforce a policy that cannot be enforced any other way. The goal of the policy is to have a reduction of conflict on the site so that the main focus of the board is support and education. Setting a time limited block then having people come back on occasion angry and hurt and not particularly receptive to site guidelines is not perhaps the best approach to achieve your goal. Neither, IMO, is very short blocks since a considerable period of turmoil often precedes a block, and that would not be desirable every two weeks. Its a fine balance between trying to support those who are hurt by admin actions and those who are hurt by poster actions.
How about instead of blocks being set by time, that blocks instead be set by the taking of responsibility by posters to follow site guidelines. For example, after a first block of a week or so (with no blocks in the recent past), a poster could be contacted by Admin or contact Admin and express an understanding and willingness to abide by site guidelines. Or at least a willingness to try to understand and abide by site guidelines. If there is another issue in a reasonable period of time, the poster will again be blocked, and this time offer some sort of corrective plan. Something like I understand that what I wish to say on Faith is not necessarily ok under board guidelines. I dont like it, but Ill abide by that. Or I dont really understand the rules, but Ill ask someone before I post. Or I know I blow up when Im angry, and say things Ill later regret. If I feel Im getting angry, Ill walk away from the computer. If that still doesnt work (again, within a reasonable period of time), there would be probation, where a poster might have to get their posts okd by another poster. In other words, the emphasis should be on a posters willingness to abide by site guidelines, no matter how much they may dislike them. At the same time, a poster could state what they believe Admin could do to help them follow site guidelines. I think at least a week ought to go by between block and offer of compromise.
Also, since shame often seems to come up in these conversations, perhaps we could open the possibility of off board admin actions, and the removal of uncivil posts. I dont like it, because it doesnt seem to be as aboveboard as I prefer. But if shame is a major factor and a sticking point, maybe it would be for the best. It seems to be the accepted standard for the internet. OTOH, that would make it difficult for posters to understand board policy.
In other words, instead of posters saying what they think should be done, and you saying what you think should be done, how about a conversation based on what Im sure are shared goals.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:18:48
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
The first step at least could be automated, as a reregistration under the same posting name required after a block.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:26:52
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
It was likely incorrect to say no one tried. More correct to say that no one has succeeded in starting a give and take with you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 10:34:33
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by twinleaf on July 1, 2009, at 3:11:45
> Perhaps in both cases the issue isn't really about changing who we are. Perhaps the issue is more about changing certain behaviors that are considered problematic. You consider our behavior problematic and we consider yours problematic.
>
> Who will prevail?
>
> You.I will? You'll change those behaviors?
> We can leave, of course. That seems to be the power we have when the dynamic is considered in the above way.
> you also have the power with respect to determining the nature and limits of the roles and you have the power to decide which roles you assign to the various people who post here (including yourself). Our power once again is merely to 'opt out'.
You have options besides fight or flight. But maybe you consider them less acceptable for some reason?
> > Speaking of being administrative, have you seen:
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902892.html
>
> I have.
>
> > Waiting to reply can make it easier to be civil...
>
> I need some more time. It is on my 'to do' list, but my internet access is limited right now and my mental state is fragile. I will get back to it though, from a place of good intent.
>
> alexandra_kOK, thanks.
--
> I am talking about a VERY RARE thing- a poster who comes on to a site with the sole purpose of tearing everyone down.
How would I know what a poster's purpose was?
Also, that seems to imply two distinct types of posters, those for whom short blocks are appropriate and those for whom permanent blocks are appropriate. There wouldn't be any in between?
> Bob, do you ever consider eliminating long and/or escalating blocks? ... alarmingly, you do not ever give the reasons why you want to give them
>
> twinleafI've already eliminated the longest blocks. And permanent blocks! And added de-escalation. I give them to enforce the posting guidelines here.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 11:21:42
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:26:52
And still not. :)
Posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:35:41
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on June 29, 2009, at 18:42:00
I second bayleaf's respond. As if you are just enforcing someone's elses rules. Like you're a deputy. Come on that is a cop out if I ever heard one.
rsk
Posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:44:52
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2009, at 10:07:10
>>What I'm trying to shift is power. Or, to be more precise, self-efficacy, since we already share power. As I said before, I wonder if some posters may be attached (not by choice, of course) to feelings of powerlessness. But empathy, communication, reassurance, and checking in give you influence (a form of power). But the flip side of power is responsibility.>>>
Then give us some power. We don't have immunity if we try to help a poster not get blocked and it blows up in our face because you step in and block people right and left.
But I am steamed now. Already the amount of posters and posts etc are so far down and you try to shift the focus on it is because we don't "help" each other avoid blocks. Again, I feel this is a cop out.
