![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 12:56:09
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by jade k on July 1, 2010, at 12:54:11
You are right about a month being too much. 2 weeks is long enough for a poster to "learn their lesson and repent".
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 13:54:18
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 12:06:36
>
> >
> > ***But he does acknowledge the needs of both. That's why unlike some sites he doesn't block people permanently.***
>
> I have to speak to the above, Dinah. You have never been blocked for 6 months or a year, right? Believe me when I say those blocks feel like forever. My longest block was 16 weeks but I've kept in touch with people who have had much longer blocks. A block of that length pulls everything they need away from them.I sometimes wonder if it would be kinder to block forever. A long block keeps the ties to the site.
> For someone to be banned at Psych Central means they have done something so horrible that they can't be dealt with any other way. That person generally has no remorse about what they've said or done. Private messages go to the poster first and John tries to work with them. The banning comes only after John and his moderators determine that it is the only way to handle the problem. I know that 2 people have been banned at PC....maybe more since I left. I doubt it. I want to mention that there aren't any PBCs there. It is left to the posters to settle minor disputes.
Yeah. I experienced that. I, for the most part, quit posting there because I was left to settle a minor dispute myself. While I'm perfectly capable of doing it, it's not an environment that suits me. So effectively I was blocked by that policy in that a source of support is no longer really available to me. It suits many. Some it does not.
> When the FB mess came up Bob didn't talk to me about it, as you are aware. He blocked me. I don't care that much about being blocked. My investment here is teensy. I cared that no one got any information that would have helped us understand what happened. I saw no concern for the feelings of the upset posters.I didn't agree with that block. I thought that while you hadn't used the words "I'm sorry" you were in a dialogue with Dr. Bob and showed more openness than many a person who says the actual words without any real regret.
Dr. Bob likes everything to be very clear I think. I wish he'd have been open to nuances that time. I won't say that I wish you had mouthed an apology even if you didn't mean it, because I'm not so sure that's an outcome Dr. Bob should be encouraging. But I am sorry you were blocked. And I appreciate the openness you did show, and admire you for it.
> Anything over a month is ridiculous. I don't care who owns the site. It is a punishment that is much worse than the crime.
>
> I believe that Bob knows that.I think if he knew that he wouldn't do it. And for that matter, I don't think it's always true. My thoughts on the matter is that if someone isn't willing to live by site rules a month isn't long enough and a year isn't long enough. In my ideal universe, blocks would be the length of time it took for someone to agree to abide by site guidelines, whether they like them or not. I guess I see that as part of our agreement to posting here. If that's a week, then the poster should be welcomed back. If it's not true in a year, then maybe this site isn't the best fit. The onus shouldn't lie with Admin, it should lie with the poster.
But that's me. Based on the better part of what my mama taught me. Obviously Dr. Bob doesn't agree.
Posted by NKP on July 1, 2010, at 14:09:08
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 13:54:18
It's amusing to read posters speculating on Dr Bob's website about what Dr Bob wants, thinks etc.
Replace the name "Dr Bob" with "God" or "Jesus" and this would sound exactly like church.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 14:14:54
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by NKP on July 1, 2010, at 14:09:08
I haven't had direct conversations with God or Jesus. I and many other people here have had direct conversations with Dr. Bob.
I always leave open the possibility that I am inferring something that he did not mean, and I've told him many times that he's free to correct me. On occasion he has.
Dr. Bob isn't God. He doesn't sit on high and converse with us only indirectly. He is sometimes hard to understand, but if I apply myself enough he will generally clarify to my satisfaction. With words as well as with signs and portents.
Posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 14:19:41
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by NKP on July 1, 2010, at 14:09:08
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 14:33:08
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 13:54:18
> I think if he knew that he wouldn't do it.
I probably should rephrase that though. I think if Dr. Bob didn't think it was the right thing to do, he wouldn't do it.
I've no idea about that particular portion of the right thing.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2010, at 17:29:00
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by jade k on July 1, 2010, at 12:54:11
> How about a support group for Tourettes patients where they get blocked for uncontrolled utterances?
>
> TophCouldn't uncontrolled utterances be disruptive?
--
> You have never been blocked for 6 months or a year, right? Believe me when I say those blocks feel like forever. My longest block was 16 weeks but I've kept in touch with people who have had much longer blocks. A block of that length pulls everything they need away from them.
