Posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 11:02:53
In reply to Re: Shocked at how far this has gone... » thuso, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 4:49:56
> It's difficult for me to see how Dr. Bob was "just following the rules" when the rules are not clear! Dr.Bob himself says there was much grey area here. The post Lar was actually blocked for was not posted to Emmy, it was a general post, and Dr. Bob interpreted it as being a direct response to her. Additionally The actual "rules" are different from those listed in the official F.A.Q, and when the rules changed there was not even a subject heading that brought attention to the changes, it was all done in conversation style.
>
> Just following the rules? I think not.
> And how on earth is 6 weeks justified in all the confusion?
>Obviously the post wasn't general enough or Dr. Bob wouldn't have blocked him. I think Larry's post was right on the edge of general or directed towards Emmy. I could see Dr. B's decision going either way. But remember, it's his opinion and not ours that counts. Yes, there are plenty of grey areas with this DNP rule. Yes, they need to be addressed so this doesn't happen again. Yes, the new rules should have been laid out in an area that all could view them. But isn't it better for the poster to always err on the side of caution, especially on this site? There are different paths that could have been taken that would have avoided this entire situation. It's too late for that now, but hopefully we'll learn from this.
I know the current DNP rules are different from those in the FAQ. The FAQ is clear that it requires harassment (as Larry pointed out), but that obviously isn't the case anymore. Did anyone point that out to Dr. B before this situation erupted? I don't know the answer, but if no one did I have quite a few comments about that.
Regarding the 6 week block...I've stated in other posts that the punishment structure is known, so the fact that a person gets more than what some people deem as "acceptable for the crime" doesn't really matter. Dr. B states that the last time Larry was blocked was for 6 weeks. According to the punishment structure here, he could have made it 12 weeks. Being confused about a situation doesn't matter. If there was confusion, it should have been addressed before the infamous post (whether by Larry or someone else). Unfortunately, Larry is the one that got caught in the cross-fire. I feel for him because of that. Just remember that this could have happened to any one of us.
So yes, I think Dr. B was following the rules. This issue isn't a question about if the DNP request was valid or not. It was about a response and whether or not it was directed towards the person or in general. Those aspects of the DNP rule seem pretty laid out to me in the FAQ. It was just a matter of the interpretation of Larry's post. It was interpreted to not be general enough by both Dinah and Dr. B (who happen to be the two people with authority). You disagree?
> It frustrates me when people who don't know the details of the situation make assessments as to the acceptability of the outcome.
>First of all, how do you know that I don't know the details of the situation??? Everything here is archived and I happened to be on PC for that whole April Fool's thing and read most of the posts (and controversy) regarding it. It's not hard to find specific posts here. So, please don't assume anything about me or what I don't know. And besides, I have the opinion that someone can offer a lot of input about a situation even if they weren't involved at the time. A person who was not emotionally caught up in the situation can often bring a different perspective. Isn't that what a lot of therapy is? Why are you frustrated when I'm just bringing my outside perspective to the table?
poster:thuso
thread:523749
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/525729.html