![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by shar on January 8, 2004, at 20:44:27
In reply to Re: Before this gets deleted.... » shar, posted by Dinah on January 8, 2004, at 10:52:00
> Do you honestly think he deliberately let the posters cited get away with something, while deliberately nailing you and others?
.........No, I wasn't addressing his motives. I was enlightened that there were many more 'slips' than I realized. It was an effective presentation to show that x number of recent posts used a word that someone else got blocked for.
Whether or not Bob is tired doesn't make much difference to me, because I bet there is a way he could just scan posts electronically if he wants to be consistent about profanity. Plus, he has his deputies, and I assume that you all will lookout for profanity also. (I don't know for sure, tho.)
I felt that Zen did a good job of illustrating her point.
Shar
Posted by shar on January 8, 2004, at 20:47:04
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on January 8, 2004, at 19:08:31
I'm beginning to think there should be a cap on number of weeks blocked. And, I disagree with the doubling of number of weeks.
I will be happy to set the cap, quite arbitrarily, to what I think is right.
Shar
Posted by Dinah on January 8, 2004, at 21:08:42
In reply to Re: Before this gets deleted.... » Dinah, posted by shar on January 8, 2004, at 20:44:27
Actually, Shar, I don't look for profanity. :) The deputy rules are pretty narrowly drawn, and a piece of profanity would not fall under the guidelines in which I could act.
Moreover, I'm not inclined to be the language police.
I don't know about automated dirty word scanning.
But I do think Dr. Bob has a herculean task.
Posted by mair on January 8, 2004, at 21:33:05
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on January 8, 2004, at 19:08:31
My heart sank when I saw this block even if it didn't shock me. I echo what shar wrote about caps and doubling. Sometimes the length of these blocks just seems so draconian.
Mair
Posted by gabbix2 on January 8, 2004, at 21:34:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by shar on January 8, 2004, at 20:47:04
Yes I agree I'm astounded really and I keep being astounded. I don't believe people should be able to say whatever they want to Dr. Bob or anyone.
I cannot fathom however why some seem to get
endless P.B.C's and others blocked out of existence for the same offence.
If the administration cannot be perfect in the enforcment of its civility policies then its unconscionable to me that the ramifications of
breaking them can be this severe.
Posted by shar on January 8, 2004, at 23:28:06
In reply to Re: Before this gets deleted.... » shar, posted by Dinah on January 8, 2004, at 21:08:42
> But I do think Dr. Bob has a herculean task.
.........I do, too. Which makes me wonder why he keeps adding boards, which means more monitoring on his part, perhaps late at night and potentially more 'slips' and the concomitant dissatisfaction when that occurs. And, the loss of posters who get long blocks in the process.
..........I'm not asking you, Dinah, to respond to my thoughts and assumptions (tho I do appreciate your input) or defend Dr. Bob, I'm just wondering, that's all. I know you take in and take on so many things that are hard for you, and this (my meandering mind) does not have to be one.
Shar
Posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:13:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 8, 2004, at 21:33:05
I wasn't that shocked when Zen got blocked. I was actually surprised it hadn't been done sooner. In my opinion, she had been posting Bob's weaknesses and this boards weaknesses for quite some time, and doing it somewhat harshly.
Elle> My heart sank when I saw this block even if it didn't shock me. I echo what shar wrote about caps and doubling. Sometimes the length of these blocks just seems so draconian.
> Mair
Posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » mair, posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:13:29
I believe some of the above posts are more unkind and more of a putdown than anything Zen has posted lately. I find it interesting in researching people's posting histories, that many who have spoken out against Zen have at one time or another, done as much, if not more, actions that could be considered unkind or offensive (by an objective group) than Zen's posts were. From reading Zen's posts for the past month or so, it is EASY to see that she is having a bad time right now. Does this excuse her (or anyone) else from repeatedly "breaking the rules"? No. However, it would be nice if some mitigating circumstances were taken into condideration. E.G. in Zen's post that she got a warning for her language use (written in response to one of my posts)directed at anyone else? No. It was actually the use of a word that best described to Zen what she felt. Was it directed at me offensively? No. Did I complain to her or Dr. Bob that I didn't appreciate her response? No. Does she has a "right" to complain to or about Dr. Bob's meting out of blocking or warnings or requests to be civil? Well, we all had to sign away our rights, per se, to have the "right" to post on a board owned and operated by Dr. Bob, so in many ways, none of us has a "right" to challenge Dr. Bob, or openly offend or attack others. But this is where I would apply some objective form of thought to correct actions rather than removing people from posting. I don't think any of us are here to "just shoot the breeze" (although this IS the social board), we all obviously have problems. So the goal should be to find ways to be as supportive as possible of each other. This doesn't mean there should be no rules for posting, etc, but they should be objective. I could not prove or disprove that Dr. Bob "doesn't like" certain posters, and is "out to get them", but there *could* be a question about objectiveness. The HARD thing is, that Dr. Bob pretty much has to shoot from the hip in order to pull some people back in. He doesn't have the excess time to go back and check everyone's posts for the past three years to see how THEY may have been treated in a similar situation. However, if a live, and heated conversation or exchange of posts suddenly breaks out, he is obligated to stop it using the rules we all agreed to. Now, I agree with some