![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 9:30:33
I usually don't comment on the many occasions when I hear people say "Poster X was blocked for 32 weeks for saying...."
The fact is that no poster has ever been blocked even a single day for one action, trivial or otherwise. Even a one week block results from a minimum of two actions. Very long blocks result from a pattern of behavior over a certain period of time.
It would be clearer, I suppose if Dr. Bob posted the list of actions that lead to a long block as that poster is blocked. But I think it might be even more shaming than blocks currently are considered. I certainly wouldn't wish to hear a litany of my "sins" at a time I already felt vulnerable.
Perhaps, though, the wording of the block could be changed to reflect the fact that the length of the block results from a pattern of behavior. The FAQ definitely should be changed to make that fact as plain as possible, IMO, to clear up apparent misconceptions.
Posted by Toph on November 10, 2010, at 10:34:35
In reply to Long blocks, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 9:30:33
What is the express intent of long posts Dinah?
Is it intended to change the poster - shape him or her into a more civil member of the community?
Or is a long block intended to inflict a progressively harsh punishment commensurate with the frequency of the infractions?
Or is the length of the block intended to protect the community or provide respite from a harmful uncivil poster for a period of time?
If the intent is to teach a poster different conduct I have always felt that it is more effective to give them frequent sanctions (say a max block of 4 weeks) than to block for a year causing huge gaps in learning experiences.
As far as the progressive blocks, it is a common criticism that the blocks in this system don't always seem to fit the crime. A heinous attack on another member as a first offense has no sanction while calling oneself an @ss as a repeat offender could lead to a block for a year.
Then if the intent is to protect the community from people who won't conform to the rules, why not just ban them for life and be done with it?
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:40:17
In reply to Re: Long blocks, posted by Toph on November 10, 2010, at 10:34:35
I suppose that Dr. Bob has many intentions rather than just one. I think he's stated some in previous posts, but if you'd like it reiterated, you'd have to ask him.
From what he said in another post, I'd guess the reason that he doesn't block is that he wishes to express at least conditional "love". But you'd have to ask him about that too.
I was merely commenting that no one was ever blocked for a year for cursing, or calling Dr. Bob a mild name. I hear it quite often, and I consider it not to reflect the reality of the situation.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:59:49
In reply to Re: Long blocks, posted by Toph on November 10, 2010, at 10:34:35
Discussion about block length is taking place elsewhere.
On this thread I was proposing a change in wording, or an explanation.
I can see where a newer poster, unfamiliar with history, might be a bit disconcerted to see a very long block for what appears to be a minor offense. They may not understand the formula or babble specific references.
I'm suggesting a change to greater clarity.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 10, 2010, at 12:24:35
In reply to Re: Long blocks, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:59:49
> Discussion about block length is taking place elsewhere.
>
> On this thread I was proposing a change in wording, or an explanation.
>
> I can see where a newer poster, unfamiliar with history, might be a bit disconcerted to see a very long block for what appears to be a minor offense. They may not understand the formula or babble specific references.
>
> I'm suggesting a change to greater clarity.I think that a massive black boxed text of "you are posting while under a 'Please Be Civil' Resquest" or some such phrase be part of the post submission for the pbc duration might increase awareness. Is that kind of what you mean?
pc
Posted by jane d on November 10, 2010, at 13:07:08
In reply to Re: Long blocks » Dinah, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 10, 2010, at 12:24:35
> > Discussion about block length is taking place elsewhere.
> >
> > On this thread I was proposing a change in wording, or an explanation.
> >
> > I can see where a newer poster, unfamiliar with history, might be a bit disconcerted to see a very long block for what appears to be a minor offense. They may not understand the formula or babble specific references.
> >
> > I'm suggesting a change to greater clarity.
>
> I think that a massive black boxed text of "you are posting while under a 'Please Be Civil' Resquest" or some such phrase be part of the post submission for the pbc duration might increase awareness. Is that kind of what you mean?