Then to try and analyze us that we "want to feel powerless" Please don't assume you know how we feel. When we post how we feel and you read into it your own projections.
The bottom line is we, the posters, feel you, the administrator, are unfairly and to no avail using blocks in a way that hurts us all including the site and its number of daily posts and new threads. Being in part because we are losing those we feel for and miss. But I guess you just don't get that. You want to make us accountable but not yourself.
But again, as this argument goes on and on and on, your views won't change yet you expect us too. So how does that work.
We have no power Dr Bob. If we did the blocking formula would be changed. Period. You have it all.
How can we be part of the change when it is your opinion we are up against?
rsk
Posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:50:22
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
Dinah,
I appreciated for one, your attempt, to get Dr. Bob to meet us halfway.
I really appreciated this post. However it all turns out, I like knowing someone understands where we are trying to go with this.
rsk
Posted by Zeba on July 1, 2009, at 15:19:59
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:44:52
My impression only, but it seems to me that Dr. Bob is playing word games. Of course he has all the power to block or not. If he would like to back off of that power and chnage things, that would be fine. However, in the end, the whole blocking process of anything greater than 30 days, in my mind, is punitive and excessive. Some here think that it should not be more than two weeks.
I am having a slow day at work due to a No Show, as otherwise I would not even bother with all this anymore. I just would wish that others would not allow themselves to get worked up over Bob and his ways. He is who he is and from my perspective, he does not seem ammenable to changing his behavior in spite of the fact that he thinks posters should be amenable to changing their behavior.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 17:39:25
In reply to Re: thanks Dinah » Dinah, posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:50:22
I don't think I deserve much more credit than Dr. Bob. Dr. Bob and I aren't so far way from one another in what we want.
I don't know that posters and Dr. Bob are so far off with what they want, either. It's just that people, Dr. Bob, posters, and all the rest of the world, sometimes have trouble communicating.
My therapist and I fight not infrequently. I always say that although we fight, we hold on to our relationship with one hand. We try to keep in mind the greater goal.
I suppose I try to do that with Dr. Bob as well, although of course he doesn't have the same commitment to me that my therapist does. He does have that commitment to Babble though.
Dr. Bob cares about posters, I think. He doesn't want to see people blocked. Posters and Dr. Bob both care about Babble, and babblers.
Wouldn't it be better for all of us to "fight" with one hand on our care for Babble and babblers? With an eye to keeping Babble as a viable and supportive message board in an internet that gets bigger and bigger every day?
All of us who have been in therapy, or gone to therapy school as I'm guessing Dr. Bob has, know the basics of fair fighting. Validation for the other person's feelings and desires, even if we can't grant them. Respect. Expressing anger with at least one eye to the overall relationship and the overall goal.
Even if some posters may not like Bob, they probably do appreciate his providing Babble and the time he puts in - given that they care enough about Babble to stay.
And in his own way, I don't think Dr. Bob means this as a shifting of blame onto the babble community, but as something that has occurred to him to support posters who are posting in such a way that a block is a possibility.
I think Dr. Bob is a good-enough administrator, just as I think posters are good-enough posters and the deputy-posters are good-enough deputies. We're all we've got (in the composition of Babble at least), so we might as well make the best of it?
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 17:40:22
In reply to Re: thanks Dinah » rskontos, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 17:39:25
Fighting *to* relationship.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 19:03:20
In reply to Re: thanks Dinah, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 17:40:22
I'm like this in real life too.
Pity my poor son.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 23:39:57
In reply to Re: block avoidance » rskontos, posted by Zeba on July 1, 2009, at 15:19:59
> I second bayleaf's respond. As if you are just enforcing someone's elses rules. Like you're a deputy.
>
> rskFriends don't let friends drive drunk. If you don't let a friend drive drunk, do you feel you're just enforcing your state's drunk driving rules?
--
> Im not sure fellow posters have the power to encourage people to act in such a way to avoid a block. And as you have no doubt guessed, in some cases it would not be seen as support by either fellow posters or the poster in question to encourage them to do something they find morally wrong to avoid a block.
IMO, posters do have the power to encourage. Though of course encouraging someone to do something doesn't always lead to them doing it.
I agree, if a poster is uncivil and feels it's morally wrong to interpret things more charitably, to apologize, to rephrase, or to refrain from addressing those they can't get along with, encouraging them to do so may be counterproductive. And blocking them may be best for the community.
> Or maybe people are afraid of being hurt themselves if they put themselves out that way.