of the things you have posted about there being a cap to the blockings. I don't personally agree with the exponential compounding of blocking. But it is Dr. Bob's site, and that is his prerogative. I would suggest that it *might* be possible for Dr. Bob to set up a group of people,chosen randomly from active posters, who could rotate every few months (to change participants, and remove any thoughts of only "favorites" being selected). Dr. Bob (or perhaps posters themselves) could refer minor infractions to this "counsel" for their collective response to what is necessary to correct an action, without causing the person who has made the post to feel singled out by him. This would be much like a judge and a jury, with the judge ultimately responsible for telling the jury what the rules and laws are, and what corrective actions can be taken. I think direct attacks on a site's host is not the best action one can take. On the other hand, if one calmly and objectively sends email directly to Dr. Bob (or to this proposed counsel) to help him/them to consider something that might have slipped by him , this might be a way for that person to have their grievance heard in a manner that does not reflect blame upon anyone (or generate futher angry exchanges on the board), and gives time for the situation to be fully considered. As I mentioned previously, Dr. Bob has to act quickly to defend an obvious aggressive attack from one poster against another. So maybe a "temporary block" of a day or two until he or the counsel has an opportunity to investigate the germane data would be an option to doling out compounding weekly blocks. The bottom line is: this board is Dr. Bob's, he can't watch it 24/7, we can help by monitoring ourselves using the above-mentioned counsel approach. Personally, I think this would remove, or at least greatly reduce the amount of perceived hostilities and the perceived subjective actions taken by these board's host, Dr. Bob. So...........whatcha all think?
8
Posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 21:34:52
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
I think that sounds pretty complicated honestly. To rotate different posters and decide who should or should not be blocked would be time consuming and compicated at the very least. I'm relatively new here and I get the feeling from old posters that "newbies" don't have as much of a say or aren't as welcome as posters who have been here for a while. Maybe I'm just interpreting things wrong?
I honestly think Dr Bob's doing fine. I realize that some posters are getting away with violations and others aren't. That's a shame. Consistency would be nice, but obviously Dr. Bob isn't available to monitor the site 24/7.
I know that sometimes before I send a post through I hesitate and wonder, "Is there a chance I may get a PBC?" I think the responsibility lies as much with us as it does with the monitor of the board. Before sending something through, maybe we could reread it and be sure their isn't anything offensive or possibly hurtful in the message? I know that sometimes it is hard to tell because the lines at this point are a bit blurred but profanity is a no-brainer at this point.
I've really appreciated this site and the posters here. I've gained quite a bit of insite and knowledge from posting and I just wish we could find a solution that works for everyone. :)
Karen
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2004, at 22:03:28
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » 8 Miles, posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 21:34:52
> I'm relatively new here and I get the feeling from old posters that "newbies" don't have as much of a say or aren't as welcome as posters who have been here for a while.
I certainly hope that's not true. Old posters are only newbies who've hung around a long time. And even if it is true in some people's eyes, speak up anyway, Karen. The board belongs to everyone who uses it.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 23:00:26
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Karen_kay, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2004, at 22:03:28
Posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 23:02:10
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » 8 Miles, posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 21:34:52
Not administrative but Karen I'm afraid I might have given you that impression. Your posts sparkle, you're vibrant
and so obviously intelligent and caring Your post on spiders and Mr.Bean was cracking me up! Well many of your posts do.
A difference of opinion alone has never stopped from respecting or liking someone. I used to be a lot nicer. I've just seen things now on babble that bother *ME* enough that I've chosen to no longer be a part of it but I needed to say that before
I left, cause it seemed all I did was snarl at you. I feel the same way about Dinah that you do
too.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 0:13:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Karen_kay, posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 23:02:10
I understand that somethings here are very frustrating. I too have been frustrated at times. But I don't see that Bob is giving special treatment. And I don't see that there could be any way to prove it, IMHO. From my stand point all I saw was an attempt to cause an uproar. I'm sure that Bob doesn't have a "paper-trail" of posters with PBC, and if he did I'm certain he wouldn't post it.
I thank you for your lovely comments. And I don't get offended easily, so a difference of opinion doesn't cause me to lose respect for anyone either. I'd just like to see a final resolution, as I'm sure everyone would. But, unforuntetly I really don't see that happening.
And the next time you feel like snarling, go ahead! I can take it! (Just stay within the civility guidlines. I can givey you the link if you want :)
BTW, I wasn't being a smart aleck here (HONESTLY!), I'm just saying I don't mind differing opinions. They make me think about the "other side" that I sometimes miss. I'm being genuine, promise.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 0:39:54
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
> I believe some of the above posts are more unkind and more of a putdown than anything Zen has posted lately.
