![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 96. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 22:26:00
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 22:24:16
>
> Those are good points. OTOH, this country does seem to get by with juries...
>
> BobOTOOH, juries are comprised of individuals who do not know the defendent. Anyone with a personal relationship would be excluded.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 22:43:04
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 22:24:16
> > 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
>
> Those are good points. OTOH, this country does seem to get by with juries...
>
> BobYes, we do get by with juries, but by law, jurors can't have any type of relationship with the person they are passing judgement on, as this would cause a conflict of interest. It's pretty clear that all of the people who post here have a relationship with eachother, which would cause a huge lack of objectivity.
Elle
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 11, 2004, at 5:25:18
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals » Dr. Bob, posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 22:43:04
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 8:52:14
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on January 11, 2004, at 5:25:18
Administration is ideally suited, and already does, work as a sort of appeals recommendation board. How about you use it as such and seriously review your decisions when people think you've made an error. If you think it was a close call, you could reverse your decision. If you don't, you could explain why in greater detail.
Nearly everyone thinks Larry was genuinely trying to stick to the civility rules. How about considering, just considering with your wise mind, that it might be ok to reverse the block and give a please rephrase. (And I still think the same applies to Dena - who didn't even receive a block for the same reason as she usually does).
Admitting that perhaps you weren't wrong, but that there might be room for alternate interpretations, would be something for you to be proud of I think.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 9:37:55
In reply to Re: hmm, how about my other suggestion? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 8:52:14
I agree with that sugestion 100%! (It does beg the question though: What would influence the decision to reverse blocks? Would the amount of upheaval be the sole factor, the posters who point it out, ect... Then again, if he doesn't reverse a block is he going to be considered a tyrant and unfair, or showing favortism towards other posters for turning more blocks over then others. It could just open a new can of worms.... (Sorry, just thinking out loud. It's qute possible this isn't the case.)
I do have to agree that Larry was not trying to be uncivil, in fact I think he was trying his best to stay within civility guidelines.
Posted by fallsfall on January 11, 2004, at 10:03:41
In reply to Re: hmm, how about my other suggestion? » Dinah, posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 9:37:55
Any reversals (or refusals to reverse) would need to be open and clear. I also think that any change in action would need to occur quickly (within a week). These guidelines *might* help avert situations such as our recent "block reduction" controversy.
... It is also possible that if we were allowed to "vote with our fingers" like this that those who "lost" would feel *more* disenfranchised because their views were voiced, but not agreed with.
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 10:09:09
In reply to Re: hmm, how about my other suggestion?, posted by fallsfall on January 11, 2004, at 10:03:41
Well, Dr. Bob has already been known to reverse a decision upon further reflection. And heaven only knows we have been known to give our opinions on his decisions. So I'm not proposing anything new. I'm just proposing that Dr. Bob use the option more often, in particular when it was a close decision - as in a poor choice of words rather than calling someone a f**** a*****.
He even at one point had a survey on his admin decisions on Yahoo, but I don't think it got a lot of response?
Posted by fayeroe on January 11, 2004, at 13:43:23
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » mair, posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:13:29
> 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
>
>
It seems that the emperor has no clothes and pointing that out doesn't sit well. I come back occasionally and read posts and after seeing that Larry Hoover was blocked and now ZH, I still support self-blocking. It worked for five of us and we support each other very well through e.mail. I will state that I see the problem as a control issue. And I question why more boards are added when the ones that were here for so long can't be taken care of properly. Sick people need care. Egos be damned!
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.