![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 102. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2009, at 23:35:26
In reply to Re: the length » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2009, at 22:14:26
> > > You've recently been reminded of site guidelines, so I'm going to have to block you. I'll let Dr. Bob set the length.
> >
> > I'm sad that this community wasn't able to help you avoid another block, either. According to the formula:
> >
> > duration of previous block: 52 weeks
> > period of time since previous block: 18 weeks
> > severity: 2 (default) 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
> > block length = 93.93 rounded = 94 capped = 52 weeks
> >
> > Bob
>
> The blame game. How's that working for you, Bob?p.s. in no way do i condone Verne's actions.
it bothers me very much for Bob to say that the community didn't keep Verne from being blocked.
there are lots of things that are none of our business. i don't think you will ever understand how boundaries and filters work here. we work to have them and you work to shame us.
>
>
Posted by BayLeaf on July 6, 2009, at 23:39:13
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20090624/msgs/905254.html
Posted by BayLeaf on July 6, 2009, at 23:39:13
In reply to Verne's Block Length = 52 weeks, posted by BayLeaf on July 6, 2009, at 19:01:25
Posted by Kath on July 6, 2009, at 23:39:14
In reply to Verne's Block Length = 52 weeks, posted by BayLeaf on July 6, 2009, at 19:01:25
Dear BL,
If the post had just had one sentence calling someone a troll, that might have been one thing.
If that post had been directed at me, I think I would have felt like I'd been hit by a tsunami (not that I ever have been!)
I personally was very upset by that post & it sure wasn't the 'tone' that I like to encounter here. For the most part, I find the tone of most posts at Babble supportive, kind, caring, - that type of thing.
It jars me like heck when there's what to me seems like a personal attack. That's just my own personal reaction to it.
I'm sorry that you're upset about it, and I am sorry if you're upset by my post. I just had to say how I felt.
Kath
Posted by HyperFocus on July 7, 2009, at 3:11:50
In reply to Re: Verne's Block Length, posted by Kath on July 6, 2009, at 23:39:14
I think I understand what Dr. Bob is saying. There were a lot of posts from before by verne and you could just see where it was going. If somebody had stepped in and just tried to detour him from getting to this point and maybe offered to help him with whatever was troubling him, maybe it would have helped. It was a pretty troubling personal attack but I don't believe that verne really meant what he said. If he had apologized to Deneb and everybody maybe he wouldn't have had to be blocked.
However, that said, a year's ban is draconian and ridiculous. People lean on PB a lot and share a lot of stuff they can't anywhere else.
It should be a month at most.I think that verne was just needing some help. It sucks that now he doesn't have PB to help him.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2009, at 3:59:42
In reply to Re: the length » fayeroe, posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2009, at 23:35:26
> I am sincerely puzzled about how we could have helped him avoid a block?
>
> Also, does his 52 week block start from 6/16 or 7/6?
>
> Ava> I did try helping Verne avoid a block.
>
> Doesn't that count?
>
> Deneb> I find it difficult to intervene and "help" people who do not treat others civilly, which of course would be a subjective judgment on my part to even contemplate doing such a thing. I find it very difficult to negotiate this "helping" thing without being accused of making accusations.
>
> - Scott> I'm not sure what we could have done?
>
> KathDeneb, you certainly did try, and that certainly counts. More people trying may or may not have made a difference.
He had been helped to avoid a block before, so that approach might have worked this time, too. Or, I'm sure you all could do better, but just as an example, what about something like:
> > Verne, I'm worried that Dr. Bob isn't going to like what you just posted. I care about you, and you're important to this community. Maybe being blocked doesn't bother you, but would you consider apologizing for my sake? I feel sad and traumatized every time he blocks one of us.
--
> I would have acted immediately, not a month later. I would have given him one month off. And during that month I would have asked the admins (and volunteers?) to keep in touch with him, offering him support and encouragement to stop doing those things which caused the infraction.
>
> bayDid anyone here offer him encouragement to stop doing what had led to his PBC 12 days earlier?