>
> pcI like the idea of a little more explanation. Either in general terms or a specific statement like "you have been blocked x times in y days".
If it wouldn't be too unwieldy I'd also like to see some explanation that simultaneous blockable posts by the same poster won't be specifically flagged once that poster is blocked. Otherwise I suppose it could look like those posts were approved even though they may be worse than the one flagged.
jane
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 21:13:58
In reply to Re: Long blocks » Dinah, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 10, 2010, at 12:24:35
I was thinking more along the lines of more explanation for new posters who might find the block lengths confusing or frightening. Or older posters who don't follow Admin. Something that wouldn't shame the blocked poster, but would reflect the reality of how a block comes to be so long.
But that's an interesting idea as well. It might cause people to scrutinize their posts a bit more closely. If Dr. Bob ever reduces block lengths, maybe that could be a part of the parole process.
I wonder if it would help to mention of the civility guidelines somewhere on the posting form itself, as I think there may be on the notification form? Or maybe it's the babblemail form.
Posted by maxime on November 12, 2010, at 21:41:41
In reply to Explaining specific long blocks, posted by jane d on November 10, 2010, at 13:07:08
In the NY times article there is a formula for Dr. Bob's length of block. I never understood until now. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/magazine/18fob-Medium-t.html
He is referred to as a web mastered mind. See, we haven't got a chance! ;)
Posted by maxime on November 12, 2010, at 22:00:41
In reply to Re: Explaining specific long blocks, posted by maxime on November 12, 2010, at 21:41:41
Bob, is it ok if I call you "Mega Mind" like in that new animation? I think it would suit your signature. Babblers could pool their money and get you a blue cape just like Mega Mind! http://www.megamind.com/ It's okay, you don't have to wear the tights if you don't want to.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 13:23:55
In reply to Explaining specific long blocks, posted by jane d on November 10, 2010, at 13:07:08
> I usually don't comment on the many occasions when I hear people say "Poster X was blocked for 32 weeks for saying...."
>
> It would be clearer, I suppose if Dr. Bob posted the list of actions that lead to a long block as that poster is blocked. But I think it might be even more shaming than blocks currently are considered. I certainly wouldn't wish to hear a litany of my "sins" at a time I already felt vulnerable.Me, neither.
> Perhaps, though, the wording of the block could be changed to reflect the fact that the length of the block results from a pattern of behavior. The FAQ definitely should be changed to make that fact as plain as possible, IMO, to clear up apparent misconceptions.
>
> DinahIMO, spelling out what goes into the formula each time makes it plain. And how much of a difference that can make was made plain recently when three posters were blocked at the same time:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 47 weeks
block length = 2 weeksduration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 7 weeks
block length = 3 weeksduration of previous block: 9 weeks
period of time since previous block: 6 weeks
block length = 23 weeksBut formulas aren't everyone's cup of tea. What if I added to each block something like:
> This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is. According to the formula...and to the FAQ something like:
> The block is the result of one uncivil post, but its length is the result of a pattern of uncivil posts.
>
> If they've been blocked before, it's usually determined by a formula that takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:I'm open to suggestions. Being realistic, however, I don't think any change of wording will clear up all misconceptions.
It might in fact help more to comment whenever someone says poster X was blocked for 32 weeks for saying Y.
--
> I think that a massive black boxed text of "you are posting while under a 'Please Be Civil' Resquest" or some such phrase be part of the post submission for the pbc duration might increase awareness.
>
> pcThat's an interesting idea, but what do you mean by "while under a PBC request"? I ask everyone always to be civil. But maybe something along those lines would be to customize the block length calculator in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
so that people could find out how long they'd be blocked for if they posted something uncivil right then.
--
> If it wouldn't be too unwieldy I'd also like to see some explanation that simultaneous blockable posts by the same poster won't be specifically flagged once that poster is blocked. Otherwise I suppose it could look like those posts were approved even though they may be worse than the one flagged.