>
> Dinah> We don't have immunity if we try to help a poster not get blocked and it blows up in our face
That's an interesting point, should there be more tolerance of incivility if it's to try to help another poster not get blocked?
> Then to try and analyze us that we "want to feel powerless"
I doubt many people would say they want to feel powerless, but with power comes responsibility. So with powerlessness comes blamelessness. For example, regarding being an "enforcer".
> You want to make us accountable but not yourself.
I'm accountable for blocking (or not blocking) people. Posters are accountable for helping (or not helping) each other avoid blocks.
> We have no power Dr Bob. If we did the blocking formula would be changed. Period. You have it all.
>
> rsk> Of course he has all the power to block or not.
>
> I just would wish that others would not allow themselves to get worked up over Bob and his ways. He is who he is and from my perspective, he does not seem ammenable to changing his behavior in spite of the fact that he thinks posters should be amenable to changing their behavior.
>
> ZebaIf the goal is fewer blocks, two alternative strategies are:
1. Try to convince me to change my behavior (stop blocking, change the formula, etc).
2. Try to convince other posters to change their behavior (interpret things more charitably, apologize, rephrase, refrain from addressing those they can't get along with, etc).
Which is more likely to lead to feeling powerless? Which is more likely to lead to the goal?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 2, 2009, at 0:02:14
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 23:39:57
> > Or maybe people are afraid of being hurt themselves if they put themselves out that way.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> > We don't have immunity if we try to help a poster not get blocked and it blows up in our face
>
> That's an interesting point, should there be more tolerance of incivility if it's to try to help another poster not get blocked?To be clear, I didn't mean afraid of getting into trouble with administration. There are other ways of being hurt on Babble than by Admin.
And IMO, allowing incivility so that people can help others not get blocked is a) not necessarily the best route to changing someone's POV, and b) not necessarily conducive to board harmony. I think people have been trying to do as you ask on Admin lately, and I see troubles inherent in that as well. I think it's great that more education be given if you are trying to encourage new behaviors, so if that's what you mean by tolerance, then that could be sensible.
> If the goal is fewer blocks, two alternative strategies are:
>
> 1. Try to convince me to change my behavior (stop blocking, change the formula, etc).
>
> 2. Try to convince other posters to change their behavior (interpret things more charitably, apologize, rephrase, refrain from addressing those they can't get along with, etc).
>
> Which is more likely to lead to feeling powerless? Which is more likely to lead to the goal?
>
> BobWould it shock you horribly if I admitted that I thought neither was more likely to lead to feeling powerless than the other? Our power with any other person is limited. It's not just you. I think it's more that we all have more experience watching and experiencing the powerlessness involved in trying to influence *you*. But the only person we really have any possibility of exerting power over is ourselves. We can encourage other posters, just as we encourage you, but to hope overmuch in being successful is to open ourselves to pain and frustration.
I would hope that there is more than one path to a goal. I recognize that at this moment you may wish to concentrate on *this* path, but I hope that over time, you are open to exploring other paths as well?
Might it also be worthwhile to consider the limits of power as well as the having of power? Sort of a realistic and pragmatic view of power. You wish for people to recognize the power and responsibility they have. But responsibility needs to be limited to where power lies, just as power needs to be limited to where responsibility lies.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2009, at 2:19:12
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dinah on July 2, 2009, at 0:02:14
> To be clear, I didn't mean afraid of getting into trouble with administration. There are other ways of being hurt on Babble than by Admin.
Oh, like the poster you encourage might not appreciate it? That's true. What do you do if you're worried about what might happen to a friend in your "real" life and you don't think they'd appreciate what you'd like to suggest?
> Our power with any other person is limited. It's not just you. ... We can encourage other posters, just as we encourage you, but to hope overmuch in being successful is to open ourselves to pain and frustration.
I agree. Trying to change my behavior has certainly led to some pain and frustration! But I thought posters were in general pretty open to input from other posters?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 2, 2009, at 7:25:52
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2009, at 2:19:12
> > To be clear, I didn't mean afraid of getting into trouble with administration. There are other ways of being hurt on Babble than by Admin.
>
> Oh, like the poster you encourage might not appreciate it? That's true. What do you do if you're worried about what might happen to a friend in your "real" life and you don't think they'd appreciate what you'd like to suggest?You'd have to be a lot more specific. But in general I'm careful about it even with big things. If I think my friend will be open to my opinions, I'd likely give them. But if they don't seem open, I'd likely refrain. I wouldn't lie, if asked. But that's not likely to be an issue in what you're discussing. It's a rare person that I feel entirely free to tell exactly what I think in all circumstances. My husband perhaps. My therapist definitely. And you I'm sure. But with the last two at least, the type of relationship is different so is governed internally by different rules. So.... I'd say in general it's not that much different than here.
