![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 103 to 127 of 154. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on September 2, 2004, at 0:31:22
In reply to Has anyone noticed?, posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:18:15
I'm guessing a lot of that has to do with the length of the block as compared to the severity of the offense. Which isn't the way Babble works, but it does tend to be a bit upsetting.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:06:14
In reply to Re: please be civil - insults --to sls and dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 1, 2004, at 11:36:26
> what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
>
> these outrageous insultsPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> There is nothing civil about a forum that will not allow you to defend yourself. The “attacker” should be banned, not the attacked.
And if the attacked defend themselves by attacking back? Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:10:17
In reply to Another question for Dr. Bob., posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 0:16:24
> OK, let me rephrase that to:
>
> They made comments that 99.999 percent of the thinking, feeling, breathing human population would interpret as being "viscious".IMO, that still could lead someone to feel accused.
> there's just no way that a reasonable person could argue otherwise.
I'm not arguing otherwise, I'm asking people to be civil.
> By increasing the amount of time an individual is blocked based only on the number of previous blocks that person has incurred, you don't leave enough room for assigning a punishment that correlates with the severity of the offense involved. It also does not take into account that the person being punished utilized a fair amount of restraint given the level of insults leveled against him.
>
> KaraSI did make it 4 weeks instead of 6...
--
> It has been suggested that mercy might be considered if chemist emails you. Is there a snowball's chance?
>
> AuntieMelNever say never...
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 2, 2004, at 6:56:43
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by KaraS on September 1, 2004, at 21:22:06
> Also, I changed my spelling of "vicious" to "viscious" when I saw Scott spell it that way but my dictionary insists that the first spelling is correct.
LOL
Dear Kara,
You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
LOL
- Scott
Posted by KaraS on September 2, 2004, at 9:02:22
In reply to Re: please be civil - Kara's spelling, posted by SLS on September 2, 2004, at 6:56:43
> > Also, I changed my spelling of "vicious" to "viscious" when I saw Scott spell it that way but my dictionary insists that the first spelling is correct.
>
> LOL
>
> Dear Kara,
>
> You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
>
> I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
>
> LOL
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,I did know that was why you had the word in quotes. I just thought the way you spelled it looked correct (but I'll certainly question you from now on!) :-)
-K
Posted by Sad Panda on September 2, 2004, at 9:16:13
In reply to Re: please be civil - Kara's spelling » SLS, posted by KaraS on September 2, 2004, at 9:02:22
> > > Also, I changed my spelling of "vicious" to "viscious" when I saw Scott spell it that way but my dictionary insists that the first spelling is correct.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Dear Kara,
> >
> > You shouldn't give me so much credit. :-)
> >
> > I had placed quotation marks around the word to indicate to Dr. Bob that I understood the word to require a subjective characterization or judgment of intent for its use. I wasn't questioning your spelling abilities. Obviously, you should continue to question mine.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> Scott,
>
> I did know that was why you had the word in quotes. I just thought the way you spelled it looked correct (but I'll certainly question you from now on!) :-)
>
> -K
>
>BudInSki here, I blame the drugs :) I've been relatively free of cognitive problems from these meds except for spelling. I have a lot of difficulty with words that aren't spelt the way the sound on these meds.
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 11:34:17
In reply to Re: Another question, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:10:17
> > It has been suggested that mercy might be considered if chemist emails you. Is there a snowball's chance?
> >
> > AuntieMel
>
> Never say never...
>
> BobWell, obviously it is up to chemist, but I know that *I* would have trouble doing that. I spent too many years *not* defending myself when I thought I was right, and I'm just now starting to do so. Sucking up my pride and asking for mercy for such a small thing would set me back in my 'recovery'
Mel
Posted by alesta on September 2, 2004, at 12:50:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » alesta, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 3:06:14
> > what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
> >
> > these outrageous insults
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.dr. bob, respectfully, it was necessary for me to state that observation in order to discuss this administrative matter.
> > There is nothing civil about a forum that will not allow you to defend yourself. The “attacker” should be banned, not the attacked.
>
> And if the attacked defend themselves by attacking back? Two wrongs don't make a right.well, we are emotional creatures after all. i don't know if i would have been so "civil" under the circumstances. we are not perfect people that come to this forum. not to mention there is an innate need to "save face" when being attacked viciously, and to deny a person that seems a bit uncivil to me.
i think this doctrinal enforcement of civility may be having a paradoxical effect at this point...
i hope i am not blocked for responding to your comments. i am a peace-loving individual and don't like to see conflict between the owner or its recipients. if i have hurt or offended anyone, i am truly sorry.