>
> janeThat's something we've wondered about, too.
1. People shouldn't assume a post not being flagged means it was approved.
2. If people notify us about other uncivil posts, we explain.
3. When other uncivil posts are on different boards, we've been linking to the PBC or block, since people there may not have seen it. We haven't been when they're on different threads on the same board. Again, there's the issue of balancing the needs of the community and the shame the poster might feel.
Thanks, everyone, for all your constructive suggestions,
Bob
Posted by sigismund on November 28, 2010, at 16:23:39
In reply to Re: Explaining block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 13:23:55
>What if I added to each block something like:
>> This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula:
>>
>> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>>
>> takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is. According to the formula...>and to the FAQ something like:
>> The block is the result of one uncivil post, but its length is the result of a pattern of uncivil posts.
I think that is an improvement, and I assume it also reflects reality.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 2:56:20
In reply to Re: Explaining block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 13:23:55
> duration of previous block: 1 week
> period of time since previous block: 47 weeks
> block length = 2 weeks
>
> duration of previous block: 1 week
> period of time since previous block: 7 weeks
> block length = 3 weeks
>
> duration of previous block: 9 weeks
> period of time since previous block: 6 weeks
> block length = 23 weeksI'm sure Merriam Webster wouldn't have things any other way.
> It might in fact help more to comment whenever someone says poster X was blocked for 32 weeks for saying Y.
I'm not sure it is more reassuring to hear that poster x was blocked for 32 weeks for saying Y n times.
Posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 9:05:28
In reply to Re: Explaining block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 13:23:55
> I think that a massive black boxed text of "you are posting while under a 'Please Be Civil' Resquest" or some such phrase be part of the post submission for the pbc duration might increase awareness.
>
> pcThat's an interesting idea, but what do you mean by "while under a PBC request"? I ask everyone always to be civil.
*I think pc was alluding to the fact that blocks sometimes seem to shockingly come out of nowhere. Cuz old PBC's(outdated warnings) get forgotten.
I still think there should be a warning B4 a block. A warning in the SAME thread. If not IN the thread, then via b-mail.
I don't just slam punishments on my kids, I warn them first, remind them, give them a chance to correct their behaviour, then if they choose not to, tho I have pointed it out, then they be punished.
Also, I still thing this increased length thing is cruel and does not serve much purpose other than a wielding of power. Its sort of the difference btwn perhaps punishing a child vs a swat vs a full on spanking vs beating them w/a belt.
Is a belt appropriate? Where does one draw the line?Or perhaps a better analogy.
Putting a child in a chair for a time out vs locking the child in their room vs locking them in a cupboard all day vs locking then in a shed all night.(out of sight/hearing, out of mind)
If I can't/hear/see my kid out there in the shed in torment, so what? I can quietly go on with my day in peace. The other kids don't get disrupted.
Better to keep that kid in the shed awhile so she doesn't bother the other kids.....
If we lock her in often enuf....rpoly she'll settle down...or maybe run away, and that solves the 'problem' too....
Posted by twinleaf on November 29, 2010, at 13:38:16
In reply to Re: Explaining block length, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 13:23:55
If I understand correctly, block length is to be determined by the severity of the incivility, the length of time since the last incivility, the number of inciviiities and an indefinite factor, the "pattern of behavior".
I understand this to mean an assessment by Bob about an individual poster's motives and attitudes. I feel this is a step backward. Bob's personal and private assessment of someone may be off-the-mark, and may differ markedly from the general assessment of the person by other posters. In addition, someone whose past has been characterized by a number of clear incivilities may grow and change, so that any current incivilities are minor and inadvertent. It would be very unfair to him/her to give heavier penalties. Doing that would put the emphasis in the wrong place - on past transgressions rather than present, more constructive behavior. It would have the same destructive effect that escalating blocks has.