>
> When the FB mess came up Bob didn't talk to me about it, as you are aware. He blocked me. I don't care that much about being blocked. My investment here is teensy.6 months might feel like forever, but it's not forever, and those posters might also have had only teensy investments and not cared.
> For someone to be banned at Psych Central means they have done something so horrible that they can't be dealt with any other way.
>
> Anything over a month is ridiculous. ... It is a punishment that is much worse than the crime.
>
> fayeroeSome "crimes" merit life sentences, and others a month, but there aren't any in between?
--
> I'm really trying to help when I say this, I think many people no longer post and many new people don't come because of the seemingly loose regard for personal privacy here. Everytime I post, I have to think about where it may end up: Facebook, twitter, other active psych sites, even saved by another poster to be "leaked" onto the board again at an innapropriate time.
>
> ~JadeThis is a public forum. It can't get less private than that! There are both pros and cons, and having to think about what to post is one of the cons.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 17:58:50
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2010, at 17:29:00
Posted by Toph on July 1, 2010, at 20:56:27
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2010, at 17:29:00
> > How about a support group for Tourettes patients where they get blocked for uncontrolled utterances?
> >
> > Toph
>
> Couldn't uncontrolled utterances be disruptive?
>
> BobSo should they be progressively punished for disruptive ticks?
Posted by jade k on July 1, 2010, at 23:11:03
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2010, at 17:29:00
>
> > I'm really trying to help when I say this, I think many people no longer post and many new people don't come because of the seemingly loose regard for personal privacy here. Everytime I post, I have to think about where it may end up: Facebook, twitter, other active psych sites, even saved by another poster to be "leaked" onto the board again at an innapropriate time.
> >
> > ~Jade
>
> This is a public forum. It can't get less private than that! There are both pros and cons, and having to think about what to post is one of the cons.
>
> Bob
It DID get less private.And with all due respect, thats not what I said or meant. I get it that this is a public forum. And people came to ~this site~ to check out the boards, posts etc. I myself lurked for quite a while before I started posting.
Since I joined a couple plus years ago, we had a group of "subjects" (~250) come through for your "study", we were asked to interact with them (which we did) and to trust that "we" were not a part of it. Many of us had privacy concerns.
Recently you added Facebook, Twitter and others; someone posted on this board another site where you appeared personally quoting posts along with pb names and the site information... A little alarming *to me*
At least one poster had a random, lengthy, PB post appear on her Facebook page. I didn't see as much concern as I feel the situation warranted. Maybe some preventative investigation went on behind the scenes. I hope so.
I've repeatedly read posts at admin complaining of email and email address leaks, and perceived threats. Has any of this been followed up on? This is scary *to me*
What I said was:
Everytime I post, I have to think about *where it may end up*
This is your site Dr. Bob. I can leave any time I want if I don't like the current privacy policy(or lack thereof).
Its just not the busy place it was even two years ago. I hope you will welcome input from posters insights as to why the number of members may be declining.
Just concerned,
~Jade
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2010, at 0:37:23
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by jade k on July 1, 2010, at 23:11:03
> > > How about a support group for Tourettes patients where they get blocked for uncontrolled utterances?
> >
> > Couldn't uncontrolled utterances be disruptive?
>
> So should they be progressively punished for disruptive ticks?
>
> TophI don't know, what would your approach be?
--
> with all due respect, thats not what I said or meant. I get it that this is a public forum. And people came to ~this site~ to check out the boards, posts etc. I myself lurked for quite a while before I started posting.
What led them, and you, to come to this site?
> What I said was:
>
> Everytime I post, I have to think about *where it may end up*I understand. You don't know where it's going to end up because it's public. None of us knows who's going to see it, and none of us can control what they do with it once they see it.
> Its just not the busy place it was even two years ago. I hope you will welcome input from posters insights as to why the number of members may be declining.
>
> ~JadeI do welcome input. Including other ideas about how we might be able to increase the number of members.
Bob
Posted by Toph on July 2, 2010, at 7:18:29
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2010, at 0:37:23
> > So should they be progressively punished for disruptive ticks?
> >
> > Toph
>
> I don't know, what would your approach be?
>
> BobI'd first try to let them manage these outbursts as a group, after all, I'd hope they could be empathic and supportive. If that didn't work, well, I have to develop a Plan B, I suppose. Is this what you tried here?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2010, at 2:15:31
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Toph on July 2, 2010, at 7:18:29
> I'd first try to let them manage these outbursts as a group, after all, I'd hope they could be empathic and supportive. If that didn't work, well, I have to develop a Plan B, I suppose. Is this what you tried here?