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 21:29:28
In reply to Re: please be civil--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 2, 2004, at 12:50:51
> > > what flmm had to say... It is BRUTAL.
> > >
> > > these outrageous insults
>
> it was necessary for me to state that observation in order to discuss this administrative matter.I disagree, couldn't you have just said:
> i don't think chemist could've been any cooler. At this point he is merely defending himself! I don’t know ***ANYBODY*** who would just sit there and take what flmm had to say. (see flmm's quote below) if that was grounds for banishment, then none of us should be here....
>
> Now, I ask you, or anyone, would you just sit there and take it??? Be honest...and remember, too, that these comments are made in a public forum.> > > There is nothing civil about a forum that will not allow you to defend yourself. The “attacker” should be banned, not the attacked.
> >
> > And if the attacked defend themselves by attacking back? Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> well, we are emotional creatures after all... we are not perfect people that come to this forum. not to mention there is an innate need to "save face"But in that case, should even the original attacker be blocked? Isn't he also an emotional creature, and not perfect? Maybe he felt an innate need to attack?
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 23:49:12
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 21:29:28
"Maybe he felt an innate need to attack?"
Now, *that* is an interesting concept. Is this in the DSM IV? If so, as posters, what can we do to help? If it is part of an illness, what would be the correct way to handle situations like this? Arguing back doesn't seem to be sensitive to his needs. Ignoring it could make him feel worse if this is a cry for attention. And letting it slide and continue posting might encourage more of the same behavior, letting this person feel his behavior is socially acceptable.
Seriously. If the poster is wanting to support the person with the 'need to attack,' what is the best way to handle it?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 1:20:34
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 23:49:12
Hmmmm, Mel your questions relate to my post to JenStar about why I responded the way I did to ron1953. I think I was trying to be more therapeutic, but it's hard when you don't understand the need. But your take on either arguing or ignoring make sense to me, and I think I was trying something different.
Warmly,
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 8:14:28
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 1:20:34
It was a serious question. Now to see if I get an answer:)
Mel
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 9:49:19
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 21:29:28
(note: i haven't yet read gg or auntie mel's responses, so if i happen to repeat anything they have already said, i apologize...)
<But in that case, should even the original attacker be blocked? Isn't he also an emotional creature, and not perfect? Maybe he felt an innate need to attack?
but my point here is that the attacker *provoked* the emotion in the attackee.
an additional point i'd like to make is, i think if administrative assistance is not available, especially when requested, as in this case (see chemist's posts on this administrative board, pleading for help) then administation should come down a little easier on the attacked.
> I disagree, couldn't you have just said:
>
> > i don't think chemist could've been any cooler. At this point he is merely defending himself! I don’t know ***ANYBODY*** who would just sit there and take what flmm had to say. (see flmm's quote below) if that was grounds for banishment, then none of us should be here....
no, because i don't feel it gets my point across as effectively. these descriptive adjectives, i feel, are necessary to convey my point more effectively. i'm not going to tiptoe around the facts. why not point them out so we can put all of the cards on the table and thoroughly discuss the issue? i am not insulting him directly, but discussing his behavior, as this is a forum dealing with administrative issues.amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2004, at 10:22:15
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 9:49:19
> my point here is that the attacker *provoked* the emotion in the attackee.
>
> an additional point i'd like to make is, i think if administrative assistance is not available, especially when requested, as in this case (see chemist's posts on this administrative board, pleading for help) then administation should come down a little easier on the attacked.I agree, those are relevant points.
> > I disagree, couldn't you have just said:
> >
> > > i don't think chemist could've been any cooler. At this point he is merely defending himself! I don’t know ***ANYBODY*** who would just sit there and take what flmm had to say. (see flmm's quote below) if that was grounds for banishment, then none of us should be here....
>
> no, because i don't feel it gets my point across as effectively. these descriptive adjectives, i feel, are necessary to convey my point more effectively. i'm not going to tiptoe around the facts. why not point them out so we can put all of the cards on the table and thoroughly discuss the issue?It might have been a less effective way of expressing how you felt, but IMO, it would have conveyed your point well enough, and been civil, and being civil is a more effective way of having a discussion.