If, on the other hand, a personal assessment of a poster's pattern of behavior is used by Bob to make the blocks flexible and (much) shorter, then I would support it.
Perhaps he can clarify this point.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 14:02:02
In reply to patterns of behaior, posted by twinleaf on November 29, 2010, at 13:38:16
> I think pc was alluding to the fact that blocks sometimes seem to shockingly come out of nowhere. Cuz old PBC's(outdated warnings) get forgotten.
>
> muffledForgetia juris non excusat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
> If I understand correctly, block length is to be determined by the severity of the incivility, the length of time since the last incivility, the number of inciviiities and an indefinite factor, the "pattern of behavior".
>
> twinleaf> > The block length formula ... takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is.
I've made those changes to the FAQ and the usual block language. Thanks again for your input,
Bob
Posted by twinleaf on November 30, 2010, at 15:58:50
In reply to Re: Explaining specific blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 14:02:02
It's of course always nice to be thanked, but I was not providing input for the FAQs. I was asking a question about whether assessments by you of "patterns of behavior" will be used to lengthen or shorten blocks (or both).
This is something many posters need to know in order to decide how active they wish to be here. Not answering this civil question, and thanking me instead for something I did't do appears to fall into a familiar pattern of deflecting attention away from matters about which we should be fully informed. The outcome of just this small exchange between us is that I feel that I have been treated very disrespectfully ( I am apparently not smart enough to realize that my question has been ignored). I am experiencing the feelings of stress which Solstive recently described as being so common here now, as well as an increased awareness of how unsafe and misunderstood one can feel in the simplest exchanges here.
If one looks through the Archives, we can find this pattern repeated many hundreds of times: a question is asked in good faith, and an unrelated answer or statement is given. It is stressful every time it happens.
I would like to be treated in a way that avoids communicative stress and promotes the development of a healthy well-informed community, so I will ask my question again: does adding "behavioral assessment" mean that blocks may be lengthened, shortened or both?
Posted by sigismund on November 30, 2010, at 16:46:04
In reply to Re: Explaining specific blocks, posted by twinleaf on November 30, 2010, at 15:58:50
>so I will ask my question again: does adding "behavioral assessment" mean that blocks may be lengthened, shortened or both?
I took it that Bob had implied that 'behavioural assessment' (first time I've seen that phrase) was something that was already happening.
The issue was whether it would be included explicitly in the wording of the formula.
The thing is, if you are going to do behavioral assessment, you have already abandoned the apparent pretense to science and objectivity.
The main characteristic of the formula is that it ratchets up the penalties and gets rid of perceived trouble makers for decent periods.
Why not just leave behind that bogusness and have a maximum block of one month? Or you could have 2 kinds of blocks....a 2 week one and a month long one.
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 0:42:34
In reply to Re: Explaining specific blocks, posted by sigismund on November 30, 2010, at 16:46:04
>The main characteristic of the formula is that it ratchets up the penalties and gets rid of perceived trouble makers for decent periods.
>
> Why not just leave behind that bogusness and have a maximum block of one month? Or you could have 2 kinds of blocks....a 2 week one and a month long one.
I'm all for the kind of simplification you're suggesting, Sigi. I think the formula (which I spent some time playing with to get a feel for how it works) is logical enough... but it seems so much more complicated than necessary. Because it's complicated (I for one have never once ever understood the block recap he puts at the end of a post blocking someone), so because it's so complicated, I think it leaves everything wide open to as many different assumptions about it as there are actively posting members! A simple and straightforward block length - like your 2-week and 4-week suggestion, would probably decrease a good chunk of the angst and debate surrounding the issue of block length.Solstice
Posted by muffled on December 1, 2010, at 16:25:24
In reply to Re: Explaining specific blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 14:02:02
> > I think pc was alluding to the fact that blocks sometimes seem to shockingly come out of nowhere. Cuz old PBC's(outdated warnings) get forgotten.
> >
> > muffled
>
> Forgetia juris non excusat.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
>Whattup?!
