![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 39 to 63 of 96. Go back in thread:
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!
Posted by 8 Miles on January 11, 2004, at 15:52:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » 8 Miles, posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 21:34:52
It would be nice to have a "post checker tool" like a spell check tool!
8
Posted by 8 Miles on January 11, 2004, at 16:39:54
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Elle2021, posted by fayeroe on January 11, 2004, at 13:43:23
Interesting. I did not anticipate that my post would stir up this much conversation and discussion. As such, I guess this suggests that there are indeed a wide variety of thoughts here. Many of you had some ideas that in combination could be a good proposal for appeals and resolutions. Thinking back on my "counsel" suggestion, I agree, as Dr. Bob pointed out, it would be hard to know how or who to select as the jury. As far as the consistant level of objectivity that a council could have, I found it interesting how several of you took my opinion for a "jury-like" council to be a WORSE idea than having Dr. Bob have to peruse 100s of posts on so many boards daily to discover who has made some posting violation. Let's consider a jury. According to Webster, a jury is: a body of persons legally selected and sworn (problem there) to inquire into any matter of FACT (more problems) and to give their verdict ACCORDING TO EVIDENCE (final nail?). So, a jury, per se (by definition) would not work. A COUNCIL (not counsel as I now see) however, is defined as: a group elected or appointed as an advisory or legislative body. WOULD be an appropriate board for consideration. OK, I acknowledge (easily) that this would NOT be a quick or simple thing to organize. But let's continue to think of ways that we can 1. help monitor each other 2. help take some of the presure off of Dr. Bob. I think that we owe it to ourselves (and him) to be able to do both of these things. I know the debate will continue. I do not think I have all of (or the final) answers. Just trying to help the best I am able.
Take care.
8
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 17:38:53
In reply to Wow! Such diverse opinion!, posted by 8 Miles on January 11, 2004, at 16:39:54
Just trying to help the best I am able.
* IMHO, I think that's what everyone is trying to do. Maybe a council for blocks which last an extended period of time would be a good idea. Having a council look at a questionable post, where the poster was blocked for say a period of a week wouldn't do much good, unless the block was reversed and the next block was for a week.
The question of how to pick the council:
You could always just let Dr. Bob pick the council, but that could lead to a discussion of favoritism.
It could be comprised of original posters (or "older", not to say anyone's old of course) but that could leave relatively newer posters feeling that they don't have as much of a say.
Everyone could just vote on who they think should be on the council, but couldn't that make it a popularity contest?
What about drawing names out of a hat? It would be fair, but somehow doesn't seem to be the best solution.
Could just start a thread and discuss who should be on the council, if one comes about, and go from there. That seems logical.Oh, and your comment about the spell-checker. Does anyone use that? Well, I notice I seem to have the most spelling errors. Thanks for not bringing it up, though it slaps me in the face every time I read my own posts. Maybe I should try to use it every now and again :)
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 17:40:18
In reply to Re: Wow! Such diverse opinion!, posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 17:38:53
Posted by Elle2021 on January 11, 2004, at 21:13:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Elle2021, posted by fayeroe on January 11, 2004, at 13:43:23
> I still support self-blocking. It worked for five of us and we support each other very well through e.mail.
I'm glad that works for you guys.
Elle
Posted by Elle2021 on January 11, 2004, at 21:23:08
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on January 11, 2004, at 5:25:18
I like "Dr. Bob handed out punishments." I don't think I would take well to getting ones from my fellow Babblers... I'm not sure anyone else would either.
Elle
Posted by shar on January 11, 2004, at 21:49:22
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? » Dr. Bob, posted by Elle2021 on January 11, 2004, at 21:23:08
Hmmm, how about a poll over at PB Open (the yahoo group). Then any member who wanted to could express their opinion, and the final decision would be up to Bob. Or, as in an election, the final decision could be left up to the people who expressed their opinion.
Options could be to unblock, or reduce the number of weeks blocked, or other things I can't think of.
And, for a cap, I think 3 months is plenty; however, there are folks who might return after 3 months and create havoc, and then what? Maybe another poll: should this person's block be INCREASED?
I'm tired and not thinking too clearly, but that's the gist of what I was thinking.
Shar
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 21:54:19
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board?, posted by shar on January 11, 2004, at 21:49:22
There are those for whom three months would not seem nearly sufficient for the pain they caused and the havoc wrought, IMHO. Again, I don't wish to name names, but I'm sure you can think of a few.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:08:16
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? » shar, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 21:54:19
Yeah, but history has a way of reapeating itself, does it not?