Bob
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 10:49:18
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2004, at 10:22:15
thanks for acknowledging the validity of my points, dr. bob. i appreciate that.:)
> It might have been a less effective way of expressing how you felt, but IMO, it would have conveyed your point well enough, and been civil, and being civil is a more effective way of having a discussion.
but isn't it prudent to communicate in the most effective way possible under these circumstances? i think you might be taking civility to extremes here...perhaps it is uncivil to even talk about what flmm did at all...and then we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion...
i believe civility is relative, and no rewriting of rules is going to solve the problems this board is facing, because in the end it all comes down to a judgement call...yours.
perhaps a compassionate, intuitive outlook is called for, one that keeps context and circumstance in mind...(actually, i think you are pretty much operating your site that way...)
amy :)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 13:52:13
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2004, at 10:22:15
Any chance you can respond to this? It was a serious question.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/385861.html
Thank you...
Posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 13:57:06
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 10:49:18
(Warning: this is the sort of subject where I can see so many sides that I never seem to reach a conclusion. This is just rambling on the idea.)
In my own very amorphous opinion, this is a really tough call for Dr Bob. He has a lot of conflicting needs to balance, and there's probably no way to make everyone happy with his decision. Having hard and fast rules, which he has, is likely to set off these little tempests now and again, when a popular poster is blocked, but making a different set of rules for popular posters would pretty well defeat the purpose of the basic rules, and of the boards here as a whole.
Now, personally, I do like chemist a great deal, I think he provides a heck of a lot of really great information for a lot of people, and that there's a great deal of value in the information he provides. And, personally, from the parts I've read of the original thread, I think that the information chemist provided about MDMA was absolutely appropriate, that the first response to it was an example of someone with a conflicting need -- in this case, seeminly, a need to contradict -- expressing that need, and that the post which followed that was -- trying to be civil here, and not to interpret another person's intent based on my response to it -- perhaps not exactly on point in its reaction to chemist's post.
Having seen earlier exchanges between some of the posters involved here, my view of the whole thread is deeply colored by that history. I was struck by the fact that chemist really was quite restrained, and seemed to be making a very great effort to remain civil. Since I rarely come by the Admin board, I didn't see his request for assistance here, but I can see how he would become quite frustrated when he was doing his best to conform to the civility policy and there was no protection from the administration of the site. Frankly, I'm pretty sure I'd have gone beyond sarcastic myself, in a similar situation.
On the other hand, there is the issue of being a Good Administrator. That doesn't always mean being democratic, in any sense of the word. I think SLS said it effectively way back at the start of this thread, so I won't bother to reiterate.
In the end, Dr Bob makes mistakes, he's not perfect, some of his decisions upset people. He may even keep these boards around for his own research projects, and may be playing games to further that end. For that matter, he may keep these boards up solely because he's got a sadistic need to torture us all, to make us all even sicker than when we found this place. The bottom line, for me, is that he does keep these boards up, we do have a safe place to create a community for ourselves, and I do think that he tries to apply his rules fairly -- even when I don't agree, and even when my own feelings get hurt.
If I were Empress of the Universe, I'd give a Free Pass to most of the 'regulars' and the 'old guard' here. That would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? If I could persuade Dr Bob to commute chemist's sentence, I would. On the other hand, it's still the thin end of the wedge. I don't think chemist deserved a four week block. But changing the rules might be a precedent that comes at a very high cost for the site.
In conclusion, and the firmest conclusion I can reach for myself on this matter, I'm just glad it's Dr Bob's call and not mine!
Posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 14:17:30
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 8:14:28
I'm sorry if my post seemed to indicate that I didn't think your question was serious. I was just reacting, because it kind of helped me to put together more coherently what I was trying to say to JenStar.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 14:36:53
In reply to Re: emotional creatures » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 14:17:30
No, No, No, I thought that you thought I was completely serious. I even took it to mean I had a valid point.
It's just that I seem to have such a hard time getting a response from the good doctor. And I thought it might be because of the amount of traffic, so I was putting in a reminder.
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 14:40:27
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob » alesta, posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 13:57:06
> (Warning: this is the sort of subject where I can see so many sides that I never seem to reach a conclusion. This is just rambling on the idea.)