Damn, the boy got cohones 4sure!!
Rock on Bobbo!
LOL, dude, seriously, it not so much ignorance as el CRAPPO memory on my part.
I LIVE day to day, moment to monent.
Can't remember if I took a sh*t in the A.M. fer chrissakes!
Guess that why I need a more chill place.
But oh yeah, that Bob, he gots chutzpah!
HA!
:-)
Oh yeah!
Posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 16:41:54
In reply to whoah! Dude called me ignorant!!!, posted by muffled on December 1, 2010, at 16:25:24
>
> > Forgetia juris non excusat.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
> >
>...
> LOL, dude, seriously, it not so much ignorance as el CRAPPO memory on my part.I think you can translate his statement as forgetfulness doesn't excuse you from the rules.
The link to the similar stock phrase about ignorance was just provided for those of us who dont' know latin. He probably figured we could guess the meaning when "forgetia" was substituted for "ignorantia".
Posted by 10derheart on December 1, 2010, at 17:49:34
In reply to I think he was just referring to forgetfulness » muffled, posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 16:41:54
That's how I read it, too. I think Bob's position might be that though he may understand bad memory or other reasons for not realizing one has had a PBC (especially a while ago), he expects you to figure out ways to keep track on your own, and won't decline to take action on another uncivil post because you may have forgotten. I could be wrong, but I think that's roughly it.
And the use of ignorance in the original phrase isn't pejorative. It's just used to mean unawareness. Age-old legal concept that came about so people could not claim not to know laws in order to not be subject to them.....that's all.
We're ALL ignorant of lots of things. We can't know a thing until we know it. The rough part does come sometimes when you feel like "you don't know what you don't know." That can be frustrating.
Posted by muffled on December 2, 2010, at 13:03:25
In reply to Re: I think he was just referring to forgetfulness » jane d, posted by 10derheart on December 1, 2010, at 17:49:34
this NOT the place for you.
That what I say.
So....I sposed to operate on assumption I DO got some PBC sometime somewhere ALL the time then???? Operate fearfully, cuz ya just dunno.....boom.
Cuz friggin heck I dunno.
I function by calendar, then i flip the page to next month and previous month is gone.
HOW anybody s'posed to remember stuff???
Where is the REALITY in this???
See that where bob gets to me cuz he so freakin inflexible about us bein freakin HUMAN, and perhaps not perfect.
well F*CK that.
Perfection, the persuit of it destroys.
noboddy EVER gonna be good enuf, ever.
we sh*t in a bucket man.
so I try and avoid gettin my *ss kicked when i can ok.
run, hide, try and scare 'em away.
see, but now I tryin to do BETTER, not just hide but make good change, for all.
cuz the world is SO f*ck*d.
I just wanna make some good is all.
too too much bad, too too much hurt.
sometimes people make hurt on themsleves, to maybe make it so others hurt less, maybe it dumb, but somes SO desprate to make less hurt.
that all.
maybe I not smart, but I ALIVE ain't I?
so I goto be some smart.
hear me, I AM.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:05:58
In reply to If you have DISSOCIATION, posted by muffled on December 2, 2010, at 13:03:25
Posted by muffled on December 3, 2010, at 9:28:40
In reply to (((((muffled)))))) (nm), posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:05:58
Thx ((( GG ))) safe hugs back atcha :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:38:26
In reply to Re: Explaining specific blocks, posted by twinleaf on November 30, 2010, at 15:58:50
> I was asking a question about whether assessments by you of "patterns of behavior" will be used to lengthen or shorten blocks (or both).
What assessments of patterns of behavior are you referring to? If my assessment is that someone's behavior has been an effort to get around being blocked by posting as someone else or having someone else post for them, I lengthen the block:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Otherwise, I don't lengthen blocks. And I rarely shorten blocks for any reason. Although some kind of Elders Council might:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971688.html
Bob
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.