I'm aware that she has been supportive in the past, even to me.
>I find it interesting in researching people's posting histories, that many who have spoken out against Zen have at one time or another, done as much, if not more, actions that could be considered unkind or offensive (by an objective group) than Zen's posts were.
I feel like the above statement is being directed at me in some way(but then I always feel that way). Can you clarify?
>From reading Zen's posts for the past month or so, it is EASY to see that she is having a bad time right now. Does this excuse her (or anyone) else from repeatedly "breaking the rules"? No.
I hadn't read any of her latest posts, so I didn't know she was going through something at the moment. I just read the ones she wrote on the Administration board that were for Bob. I hope she is doing well. I didn't mean to come off as uncaring.
Elle
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 0:41:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 0:39:54
Posted by judy1 on January 10, 2004, at 14:56:35
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » 8 Miles, posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 21:34:52
As a poster who has been around for a while, I really appreciate the contributions you make Karen and the thoughtful way you word your posts. Hopefully I've never given off signals that I don't welcome new posters, in fact they keep the boards interesting. I couldn't agree more that the "responsibility lies as much with us...", I truly wish more felt that way.
take care, judy
Posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 19:43:01
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Karen_kay, posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 23:02:10
(And I'll gladly take a PBC or block [am I due one??] for calling myself stupid, is that even uncivil to call youself stupid, Dr. Bob?)
But I just reread Gabbi's post and does this mean she's gone?
<<I've just seen things now on babble that bother *ME* enough that I've chosen to no longer be a part of it but I needed to say that before
I left>>>Gabbi, if you are still reading, I'm truly sorry you are gone :(
But, I have been reading old posts on Admin and these issues are not new ones. They've been around for quite some time.
Posted by shar on January 10, 2004, at 20:52:39
In reply to I think I'm stupid!, posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 19:43:01
of whether the issues should be addressed, having been around for a while.
> But, I have been reading old posts on Admin and these issues are not new ones. They've been around for quite some time.
.................you're not stupid, you came up to speed on admin very quickly!
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:13:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » gabbix2, posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 0:13:48
> From my stand point all I saw was an attempt to cause an uproar.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't jump to conclusions about them or post anything that could lead them to feel accused, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:18:38
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
> I'm beginning to think there should be a cap on number of weeks blocked.
>
> Shar> I agree with some of the things you have posted about there being a cap to the blockings.
>
> 8 MilesI've been wondering about that, too. But maybe a year? Which would apply to current blocks, too?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:20:41
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
> I would suggest that it *might* be possible for Dr. Bob to set up a group of people ... I think this would remove, or at least greatly reduce the amount of perceived hostilities and the perceived subjective actions taken by these board's host, Dr. Bob.
The idea of involving other posters has come up before, but my concern has been that it wouldn't be supportive.
OTOH, there might be advantages, too... Maybe it could be done anonymously? And they could decide appeals rather than make initial decisions?
How large a group? Would they be chosen randomly? What if posters declined to participate? Would decisions need to be unanimous?
Bob
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 21:25:55
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:20:41
> The idea of involving other posters has come up before, but my concern has been that it wouldn't be supportive.
My concern is that is wouldn't be fair and that this appointed group of posters might be inclined to go "easy" on their friends. Don't you agree it would be difficult to be even-handed? I like the system the way it is.
Elle
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:35:16
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:20:41
My fear is that different posters would be treated differently - more by the group than by you, Dr. Bob. There are popular posters who would nearly always get pardoned. And I can think of a couple of posters that probably would get the opposite treatment.
People complain that you are partial, Dr. Bob. But I think your partiality is far less than that of the group as a whole. All you need to do is see the uproar when certain posters are blocked, and the decided lack of uproar when other posters are blocked, even when the direct offenses that led to the blocks are similar.
And lately there has seemed to be an even greater trend in that direction, where even lack of support of a popular poster is to some extent punished (for want of a better word).
I would rather have someone who isn't one of us make the moderating decisions. Even if they aren't always perfect. Otherwise I fear it could lead to the tyranny of the majority.
I suppose that if it were an appeals process, that would make it a bit better. But would two posters really get the same treatment in an appeals process? I can't see any way of being more direct without naming names, which would not be at all supportive on either side.
How about, as an alternative, that you make yourself more open to considering reversing your decisions based on the reactions on the board. And those reactions could be one or two, or a score. But be more open to considering that you could have made a different decision.
Then everyone could continue to have a say.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 21:47:54
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:35:16
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 22:24:16
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals » Dr. Bob, posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 21:25:55
> My concern is that is wouldn't be fair and that this appointed group of posters might be inclined to go "easy" on their friends.
>
> Elle> My fear is that different posters would be treated differently - more by the group than by you, Dr. Bob.
>
> DinahThose are good points. OTOH, this country does seem to get by with juries...
Bob
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.