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:23:47
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? » Dinah, posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:08:16
Since history has a way of repeating itself, it would be wise to chose who you associate with (or not) based on former encounters. The way the board is set up it is easy not to get involved, if you chose not to.
I think a 3 month cap on bans would be nice. I believe there are very few posters who deliberately post under false pretenses. This is a mental health message board and most of the posters here do have mental health issues. But, if one thinks there may be a poster of such nature, one can chose to have no interaction with such poster. It would be fair to everyone else who tries to follow civility guidelines most of the time to limit the amount of time they are booted.
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 22:38:07
In reply to Allow me to elaborate, posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:23:47
Unfortunately, history does have a habit of repeating itself. It wasn't all that long ago that some people were calling for lifetime blocks for certain offenses. And some people do unfortunately break the rules, come back under other names, and rack up quite a lot of time blocked because they break the rules again. That isn't in the archives because the posts of blocked posters get deleted.
I can't really describe the behaviors on the board for fear of being uncivil. However, if you like you can email me and I'll let you know of a few examples. My email is in the FAQ.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:51:58
In reply to Re: Allow me to elaborate » Karen_kay, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 22:38:07
I may take you up on that offer. But I believe I know exactly what you are talking about. I've been through the old posts and viewed them. And I too wouldn't disagree with a decision of a lifetime block for certain posters who break rules regarding privacy violations, ect. But, in fairness to those who do try their best to stay with the civility guidelines it would be nice to have a 3 month limit to blocks. Certian "heinous offenses" should be punished to the maximum law guidelines. Are there any such guidelines set in place? And how is it that they can be circumvented? Maybe this particular discussion should take place elsewhere, as I am not certain as to what I am allowed to say and what I am not.
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 23:00:52
In reply to Re: Allow me to elaborate » Karen_kay, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 22:38:07
I just as well clarify on board at the risk of getting a pbc, or everyone will be imagining i'm talking about them. For some reason people read things into my posts that I don't intend.
I'm still upset about the poster who I don't even know who it was but kept coming back and coming back under different names, often saying things about me that I would prefer not be said, and once posed as me "Dianah" and talked about eating Harry's body parts and hinted at an extremely improper relationship between me and both Harry and Dr. Bob. I have no idea who said poster was, but I was extremely distressed by it, since it was right after I found out Harry was dying.
That's about as civilly as I can put it, and Dr. Bob, I'll take the PBC gladly if you think I deserve it.
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 23:37:04
In reply to Re: Allow me to elaborate - Karen, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 23:00:52
I do not in any way believe that said poster was anyone posting now or anytime in the recent past, because said poster is still serving block time and thus could not be any current or recent poster. Moreover, I am not privy to said poster's identity because Dr. Bob did not choose to share it with anyone.
And if that doesn't cover it, could people just give me the benefit of the doubt please?
Posted by Karen_kay on January 12, 2004, at 0:12:09
In reply to Re: Yet another clarification, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 23:37:04
Yes, I read about that on the old admin posts. And I read the support you got from various posters as well. That was very sweet! :)
Is there a way for a blocked poster to come back under a different name? Is there a way for Dr. Bob to tell if the blocked poster is posting under a different name? Is there a way to prevent this from happening in the future?
I've also noticed though that this isn't the first occassion, and probably not the last, that this has happened. Is there a way to prevent it from happening? Obviously certain posters have trademark charcteristics, ie: writing styles and grammar, wit and sarcasm, ect. If there isn't a way to officially point out blocked posters who return under different names, won't those characteristics soon give them away? And if "you" really believe that posters is said offender can't you just email Dr. Bob with your suspicion and go from there. Obviously he really can't do anything about it without proof, but you can choose to not have contact with said offender.Another thing, since history does have a way of repeating itself, if said offender does return, it soon won't be long before the person gets blocked again, right? I mean unless that poster has truly changed then they are bound to be blocked once again. And if they have changed and are going to follow the civility code, then that's a good thing. I mean the purpose of this site is to support and if that's why we are here then everyone is welcome.
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2004, at 1:00:48
In reply to Re: Yet another clarification » Dinah, posted by Karen_kay on January 12, 2004, at 0:12:09
Yes, the support was very sweet, both on and off board. And I appreciated all of it.
But I fear you are far kinder than I am. I'm not a nice enough person to lobby for his/her block to be reduced to three months.
Dr. Bob does have some ability to tell when people are posting under a new name. I don't know the specifics and I don't know that he wants us to know the specifics. :)
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.