--
> I'm sad Psychobabble is such a punitive site. It could be so much more, but Bob chooses to do things his way in spite of saying people who post have the power; that is simply just not so.
>
> ZebaI agree, it could be much more if posters didn't choose to use their power to post in uncivil ways.
--
> Verne was trying to get blocked because he felt it unhealthy of him to be here----at least that's my take.
>
> henI don't mean to imply that those who thought it was healthier for him to be blocked should've tried to stop him.
--
> it bothers me very much for Bob to say that the community didn't keep Verne from being blocked.
>
> there are lots of things that are none of our business. i don't think you will ever understand how boundaries and filters work here. we work to have them and you work to shame us.
>
> fayeroeIt's none of your business if other posters are blocked?
Bob
Posted by Deneb on July 7, 2009, at 7:23:35
In reply to Re: the length, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2009, at 3:59:42
Hey Verne,
I just realized I got angry and a bit vengeful. 52 weeks is a really long time. I hope you find the support you want. It's hard for me to put myself in other people's shoes.
Posted by gobbledygook on July 7, 2009, at 9:46:18
In reply to Re: the length, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2009, at 3:59:42
> I am sincerely puzzled about how we could have helped him avoid a block?
>
> Also, does his 52 week block start from 6/16 or 7/6?
>
> Ava
He had been helped to avoid a block before, so that approach might have worked this time, too. Or, I'm sure you all could do better, but just as an example, what about something like:> > Verne, I'm worried that Dr. Bob isn't going to like what you just posted. I care about you, and you're important to this community. Maybe being blocked doesn't bother you, but would you consider apologizing for my sake? I feel sad and traumatized every time he blocks one of us.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************
Bob,He was blocked 1 hour and 7 minutes after his posted. I did not see Verne's post until a few days later, and personally, I can't
be here all the time as I'm a mom with real life duties.Are you saying that we should have tried to get him to rephrase/apologize within an hour of his post...before getting blocked?
An hour is not much time...what if he needed to log off from his computer to deal with his real life for the day?I don't recall seeing a post where he was helped to avoid a block (if it's not too much trouble, I'd like to see the link) , but I've
seen babblers get pbc'd and blocked while trying to help...Also, does his 52 week block start from 6/16 or 7/6?
Ava
p.s. I don't hate you...never have.
Posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 10:45:51
In reply to Re: the length, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2009, at 3:59:42
Bob said: "It's none of your business if other posters are blocked?"
Bob
You read what I said. And if I have learned one thing from watching you block people (1 year! Good grief!) I'm not going to get into any kind of discussion with you about Verne, in particular.
You know that I meant that I am dismayed that you try and shame the community after YOU block someone. I've said it to you before and you also know that. End of discussion.
Posted by rskontos on July 7, 2009, at 12:20:27
In reply to Verne's block - 52 weeks? for calling her a troll?, posted by BayLeaf on July 6, 2009, at 19:05:31
find ourselves in.
Dr. Bob, I too, felt upset when you placed the blame for verne's block on us. It also upset me that you waited the length of time you did. I guess no one used the notify button about the tone of the post to Deneb. I would have been hurt by Verne's remarks, it does sound like attacking to me as well, but I would have been hurt it took you this length of time to notice.
All that said, I do wish you would stop expecting us to help others get blocked or not get blocked, we can't always do that effectively or even know how to get around doing it civilly. I accept you aren't going to get our views on blockings and how the length is just as important as the block itself.
As I see it, the block is too help the person or persons hurt by the block, and to help the blockee not escalate something. How exactly does blocking someone for 52 weeks help us here at babble. And how would you ever expect someone would come back after that when they have to learn to deal without the support of Babble for a year and therefore probably doesn't want to be here anymore.