>
> In my own very amorphous opinion, this is a really tough call for Dr Bob. He has a lot of conflicting needs to balance, and there's probably no way to make everyone happy with his decision. Having hard and fast rules, which he has, is likely to set off these little tempests now and again, when a popular poster is blocked, but making a different set of rules for popular posters would pretty well defeat the purpose of the basic rules, and of the boards here as a whole.racer,
i would feel this way if it were anyone, not just chemist. we are not asking for dr. bob to use a different set of rules for chemist...we are trying to find out which rules he broke, if any. so far, the only one i can see that he broke is one based purely on a misunderstanding, and an apology has been issued. also, admin was not there to reply to pleas for help. this, i do not feel, warrants a block no matter *who* it is. you must realize, we cannot discuss rules without also discussing the interpretation of those rules, as rules themselves are never the only factor. please see my last post to dr. bob for clarification in this issue. also, i am not here at admin for an academic debate...i am only here to address dr. bob in the hopes of figuring out this situation with him. but i have given you my response, nonetheless...if you disagree with it, that is your perogative...like a said, i prefer to direct my efforts in dr. bob's direction...
also, i am aware that dr. bob is not perfect...that doesn't mean i can't fight a ruling, does it? i like dr. bob, i like his web site, and i think he does a good job most of the time...dr. bob has allowed us the privilege of discussing his rulings with us, and i am taking full advantage of that opportunity. if anyone thinks i am anti-bob, then they are sadly mistaken..this man's web site has changed my life, and i genuinely like him..:)
amy :)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 14:51:47
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob » alesta, posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 13:57:06
Very well written, as usual, Racer. It sounds like you are feeling a lot better, too.
I know exactly what you mean. Without rules this whole board would have dissolved a long time ago, depriving all of us the need to not feel alone.
And I recognize that it is a hard call to make. Anytime it is subjective it is tough. I'm not a lawyer, but things like 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'punishment fitting the crime' keep running through my mind.
And I see where a smaller block should be given out the first time, so a newbie can learn. But I think that is where my sense of fairness takes a different turn.
I mean maybe the "punishment" after the first time could be based on a point system with the obvious getting the harsher sentence. Direct attacks (you idiot, what are you on?, your mother wears army boots) get higher points than self defense. And if it is self defense after the first negative, then it is a harsher punishment than if you had already weathered 10 attacks.
And, of course, none of it would have anything to do with how long someone has been here, or how well liked that person is. I'm sure we've all gone through feeling 'the boss likes him better' and don't want any of that here.
Just my idea of a perfect world............
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 15:10:03
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob, racer, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 14:40:27
> i would feel this way if it were anyone, not just chemist.i wanted to add to my comment above that while i would feel the same if this had happened to someone else, in other words, my opinion would be the same about the ruling, i may not have put the energy into fighting as hard if it was someone else, in fact, i know i wouldn't have. just wanted to clarify that...:)
Posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 17:01:22
In reply to Re: emotional creatures--dr. bob, racer, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 14:40:27
I only put a word in because I like chemist and think that this block is harsh considering the sorts of things that had been directed at him. That's really what makes me stop and consider all the implications. And it's part of why I'm so ambivalent about whether the block should be reduced. If it's reduced in this case, which my gut tells me it should be, I'll be pleased and think that it's fair, but what about if a block is reduced for one of the people I think have been asking for it for a while? That's my concern about precedent.
As for discussing the rule itself, and the application of those rules, that's great and I'm glad someone's doing it. I do hope that some clarity is provided, because there are a few things that I'm curious about, myself.
Howzabout we agree that we *mostly* agree here, express mutual respect, and stay board-buddies?
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 17:44:59
In reply to Sounds fair t o me... » alesta, posted by Racer on September 3, 2004, at 17:01:22
<this case, which my gut tells me it should be, I'll be pleased and think that it's fair, but what about if a block is reduced for one of the people I think have been asking for it for a while? That's my concern about precedent.
i see. oh, i'm sure there are others that also deserve a reduced sentence...i hope they get theirs, too...maybe some others can deal with those battles...i'm emotionally exhausted..:).
> Howzabout we agree that we *mostly* agree here, express mutual respect, and stay board-buddies?sure thing, racer. :) the stress is just starting to get to me, here. :) i've decided i'm retiring from this discussion before it or i start to get nasty...it's in dr. bob's hands at this point...no hard feelings, here..
amy :)
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 23:39:47
In reply to Re: emotional creatures, posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2004, at 10:22:15
> I agree, those are relevant points.Dr. Bob, since you seem to agree on all my points concerning Chemist, then does this mean you'll remove the block??
Thanks,
Amy :)
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.