Posted by Larry Hoover on August 5, 2003, at 8:18:04
In reply to Hey Doc Bob, remember me... a few ??'s..., posted by kid a on August 4, 2003, at 14:19:07
> When I think of a good reason for a block, I think malicious intent to cause another reader distress or harm.That's pretty obvious.
>It may also included malicious intent to defer the nature of any one board (like posting obviously off topic posts in the faith board)...
Quite different.....those get redirected. If you're making these concepts equivalent, I would have to ask you to reconsider your reasons for doing so. I'm not sure you've thought it out.
> I don't think of bad language, or literature, (that was my faux paus for so long)...Clearly spelled out in the FAQ, and part of your acceptance of the site rules at sign-up. If you repetitively crossed that line, there is only one place to look for responsibility.
> The problem is that there is no disclaimer for age, so I can understand why you are sensitive about language.What has age got to do with it? Are you equating that with maturity? Still, I fail to see the relevance.
> Unfortunately, (can I start a sentence that way), it seems as if now you have adopted a heavy handed mandatory minimum type punishment.No, it's progressive.
> I've always thought your policy of blocking someone for 1 week first than 2 and so on was counter productive.To whom? The violator? Or the target?
> First, these people are often in intense emotional pain when they make these posts, they often don't think about them as clearly as they should.
The only thinking required comes at the time of hitting the send button. As all post *require* that you also confirm the message content, there is a double protection against inappropriate output.
And what about the target of the verbal assault? Are they not in pain as well?
>Perhaps if you gave someone the ability to go back and edit their post that would facilitate a civil environment much moreso.
You can't unsay words. That's the whole point of becoming your own editor. It's a life skill, ya know?
If someone says something to hurt me, even an apology doesn't fix it. You just can't go back to the pre-hurt condition, as on a whim.
> Instead you remove this person in pain, and you leave the post, like a head on a pike, still lingering to hurt whomever you think may be offended...Some posts disappear altogether. Others are edited. Moreover, blaming Bob for the aftermath is inappropriate attribution of responsibility. It isn't fair to externalize responsibility that way.
> What happens, and I think this might be purposefull, is that eventually the bad elements just go away, frustrated, (that's what happened to me)...If that's the only way you can cope with your posting responsibilities, then the time away is well spent, IMHO.
> and the civility level is softened out to a nice soothing pap, suitable for ages 8 to 80...
Perfect. I have experienced the unbridled assaults of unmoderated forums a number of times. If Babble goes that road, I'll be gone in a flash. I'm here because of the civility.
> I understand you are doing research on your posters and readers, and that it's important to have an environment where the propper data can be collected in a way that makes said data the most reliable, but I think that you are, loading the dice lets say.
If I recall correctly, the research was already completed, but I'll let the author himself address that. In any case, your comment is irrelevant, IMHO.
> A lot of times people are not civil, it is in our nature, but most of the time, we shake hands and continue on the next day... that's part of being a responsible adult.No, a responsible adult takes pains to avoid offense to others. You're focussing only on the perpetrators' experience. The victims of verbal assaults are presumably in just as much pain as are the perpetrators.
> I think you are taking a very Szasz (Thomas), like stance on this board in that rather than protecting the patients who may need the most help, you protect those who make the least waves. By distancing yourself, other than the father figure who delights in praise, you become this mythical Moloch the heavy judger of men.Somebody has to apply the rules of conduct that each of explicitly accepted at sign-up. What you're implying is like blaming the police for getting arrested when you know you've robbed a bank.
And, quite contrary to your opinion here, I believe that Bob is protecting those most in need of protection, those that are quiet, and who do not project their pain onto others.
> Just reading the few above blocks it seems like many people are disapointed in them.
Yes, and the debate about modifying the penalties for different types of transgression has so far come up with some good ideas that may be implemented. That is as it should be.
> And yet And Yet (impropper grammar), despite the discussion, there is no change EVER in your sentence... There is no reprieval from the governor... I don't know why you ask people to discuss the blocks at all since you have never to my knowledge done anything but what you choose to do regardless of what people say.
I think you haven't been paying close enough attention. There is evolution here, right in front of you.
> Now, personally If I had a grievance with you I would email you after I had been blocked, but who is it "Ace", re registered and posted it here, perhaps a bit unwitting of the rules,
Not true. He explicitly acknowledged opening a new account to bypass the block.
> instead of being compassionate to someone who is obviously in need of a peer group, the heavy hand comes down again and you double the sentence per you usual mandatory minium statute.
As explicitly described in FAQ. The responsibility lies with the poster. Period.
> You have to become involved with your readers bob, not just protect them from 'bad language' and perhaps a mysterious quote here and there...
He's very involved. I think he (or his assistants) read each and every post. That's a huge job, and the fact that few comments are made means that few comments are necessary. That means the process is working just fine, IMHO.
>You have to realise the responsibility you have in creating a mental health website is not just in providing an area where people can chat and some medications monograms and a good dosage of exponentially lengthened shocks.
The responsibility is to maintain a safe and protected environment, which has been quite admirably achieved.
> A good online comunity is made up of it's memembers, and as you have decided (wisely so, if you are collecting infromation on the participants), to not interact vis a vis with the users, you should at least show some compassion, and not expect that blocks which double for each offense, no matter what it may be, will correct a unique or different mind.There is no expectation that punishment will correct behaviour. It will bring attention to the behaviour, but the outcome does not arise from the punishment, per se.
>It only serves to rid the community of someone who might contribute to it.
Again, you externalize the responsibility. No one holds a gun to your head while you type. Or when you confirm your post.
> You have to understand, the mores and values of society have changed to a point where these things that you squelch do not so much offend people as they do make them feel at ease (in use of language) and perhaps make them think (in the use of quotes)...If the mores have changed that much, then I am even more grateful for this safe environment.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:248064
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/248212.html