I think in the case of what seems to be a direct attack, I am not sure of Verne's intent so I will use the word seems, a month block is suitable for helping him get the message and I don't see how anything longer than that helps Deneb since she already forgave him.
rsk
Posted by Phillipa on July 7, 2009, at 12:39:35
In reply to Re: why this is another example of the odds we, posted by rskontos on July 7, 2009, at 12:20:27
How to say this civily is hard. I know of Verne's problem as most do doesn't excuse behavior. What I truly wish is we could somehow get him help. Is there a way? I also didn't see the post till days after it happened yes I post a lot but also do ebay so don't visit all the boards all the time. Phillipa ps I'm hopefully civil. It hurts both parties is my feeling.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on July 7, 2009, at 13:06:21
In reply to Re: why this is another example of the odds we, posted by rskontos on July 7, 2009, at 12:20:27
There seems to be some confusion about the timing of he admin action(s) being discussed.
verne's post: June 16, 2009, at 1:27:10
Dinah's block: June 16, 2009, at 2:34:31
This was on the same day. As posters have pointed out, only a little over an hour later.
The only thing that happened quite a while later (20 days) - on July 6 - was Dr. Bob confirming, and posting to the thread on Social where this happened, what the length would be, as well as posting the formula used.
On June 16th, the deputies determined it was appropriate to use a block and did so. The 52 weeks starts from 6/16. We don't like blocks, but are particularly reluctant to use long blocks like one year, even though posting behavior sometimes results in this calculation under the current rules and methods for calculating block length. I am not saying we do or don't believe in long blocks - it's possible each deputy has a somewhat different view on that. In any case, we do enforce Dr. Bob's present civility guidelines to the best of our ability. But as Dinah put in her blocking post, as we customarily do, we ask Dr. Bob set the length. It is his site, and we prefer...nearly insist... he review all blocks to see if he agrees with what deputies chose to do. He did that on 7/6. He can, of course, shorten, lengthen, or remove the block entirely after his review.
I posted this as there was a question about the start date and several comments that action - a block on the same day as the uncivil post - took too long. I understand if people were more trying to say they'd like Dr. Bob to *personally weigh in* on what deputies do sooner. So would we, in that nearly-perfect-world that unfortunately, eludes us. :-( Sometimes he can be here in hours or the same day, sometimes not. This, I think, would be a separate discussion, but for a very long time now we have all had to live with the demands on Dr. Bob's time. It's difficult, but it is reality.
(verne, if you're reading, I'm sorry to talk about posts involving you when you cannot respond. This scenario always makes me uncomfortable, and I avoid it whenever I can. I suppose sometimes, for the benefit of the rest of the community members' support and education, it's a necessary "evil." I wish you well and my Babblemail is always on.)
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on July 7, 2009, at 13:07:11
In reply to Re: the length » Dr. Bob, posted by gobbledygook on July 7, 2009, at 9:46:18
Posted by gobbledygook on July 7, 2009, at 13:25:58
In reply to it starts from 6/16 (nm) » gobbledygook, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on July 7, 2009, at 13:07:11
Posted by seldomseen on July 7, 2009, at 16:42:33
In reply to Re: what to say?, posted by henrietta on July 6, 2009, at 23:35:23
Personally, I just do not understand the desire to get blocked. If I thought that this site was unhealthy for me I would leave.
I especially do not understand why the desire to get blocked seems to me to be tied to an attack on another poster or Dr. Bob. I just can not wrap my brain around that one. Yet I perceive it as happening a lot. However, my perception may be wrong.
Just seems to me that it would save everyone a lot of grief if people would just exit gracefully and amicably. Then they really could come back anytime they felt ready. Again, I could just be "airbrushing" my memory.
But I guess the question is "should the desire of the poster to be blocked mitigate the steps that he/she took to get there?" My response would be No, it shouldn't. In fact, any such mitigation would be a little counter-intuitive to me.
Seldom.
Posted by seldomseen on July 7, 2009, at 16:59:52
In reply to BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on July 6, 2009, at 23:35:22
Because of the immediacy of Verne's block, I'm a little unsure that this instance is the best example of using the community to help avoid blocks.