What do you mean by "manage"? IMO, letting this group manage itself hasn't worked. Not many posters try to help other posters stay civil, for example.
Bob
Posted by Toph on July 12, 2010, at 21:21:13
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2010, at 2:15:31
> What do you mean by "manage"? IMO, letting this group manage itself hasn't worked. Not many posters try to help other posters stay civil, for example.
>
> BobI've been on vacation so I don't want to give the impression I don't appreciate your questions.
Managing symptoms of mental illness on a mental illness support forum need not necessarily have to involve rigid rules of civility, would it?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2010, at 9:02:51
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on July 12, 2010, at 21:21:13
> I've been on vacation so I don't want to give the impression I don't appreciate your questions.
>
> Managing symptoms of mental illness on a mental illness support forum need not necessarily have to involve rigid rules of civility, would it?Not necessarily rigid, I don't think so. Hope you had a good vacation!
Bob
Posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 6:09:38
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2010, at 2:15:31
>>IMO, letting this group manage itself hasn't worked. Not many posters try to help other posters stay civil, for example.<<
That might be because most posters do not think A) that a person has actually been uncivil, or B) that the definition of civility in use at Psychobabble is philosophically empty.
Posted by sigismund on July 24, 2010, at 17:11:10
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 6:09:38
>or B) that the definition of civility in use at Psychobabble is philosophically empty.
Either of course, but the above is interesting.
You don't have any more you want to say about that?
Posted by chujoe on July 25, 2010, at 5:51:44
In reply to Re: the system here » chujoe, posted by sigismund on July 24, 2010, at 17:11:10
Sig, I've talked about it before in other threads on this board, but in brief what I mean by "philosophically empty" is that "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
Posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:11:50
In reply to Re: the system here » sigismund, posted by chujoe on July 25, 2010, at 5:51:44
> Sig, I've talked about it before in other threads on this board, but in brief what I mean by "philosophically empty" is that "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
Chujoe, the Politics board was allowed to flourish and grow for a few years. No one paid us any attention and we had these fantastic conversations every day. I can't tell you how the beginning of the end came about without being uncivil but my take on it was that it was discovered that we were actually talking about ideas instead of feelings. Suddenly the PBCs started flying left and right.
Gradually the lifeblood was squeezed out of it and it became a place where you could not express a thought if it was the slightest bit negative towards a policy, a war, national spending, any other country..you get the idea.
The Politics board was a wonderful ride for a few years. We loved it dearly, like you would love a really smart kid.
The board got loaded onto the "civility" bandwagon and it dried us up.We had gone for ages without a PBC.
I do remember the one time that it did get very "uncivil" on the board. It came about due to the presence of someone who had very extreme ideas about separation of state and religion. Now watch someone go into archives to try and prove we were awful. I'll probably get censored for what I just typed. I'm sitting here trying to word this without a PBC and that is what I hate!!
I think you would have enjoyed the "coffee shop" atmosphere on the board. The ideas would flow and we could keep something going for hours at a time.
Posted by violette on July 25, 2010, at 13:20:30
In reply to Re: the system here » chujoe, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:11:50
"I can't tell you how the beginning of the end came about without being uncivil but my take on it was that it was discovered that we were actually talking about ideas instead of feelings. Suddenly the PBCs started flying left and right."
What were you thinking talking about ideas instead of feelings???? (LMAO)
"The war is unjust" = "I feel the war is unjust"
"I do not like broccoli" = "I do not feel that broccoli tastes good"
Some added humor for my day, thanks. :)
Posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:32:06
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by violette on July 25, 2010, at 13:20:30
> "I can't tell you how the beginning of the end came about without being uncivil but my take on it was that it was discovered that we were actually talking about ideas instead of feelings. Suddenly the PBCs started flying left and right."
>
> What were you thinking talking about ideas instead of feelings???? (LMAO)
>
> "The war is unjust" = "I feel the war is unjust"
>
> "I do not like broccoli" = "I do not feel that broccoli tastes good"
>
> Some added humor for my day, thanks. :)I think someone actually said "I do not like Bush". :-)
Posted by violette on July 25, 2010, at 13:44:13
In reply to Re: the system here » violette, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:32:06
> I think someone actually said "I do not like Bush".
How could you rephrase that and still keep the meaning of your message?
