![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:21:16
In reply to Re: Would rather... » JohnV, posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 8:35:29
I agree Dr. Bob has done a wonderful thing by putting this board here, and the last thing I would ever want is it to be shut down. Why do you think that because some are asking for a review of policies that they want this place to close? We all contribute to the community, and discussion is a good thing.There may be others who have some agenda they want to fulfill and try to shut this place down, but I and many others love it here as much as anyone, and we also have our right to have our voices heard. We can't treat dissent and differences as something to smother out. What we can do is have civil discussions (like most are in the majority of this thread, with a few who have let their anger get the worst of them.) I view it as a progressive diplomatic exchange of ideas on serving interests of all community members.
All's I ask you is to consider what I am saying, and I will do the same of you. Thanks. John
Posted by Dinah on February 22, 2003, at 12:40:53
In reply to Resistance to discussion puzzles me :-( (nm), posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 8:19:14
John, I'm not sure how long you've been babbling. But I don't think anyone objects to discussing administrative issues. It's just that it's been done and done and done. It comes up on a regular basis and is thoroughly discussed. I don't feel like I have too much more to contribute. I don't even bother to argue in favor of the civility standards much any more, because I'm pretty sure Dr. Bob isn't going to do away with them. Were he to announce that he was doing away with them, I'd have plenty to say.
I was responding to those relatively few posters who seem intent on bringing in outside authorities to shut the place down. I love Babble, and would be just as upset if anyone tried to take away anything I loved.
If you check the archives, you'll see plenty of discussion on this subject.
Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:59:13
In reply to Re: blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 10:02:33
> > In order to "argue" and speak for their cases in a democratic fashion, I think blocked posters should still be able to post to this PBAdmin board. This would allow them the chance to have their arguments heard.
>
> It would also allow them to continue to be uncivil. They can argue their cases with me by email while they're blocked and post again after that.
>Who says they will continue to be uncivil? It would be a chance to be judged by peers as well as yourself. It appears in most cases, people get a "occasional" block often during a rough time in their life. That is what I mean by taking a case-by-case approach. For "chronic offenders", I do agree it may be necessary to block them for a period of time until they can prove themselves to post in a decent manner of civility. You have to take a subjective look at the "offense", because we don't lock people up for life for speeding tickets, no matter how many they get in their life, but yes we deal with murder in more serious terms.
> > The "two strikes you are blocked a week; three two weeks; and then always doubled" seems like a cold and calculated policy to me. I and many others don't see everything in such simple black and white terms.
>
> Coldness is in the eye of the beholder, but some calculation definitely went into it. The "strike zone" isn't always black and white...
>I just don't think using the same "punishment" for all is healthy or fair. Circumstances and gray areas are always involved, and any democratic court of law takes that into account.
> > What I think would be a true gift of this website, and add to it as a "rehabilitative" place on the web, is if somebody took time to seriously discuss what he feels is his concerns.
>
> Rehabilitation is an admirable goal, but beyond the scope of this site.
>Maybe for every single person who posts, but it can most certainly play a part in the rehabilitative process for some. It shouldn't be discounted completely. This place serves far more purpose than any general chatroom.
> > Why can't we have discussions about meeting "everyone's" needs?
>
> We can discuss that, but what if some people need to express their anger and other people need to feel safe?
>
> BobI agree with you completely on the "anger" part, but I also feel it is an often very short lived, temporary part of all of us. Again, it seems to be those few occassions where someone is having a rough time, and comes across the wrong way, and it also happens to be transient and they could shift around within hours, they get hit with a block. If it is a consistent thing that happens in every second post, of course that raises red flags. That is why I am asking why can't there be a "case by case" look at what would be called uncivil, and any action taken towards the "offender" take the above into account. A person charged with speeding does not get the same punishment as someone charged with murder.
John.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 13:16:15
In reply to Would rather see exchange of ideas as good » NikkiT2, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:21:16
I'm not saying we can't have a discussion on this.. but as Dinah says, its been done a million times.
And there are people here who would like to see the site shut down. Its those people that my comments on "if it upsets you so much why bother hanging around" were aimed at.
Posters such as Lost Boy have come here time and time again and upset people with their incivility time and time again. I think you're a pretty new babbler.. I've been here ariund 4 years, and seen these things happen so many times. There are people who are simply un-civil for the hell of it.. and in nasty nasty ways. And yes, history has shown that they will continue to do so after warnings etc. The civility rules haven't been here for 4 years, and they were bought in for a reason.
Like Dinah suggested, spend some time reading the archives, and maybe you will begin to see where we are coming from.
Nikki
Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 13:25:46
In reply to Re: Resistance to discussion puzzles me :-( » JohnV, posted by Dinah on February 22, 2003, at 12:40:53
> John, I'm not sure how long you've been babbling. But I don't think anyone objects to discussing administrative issues. It's just that it's been done and done and done. It comes up on a regular basis and is thoroughly discussed. I don't feel like I have too much more to contribute. I don't even bother to argue in favor of the civility standards much any more, because I'm pretty sure Dr. Bob isn't going to do away with them. Were he to announce that he was doing away with them, I'd have plenty to say.