Also, sometimes when I read a post that strongly affects me, I just want to run away from it as fast as I can. Certainly though, as and when I felt okay about, it wouldn't bother me to engage another poster in a dialogue either through Bmail or on the boards. I would fear, however, that my best efforts might lead to nothing positive, but would potentially open me up to attack, simply for the attempt. Sometimes when one is trying to get a cat out of a tree one gets a faceful of cat!
In principal though, I think the community can help, but only as and when we are willing and able. I interpret Dr. Bob's encouragement to get us to step in and help as his way of saying "Okay, you don't like the blocks, then it is well within your power to do something about them" Who knows? This approach maybe the best way to effect the change that we want.
I've offered to be a civility buddy for people and would like to re-extend that offer. Not that I'm super great or anything, but I'm here.
Also, I guess I need to keep reminding myself that I work with tigers every week and have a houseful of cats. Surely I can deal with a faceful of cat every now and then. :)
Seldom.
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 17:43:00
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!!, posted by seldomseen on July 7, 2009, at 16:59:52
I wonder what Dr. Bob thinks an apology would do, if posting behavior does not change. I have been taught that an apology consists of regret, taking responsibility, and making amends (which could include taking care that it doesn't happen again). An apology with the first two but without the third doesn't seem like a good way to promote civility. There were apologies over the last few months, both with and without admin action. But did that help Deneb?
I think Scott said something that was worthwhile. That someone might have an uncivil post addressed to them, and decide that Babble was not a supportive or hospitable place. Dr. Bob is not the only person who banishes posters from Babble. I've seen many people have their feelings hurt and leave, because of posts from other posters. The civility guidelines are meant to keep those incidents at a minimum.
I think a year long cap on blocks is open to debate. But again, I don't think time should be the determining factor. The reason time increases is to reflect a lack of willingness or ability to comply with site guidelines. But I think it would be far better to have willingness to abide by site guidelines be the means by which people return, with time not being a consideration. I think that after a block, people should reregister under the same name, reaffirm the commitment which we all made when registering to abide by site guidelines, and provide appropriate assurances. As I stated before, the first time could merely be a reaffirmation of the commitment, the second time could be a reaffirmation along with a plan of action to ensure that guidelines will be followed, and thereafer, additional assurances such as a civility buddy.
We have agreed to follow site guidelines if we post here. If we wish to post here, we need to agree to follow site guidelines. I think that's far more sensible than banishing people for a set period of time.
Posted by Nadezda on July 7, 2009, at 17:43:06
In reply to BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on July 6, 2009, at 23:35:22
I don't think Bob is trying to blame or shame anyone, or "us."
We all could think, though, about what we did to help Verne after his PBC, knowing, as we do, how much and how likely he is to be blocked-- and how prone he is to say things that may be problematic.
It's easy to be hurt and angry about what happens to people here, and to want Bob to fix it all. But on the other hand, when people are hurt by another poster, they want some protection, too.
There are many conflicting purposes and lines of responsibility, and possibilities for actions that remain untaken. Maybe if we try to help one another to accept what may be a limited, or not comfortable situation, rather than speaking out, we could create that better place.
Anger and hurt are like waves that flow through here, and they can build on one another-- one person's evoking and heightening another's, and being heightened and reevoked in return,as these things ripple outward through the community.
Maybe if we could try to do more self-soothing about these issues, and remember that it's primarily our responsibility to cope with our anger and hurt-- not that of Bob or others here-- we could be more accepting of what is and isn't possible and/or allowed, and what consequences flow from violating the known rules-- or even the unclear, but recognized rules.
I can't believe that anyone would describe another poster here as in the present case without expecting problems. Verne knows his situation. He had the responsibility, primarily, to think about what would happen if he took various actions, or wrote various things. He decided to write what he wrote, then, with a reasonable idea of what could or would happen.
I'm sorry about what happened. I personally believe that the blocks here are too long. But I also believe that Bob is acting in good faith, as are we all, and that we would be better served by all stepping back and taking a breath, and trying to be more accepting.
I personally take very seriously that we all, including Bob, want this to be a good place for people-- and that, even if he's wrong, he's acting out of good impulses.