"I do not think Bush was an effective President"
or "I do not agree with Bush's policies"are not the same thing.
The only way I could think to rephrase that would be to state:
"I do not agree with Bush's beliefs, character, policies, decisions, family attitudes, the clothes he wears, the way he looks, or the way he talks....etc. etc."
Seems to make sense to say "I don't like Bush"
I am not even being serious as this just seems entertaining to me...I understand this is very disppointing to you and not funny in that aspect..but w/o the ability to do anything about the situation, sometimes I just laugh at it.
Posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 14:00:08
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by violette on July 25, 2010, at 13:44:13
> > I think someone actually said "I do not like Bush".
>
> How could you rephrase that and still keep the meaning of your message?
>
> "I do not think Bush was an effective President"
> or "I do not agree with Bush's policies"
>
> are not the same thing.
>
> The only way I could think to rephrase that would be to state:
>
> "I do not agree with Bush's beliefs, character, policies, decisions, family attitudes, the clothes he wears, the way he looks, or the way he talks....etc. etc."
>
> Seems to make sense to say "I don't like Bush"
>
> I am not even being serious as this just seems entertaining to me...I understand this is very disppointing to you and not funny in that aspect..but w/o the ability to do anything about the situation, sometimes I just laugh at it.We tried to stay under the radar after we were "admonished" but it was difficult. It is hard to talk about "ideas" without injecting something personal into it.
How about "I am offended by Bush's ignorance and his cheer leading background"? That would get me into trouble because someone here might love his lack of education AND his "Herkie" jumps. That is what I would be told when I got my PBC. I certainly didn't have a problem with someone saying they didn't like someone on the left. But.....the big dog snapped and we all rolled over and played dead. We learned to never look directly into it's eyes as that is a sure sign of feeling equal and will bring about an attack sooner than later.
For the many cheer leading aficionados here, I have information on the Herkie jump. :-)
Definition: A cheerleading jump where one leg (usually your weakest) is bent towards the ground and your other leg (usually your strongest) is out to the side as high as it will go in the toe touch position. This jump is very similar to the Side Hurdler except for the position of the bent leg. There are right Herkies and left Herkies. In a right Herkie your right leg is straight with your left leg bent and the opposite is true for a left Herkie. Sometimes called a hurkie. Named after Lawrence "Herkie" Herkimer.
Posted by Dinah on July 25, 2010, at 21:21:01
In reply to Re: the system here » chujoe, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:11:50
As I recall, that idyll lasted only until someone with differing political beliefs came along.
I imagine it can be very peaceful to discuss politics as long as everyone agrees on the fundamentals. Maybe it's impossible on a place like Babble where Dr. Bob asks that we be sensitive to the feelings of posters of every political persuasion. I believe the Faith board suffers from the same tension.I know the board was important to you, and I'm sorry you are still distressed by its changing. Would it be impossible to reform the group somewhere where all would agree to agree on the fundamentals?
Posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 22:07:56
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 25, 2010, at 21:21:01
> As I recall, that idyll lasted only until someone with differing political beliefs came along.
I recall that the problem was in the manner the opposite viewpoint was presented. Name calling commenced and very angry words were posted and since we had never had anything like happen before, we were understandably defensive. I don't think that any of us acted like the person with the opposing views.
Criticizing someone's choices doesn't work.
I also recall that no one from administration stepped in
when we really needed help. I thought that administration applied to all boards. That entire episode could have been prevented if someone had been watching the board.After that, as far as I am concerned, it was full-blown overkill. We could not talk about ideas after that.
> I imagine it can be very peaceful to discuss politics as long as everyone agrees on the fundamentals. Maybe it's impossible on a place like Babble where Dr. Bob asks that we be sensitive to the feelings of posters of every political persuasion. I believe the Faith board suffers from the same tension.
A person can be a member of the "purple party" as far as I am concerned. But don't try to ram it down my throat in a angry and arrogant manner. The majority of the board members were liberal but we weren't trying to convert anyone. You can't have politics without at least two differing parties and that means differences and no one had fought about that before. Suddenly we felt that we were expected to be of one mind.
>
> I know the board was important to you, and I'm sorry you are still distressed by its changing. Would it be impossible to reform the group somewhere where all would agree to agree on the fundamentals?Thank you, Dinah, for discussing this with me. I do feel very sad about the board and what we don't have now.
I don't know where we could reform the group. This has been home for us for a long, long time.
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.