>Yes I have searched through the threads, and I have seen signs that this site is progressive in some policy. Progress and change are and can be good, and I don't see why civility policies should not be up for discussion and for possible change. Laws often change to suit the community, and as a law student maybe that is why I am so keen on diplomacy, interaction, and progressive policy. They (policies) should not just accomodate any single person, but take into account our differences. That is the only way a community can survive and prove to be worthwhile to "all" as well as relevant and viable.
> I was responding to those relatively few posters who seem intent on bringing in outside authorities to shut the place down. I love Babble, and would be just as upset if anyone tried to take away anything I loved.
>Well I agree that is not the right way to go about things, and I think some may be attempting this out of anger. But, it is not just about myself or you, but about a viable and worthwhile community that serves all of it's members.
Sincerely, John V.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2003, at 16:11:24
In reply to Re: blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:59:13
> > > Why can't we have discussions about meeting "everyone's" needs?
> >
> > We can discuss that, but what if some people need to express their anger and other people need to feel safe?
>
> I agree with you completely on the "anger" part, but I also feel it is an often very short lived, temporary part of all of us.OK, let's say 1 person needs to express their short-lived anger and 100 people need to feel safe. How would you meet the needs of all 101 people?
> it seems to be those few occassions where someone is having a rough time, and comes across the wrong way, and it also happens to be transient and they could shift around within hours, they get hit with a block.
It might be transient, but it might not, I have no way of knowing. Plus, if I'm blocking someone, it's at least the second time they've been uncivil, so they either haven't shifted or have shifted back...
> If it is a consistent thing that happens in every second post, of course that raises red flags.
Are you saying someone shouldn't be blocked unless they're uncivil every other post? Every third post would be OK? For everyone? Which would mean one third of all posts could be uncivil?
> That is why I am asking why can't there be a "case by case" look at what would be called uncivil, and any action taken towards the "offender" take the above into account.
That's already what happens. The server doesn't do this automatically. :-)
> A person charged with speeding does not get the same punishment as someone charged with murder.
True, I handle "murder" more leniently than maybe I should...
Bob
Posted by stjames on February 22, 2003, at 18:35:13
In reply to Re: blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 12:59:13
I just don't think using the same "punishment" for all is healthy or fair. Circumstances and gray areas are always involved, and any democratic court of law takes that into account.
This board nor the internet are run by
democratic processes.
Posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 22:04:47
In reply to Blocks---and Please Be Civil policies, posted by JohnV on February 19, 2003, at 7:28:14
It seems most don't want to talk of compromise, a sollution, or finding a "third way". No wonder wars break out...nobody is prepared to "seriously" open to a wealth of different thoughts. All's I asked is for us to step outside ourselves once in awhile...walk in others and different shoes and footsteps.
Yes...I have lost my faith, again. John. See more>>>>>EVERLAST
What It's Like
We've all seen a man at the liquor store beggin' for your change
The hair on his face is dirty, dread-locked, and full of mange
He asks a man for what he could spare, with shame in his eyes
"Get a job you ****ing slob," is all he replies
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the bluesMary got pregnant from a kid named Tom that said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll
I'm the man you've been dreaming of."
But 3 months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "God damn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls."
And then she heads for the clinic and
she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner
and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose
I knew this kid named Max
He used to get fat stacks out on the corner with drugs
He liked to hang out late
he liked to get shit-faced and keep the pace with thugs
Until late one night there was a big gun fight and Max lost his head
He pulled out his chrome .45, talked some shit, and wound up dead
Now his wife and his kids are caught in the midst of all of this pain
You know it crumbles that way
at least that's what they say when you play the game
God forbid you ever had to wake up to hear the news
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to loseThen you really might know what it's like...
Posted by beardedlady on February 23, 2003, at 7:17:01
In reply to Forget it...I shouldn't have expected more..., posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 22:04:47
John,
I have bruises on my virtual forehead from banging it into this virtual wall.
beardy
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 23, 2003, at 10:04:40
In reply to Forget it...I shouldn't have expected more..., posted by JohnV on February 22, 2003, at 22:04:47
I'm sorry.. I gave you my point of view, and was open to a reply... giving my opinion does not mean that I am not open to discussion.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 10:30:22
In reply to Re: Would rather... » JohnV, posted by NikkiT2 on February 22, 2003, at 8:35:29
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...I don't understand, if someone is unhappy by this site being here...it is easier to walk away and find someplace else...].
When I was a child in the late 40's, there was a dept. store that expelled black people from their lunch counter. I witnessed them being harrased and clubbed by police because they refused to leave and demanded to be allowed to eat at the counter. I heard the manager yell at the black people to [...why don't you go to another lunch counter, your just a bunch of trouble makers...]
I saw one beaten women rise up off the floor and said back to the manager, {...I am a justice maker, not a trouble maker... I have a right to eat here just as much as the white people do...].