Nadezda
Posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 18:10:32
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!!, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 17:43:00
Does it not make sense then that the posters expect Bob to show compassion and empathy for them? I see what I think are empty apologies from Bob. And , of course, I also see a refusal by Bob to consider anything that any of us say about the blocks.
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:10:35
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!!, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 17:43:00
That's how my mother raised me, except for the rare instances when she lost her temper. Rules were never just handed out, they always were introduced with the reason for them. I was never sent to my room for a half hour. I was sent to my room until I was ready to follow house rules.
Any attempt on my part to blame my mean old parents for my punishment carried the added burden of having to recognize that if I understood the rules and chose to break them, then it was my responsibility, and I could make a different choice next time.
Sometimes I did break them knowingly. My father withheld my allowance until I started going to his church with him. I'd have gone gladly if he'd told me he'd like his company, but I considered it against my personal code of honor to go to church in order to receive money. I quit going to church, and I quit getting an allowance, and I lived with that, because it was what I chose to do.
I was allowed to lobby for changes in the rules, but while they were rules, I was expected to obey them. Moreover the rules were not overly onerous or inflexible. I often did try to wheedle extra time when my mother called for example. Or I could and did argue until I was blue in the face, usually. I just argued while I followed the rules.
I was never shamed for breaking the rules. Well, I hated to disappoint my parents of course. But it was accepted that people make bad choices but that that didn't mean they were fated forever to make the same choices. The behavior was separate from the person.
Well, with my mother at least.
It seems sensible to me.
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:13:14
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 18:10:32
I don't understand the connection.
They appear to be separate issues to me.
What Dr. Bob does is what Dr. Bob does. What each of us choose to do is what each of us chooses to do.
I think Dr. Bob can be convinced that another path is preferable to the one he's on. I'm guessing he'd be best convinced by cogent arguments presented respectfully.
Posted by Sigismund on July 7, 2009, at 18:23:41
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:13:14
>I'm guessing he'd be best convinced by cogent arguments presented respectfully.
Maybe.
I don't want to see this piece of cogent argument disappear into the archives
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/904596.html
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:29:09
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:13:14
Is it possible for you to more encouraging and less blaming in your introduction of this idea? Not all circumstances are the same. And not all people are called upon to fill all roles. This is after all a mental health site, I think it's reasonable to assume there might be some anxiety and social phobia, and while it's fine to encourage people to help in the way you mention, I don't think those who don't feel able to do what you ask ought to feel guilty.
Maybe some people would be better suited to posting gentle positive support to Poster #2. Nothing negative to Poster #1, but assuring them that they don't think they're a (whatever), and they've always enjoyed their posts. That is a perfectly valid role in the Babble community too.
And I know you don't read every thread, but I think if you look at this as more than one post, you'll likely see that people do encourage posters to follow site guidelines. Either by explaining them, or expressing their feelings about wanting the poster to stay and not be blocked, or in many other ways - some off board. A relationship among babblers can't be judged on one thread. And no matter the support and encouragement from other Babblers, in the end it is the choice of the poster what they wish to do.
So, for example in this instance, wouldn't it be equally valid (and perhaps better received) if you expressed distress that the block happened, support for the second poster, thanks to those who tried to help, and a hope that in the future things will turn out differently and the poster will choose to remain part of this terrific community?
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:35:36
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!!, posted by Sigismund on July 7, 2009, at 18:23:41
Perhaps Dr. Bob is expressing regret rather than apologizing?
It would be odd in a leader to apologize for doing what he thinks is right. It would make more sense for him to express regret that some people feel hurt as a result of his trying to do what's best for Babble.
I don't think he ought to apologize for doing his job. If on the other hand he is apologizing for expressing himself badly, he may be committed to try to express himself better in future. If he is apologizing for making an error, I assume it is his intent not to make errors.
Now, I've never been fond of the ubiquitous therapist "I'm sorry you feel that way." which is neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.
Posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 19:22:00
In reply to Dr Bob, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:29:09
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.