>
> > Our power with any other person is limited. It's not just you. ... We can encourage other posters, just as we encourage you, but to hope overmuch in being successful is to open ourselves to pain and frustration.
>
> I agree. Trying to change my behavior has certainly led to some pain and frustration! But I thought posters were in general pretty open to input from other posters?
>
> BobWell, that hasn't been my experience. Not unless we were particular friends. It would depend on the type of relationship we have. And even then there are limits.
Which is not to say that posters haven't gently let me know when they I was reacting in a way that wasn't in my best interests or interpreting things incorrectly or personalizing something that wasn't personal. In terms of what was in my best interests, or with concern or humor. I've certainly benefited from and appreciated those efforts, because they clearly came from affection and caring. And of course I always think civility buddies are a great idea.
But the ability to influence other posters is not as great as I think you think it is, at least not in my experience. And it depends a *lot* on personal relationship and on context. That's what I meant by it being useful to pragmatically discuss the realities of limited power.
But perhaps others have had a different experience of the effort. That's just me. I hope others will share their experiences and thoughts with you.
Pure hypotheticals would seem to me to be a good way to explore the idea without people feeling as angry if they might if you explore it as things actually come up. If you post a hypothetical, and ask how people thought they could support a friend in the way you suggest, and then maybe suggest something yourself and hear people's reactions, it might be more abstract and less emotional? Have you the time to put one or two out there?
Posted by twinleaf on July 2, 2009, at 7:31:38
In reply to Universally? » twinleaf, posted by gardenergirl on July 1, 2009, at 8:35:18
I apologize for using the word "universally". You are quite right that we were only hearing from a tiny fraction of the whole community, and don't even know the views of the vast majority. Of the posters who spoke about the block issue (below), all of them favored much shorter blocks and more flexible use of them. But we did not hear from you, who may have diametrically opposed views.
Posted by twinleaf on July 2, 2009, at 7:47:35
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 10:34:33
As to permanent blocks, I really shouldn't have brought that up here. It really was appropriate for the birdwatching site, but that site has much simpler expectations for respectful interactions than Babble could possibly have.
Perhaps I missed something. This is the first time you have said that you had "eliminated the longest blocks" and had instituted "de-escalatation" (of successive blocks, presumably). If you have done these things, it is wonderful news! But I don't believe I have actually seen an example of either. Could you give us some examples?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2009, at 9:56:55
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 2, 2009, at 7:25:52
> in general I'm careful about it even with big things. If I think my friend will be open to my opinions, I'd likely give them. But if they don't seem open, I'd likely refrain. ... It's a rare person that I feel entirely free to tell exactly what I think in all circumstances.
>
> It would depend on the type of relationship we have. And even then there are limits.
>
> Which is not to say that posters haven't gently let me know when they I was reacting in a way that wasn't in my best interests or interpreting things incorrectly or personalizing something that wasn't personal. In terms of what was in my best interests, or with concern or humor. I've certainly benefited from and appreciated those efforts, because they clearly came from affection and caring.
>
> But the ability to influence other posters is not as great as I think you think it is, at least not in my experience. And it depends a *lot* on personal relationship and on context. That's what I meant by it being useful to pragmatically discuss the realities of limited power.I agree, there would be limits, it would depend on the circumstances, and on the relationship, and it would be important to be careful, not necessarily to say exactly what you think, and for the other person to be at least somewhat open. It could be done gently and with concern and affection and caring and maybe humor.
> > there are ways of negotiating an apology in such a way as to make it possible, if that is the intent
And it could be appreciated, too.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on July 2, 2009, at 21:08:52
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 23:39:57
Friends don't let friends drive drunk. If you don't let a friend drive drunk, do you feel you're just enforcing your state's drunk driving rules?
Holy ****!
Posted by gardenergirl on July 6, 2009, at 10:33:21
In reply to Re: Universally?, posted by twinleaf on July 2, 2009, at 7:31:38
Thank you.
No, I did not weigh in on this issue this time around. I laid down that lance awhile ago and no longer tilt at that particular windmill.
gg
Posted by Sigismund on July 12, 2009, at 18:03:16
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by twinleaf on July 2, 2009, at 7:47:35
>Perhaps I missed something. This is the first time you have said that you had "eliminated the longest blocks" and had instituted "de-escalatation" (of successive blocks, presumably). If you have done these things, it is wonderful news! But I don't believe I have actually seen an example of either. Could you give us some examples?
Certainly not yours.
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.