The dept. store refused to allow black people to eat at the lunch counter and there was protest and the dept. store closed.
Some people put justice above the easier way, which would be to go to another place.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 10:34:32
In reply to Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 10:30:22
But Lou.
They aren't the same thing at all.
One is racial discrimination.
The other is disagreeing with Dr. Bob enforcing civility guidelines within his site.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 10:47:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 10:34:32
Dinah,
You wrote,[...they are not the same...one is racial descrimination, the other is disagreeing with Dr. Bob enforcing civility guidlies to this site...]
I read here that there was a poster protesting the [injustice] of a poster being expelled. the poster implyed that the expulsion did not fit the offense. It was the [injustice] that I percieved as the protest. the poster was expelled for 32 weeks , which the protester wrote as being [unjust].
In the example that I describes, the manager of the store was [...enforcing the law...] for racial segregation was the law at that time. The protesters wanted the law changed. The poster here advocates that the [laws for this board ] be changed.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 11:03:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 10:34:32
Dinah,
You wrote,[...they are not the same...]
It is my understanding that there are at least two protests here on this thread. One is the disagreement with Dr. Bob over civility issues , but the other is about anti-Semititic language , here
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 11:07:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 10:34:32
Dinah,
Another protest here is that a poster contends that Dr. Bob's [civility guidlines]tend to {ostrcize}people. The [civility guidlines ] envoke an expulsion of 1,2,4,8,16,32,64...weeks, which the poster indicated to him/her amounted to [ostricism].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 11:16:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 10:34:32
Dinah,
Another poster wrote here,[...too heavey - handed...re-think polict toward us...]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 11:32:03
In reply to Re: Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 10:34:32
Dinah,
Below is a link to a post here that exibits a poster's concerns. I thought that it could be revisited for further discussion relevant to this discussion.
Http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202540.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 11:42:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response tp NikkiT2's post (1a) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 10:34:32
Dinah,
Below is another link to a post that coud be relevant to this discussion.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/202738.html
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 11:47:00
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post (6) » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 11:42:20
I see you see this as a matter of justice.
I don't. I happen to like the civility rules. I happen to like civility in general, and I have no particular problem with consequences for actions. Particularly when those consequences are well spelled out and warning is given.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 12:04:34
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post (6) » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 11:42:20
Friends,
Justice is much more than making a body of rules and applying punishments for breaking them. If that is all there was to {justice}, then the slave codes of colonial America and West Indies could be looked at as [just].
One of the foundational componants of {justice} is to look at the laws in the particular body , or code, and ask if they are in any way, arbitrary, caprecious or descriminatory. Next, would be to examine if they are well-defined, which means not [overbroad] or [far-reaching]. Next, do the laws create favoritism. Next, are they applied equally. Next, is there due-processs to contest.
This is not all that needs to be questioned.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 12:20:10
In reply to What are the componants of justice?, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 12:04:34
That was not my intent.
Posted by stjames on February 23, 2003, at 13:35:18
In reply to What are the componants of justice?, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 12:04:34
What do any of this have to do with this board ?
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 16:03:39
In reply to Re: What are the componants of justice?, posted by stjames on February 23, 2003, at 13:35:18
SJ,
You wrote,[...what does this have to do...?].
The purpose of the admin. board is to discuss:
A) Problems with the site
B) Ideas for improvment
This discussion has many posts from those that are giving ideas for improvemeny and percieved problems with the site.
Civility is one part of the discussion, and it is my deep conviction that by having an admin. that could listen to the members of the community as to their grievences, then constructive changes could be made to improve the civilty. I believe that the aspects that I and others here, have discussed so far, and there are much more, could be a viable means to [improve] civility.
The example at the lunch counter that I used created [better] civility in the community. Now all public establishments are open to all.
In another situation around that time, my mother drove us to Sunlight pool in Cincinnati. Sunlight Pool is the world's largest recirculating swimming pool in the world. The attendent at the gate refused to allow us in because one of my friends with us was black.
Later there was protest and the operators of the pool [changed] their policy and admitted all people and the pool is still open, still a great place to swim. One of the posters here had posted about [change]. And change can be accomplished when the community has a venue to discuss problems and ideas for improvement.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 16:13:38
In reply to Re: I'm sorry if my answer upset you. » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 23, 2003, at 12:20:10
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I'm sorry if I upset you...it was not my intent...]
Well, that would depend on your conception of what constitutes being [upset]. Being [upset] could be on a continuim from a brief outrage to profanity directed to the other person and beyond.
Regardless of whether you did or did not, I understand that it was not you intention to do so.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by JohnV on February 23, 2003, at 22:41:20
In reply to Re: What are the componants of justice?, posted by stjames on February 23, 2003, at 13:35:18
> What do any of this have to do with this board ?
It has to do with the fact it is takes many wheels to make this board run. One half of this board is Dr. Bob's creation of it; the other half is the community who make it up. Without either, this board would not exist.
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.