![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 102. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Timne on July 7, 2009, at 19:57:58
In reply to Dr Bob, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:29:09
That "sorry the community didn't" comment caught my attention, too. I've read up a bit on the doctrines behind administration of this site, and understand that the putative architecture is one in which group members offer support, and the site owner does primarily admin stuff.
This raises an interesting question. Does the Mr. Hsuing consider himself a member of the community? It could be consistent with his published goals to not not to consider himself part of the direct support network, but how could an owner of a community not be a member? Slum-lord isn't the only conclusion, and absentee landlord doesn't entirely describe the situation, but to whatever extent he is involved here -- and he clearly has been for as long as this thing has been here -- he would seem a member of the community. If not, well, that seems a bit removed and some people might see it as condescending.
Then, if he's not a member of the community, he does seem to blame the tenants for not getting along when he was the one who primarily determined what boundaries would be set, so the tenants can't shoulder all the blame. If he is a member of the community, he seems to be shouldering some blame, but not exclusively.
Is this an admission of failure or an expression of hopes? If it's an admission of failure, I would prefer to see more clear admission of one's role in the failure, rather than blaming all the other drivers on the road, too. If it's an expression of hope, couching it as an apology on someone else's behalf (the community) might be off target. What I think I hear is that he wishes there was a way to inspire "the community" to resolve these things. "Sorry" is a bit toward "there probably isn't a way, we've tried," whereas "I'm searching my soul for a way to make it happen" is more forward looking and doesn't suggest he's stuck with nowhere else to turn.
This is not atypical for people who put themselves in a position of authority with no oversight. When your only checks and balances are those over whom you have a modicum of authority, it can be difficult to find inspiration to resolve problems. The Web has not moved in the direction he set here, with dynamic personalities leading long-term communities. Personalities have gravitated toward personality sites -- blogs -- where it is clear the editorial policy is idiosyncratic to the particular personality. Forums instead have moved toward more anonymous oversight, with the rules and general brand concept providing the "personality" that sets tone on a site. You'd think at some point he might get tired of carrying the load alone, and consider his guests worthy of leadership beyond his unsupervised offering and that he recruits volunteer members to offer under his guidance. -- maybe he asks casually for advice, but a board of qualified advisors and a brand more focused on concept than on personality might go a long way to quell his need to apologize for things he doesn't really seem eager or able to change.
My $0.02
Posted by henrietta on July 7, 2009, at 20:29:16
In reply to Re: what to say? » henrietta, posted by seldomseen on July 7, 2009, at 16:42:33
If you don't understand it, count yourself lucky.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2009, at 21:50:38
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
> 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.
fayeroe,
You wrote,[...empty apologies...refusal to consider...].
I am unsure as to what the criteria that you use to determine if an apology is empty. If you could post here what criteria that you use to determine that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
As to a refusal to consider, my undersyanding of what it means to consider something may be different than yours. Could you post here how you determine if one refuses to consider? If you could then I could have a better understning of what this refusal could entail and responfd accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Poet on July 8, 2009, at 9:25:51
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, posted by Timne on July 7, 2009, at 19:57:58
I rarely look at the admin board because if I wanted to view a Roman Forum I'd watch "Spartacus."
It seems to me that Verne was asking to be blocked, even in his apology to Deneb and myself he was surprised that he wasn't blocked already.
I chose to ignore what Verne posted to me, which must put me as part of the community that didn't intervene. I know deputies were notified so the proper channels were gone through. I guess if this situation occurs again I will risk a PBC and ask directly for an apology or retraction of the statement which would be an intervention.
I am sorry the for the length of Verne's block, but am rather confused as to how the babble community appears to be to blame for it.
Poet
Posted by Dinah on July 8, 2009, at 9:49:38
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, posted by Poet on July 8, 2009, at 9:25:51
Poet, I was the Administrative presence who responded to your situation. I did so as best I could in accordance with my understanding of site guidelines and Dr. Bob's wishes. But I think my actions let you down, and I really regret that.
I don't think you should have to risk a PBC to ask for an apology. I don't think you should have to, even if you weren't risking a PBC. I think it is Administration's responsibility to provide an environment where people aren't forced to defend themselves. I recognize that there is value in learning how to stand up for oneself against incivility. But I don't think a mental health support board is someplace you should have to do that. I think a mental health support board is a place where you can go and expect to have an environment where you can feel reasonably safe to post private and personal thoughts.
It may be that my values are out of step with reality or the wishes of the majority here. Perhaps Babble has moved on, and I haven't.
But I don't think it was your responsibility to do anything but be civil yourself. I think it is administration's responsibility to provide the structure of the environment. If the community wishes to try to help those they care about, in terms of encouraging them to recognize that people on an internet board are real people who can feel hurt, or wish to help them reframe the situation so that they can be civil, that's fine.
In my opinion...
It is administration's responsibility to provide a safe environment, as best they can.
It is a poster's responsibility to follow site guidelines, if only because they agreed to do so when they registered to post.
It is the community's responsibility to provide support to each other, in whatever way they feel they are able to do so. I don't think it is any individual's responsibility to provide support to any individual in particular in any particular way.
In particular, I don't think you had the slightest responsibility to do anything but remain civil yourself until Admin responded.
Posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2009, at 16:45:38
In reply to Lou's request-refucon » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2009, at 21:50:38
Posted by obsidian on July 9, 2009, at 0:12:20
In reply to No, thanks, Lou. (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2009, at 16:45:38
It was my impression that perhaps some of us were familiar with verne's pattern, that there was anger at his being blocked because some understood the behavior that resulted in blocks as part of his struggle.
Since some had that understanding I felt that perhaps Dr Bob was perhaps being more tolerant in the hopes that those who understood could attempt to help him rather than being upset about the behavior. I did not perceive it as a burden placed on the community, but rather a hope that a more tolerant attitude amongst peers would help him through whatever was going on.
IMHO of course....
-sid
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.