![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 64. Go back in thread:
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:30:50
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » alesta, posted by gardenergirl on December 3, 2004, at 0:32:37
> Hi alesta,
> Nice to see you around! I admit I kind of expected a block, too. And I don't know about please be supportive. But I did wonder if perhaps the frequent posting that Munster did was out of some kind of psychological need or disorder. And perhaps Dr. Bob was wanting to respect that if that were the case?hey, gg! (damn, i was gonna make a clean break from this board. <g>) good to hear from you, sweetie!
i hear ya. (i personally would get rid of all the civility guidelines and blocks. i think they're mostly worthless and cause for extreme conflict here on admin.)
<But I did wonder if perhaps the frequent posting that Munster did was out of some kind of psychological need or disorder. And perhaps Dr. Bob was wanting to respect that if that were the case?
but why is munster the only person to get this respect? it is rather curious..perhaps this is one of dr. bob's alter-egos as was discussed a while ago on admin?..kidding..i don't know..maybe you have a point..but munster's disorder (if he indeed had one) is negatively impacting others with their own psychological problems..he just seems like a bully to me..i saw something on tv once that it's a misconception that bullies have low self-esteem..that they do it because it's fun.
<But it probably is more likely that all the posts occured before Dr. Bob was able to intervene, and thus they are all the "first offense"? At least that is how I interpret it.
good point. but he still did invent that new phrase "please be supportive".
oh well, all this stuff is just IMO..i'm starting to get really nervous about being here (on admin)..i mean no harm, ppl..:-)
> It is confusing, though. I suppose somebody doing a qualitative analysis of all the posts that got blocks and for how long, etc. might find some interesting data.
i bet they would. no doubt about that.:)
enough serious stuff..how are things w/ you lately? it's getting a little cold to garden..guess you'll have to take up another hobby for the winter months?? or maybe you could get an indoor chia herb garden? :)
amy :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:39:58
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » gardenergirl, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:30:50
> Do you agree that it's best to ignore this kind of post--pretend it didn't happen? Since we all knew it had and it felt malicious in intent, I truly didn't know what to do. (Either malicious or from a troubled person, especially after reading the post that gardengirl was chastened for responding to.)
>
> rainyIgnoring is fine, or giving the person the benefit of the doubt...
--
> it probably is more likely that all the posts occured before Dr. Bob was able to intervene, and thus they are all the "first offense"?
>
> ggThat's what it was, sorry...
--
> i personally would get rid of all the civility guidelines and blocks. i think they're mostly worthless and cause for extreme conflict here on admin.
>
> amyI agree with Haim Weinberg that that's an "illusory" belief:
> > We can argue that processes in the VLG reveal the Internet Unconscious, which contains an illusory belief that ultimate freedom of speech is achieved in cyberspace and that forum members always show respect and tolerance to different opinions.
>
> --Weinberg H. The large group in a virtual environment.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/388862.htmlBob
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 5:37:49
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:39:58
all i have to say to that, dr. bob, is look at Psychcentral. they are a very peaceful community where the members are treated with respect. they have no civility guidelines or blocks. (the only rule they have is no political discussions.)
on an additional note, most of the feelings on PB are hurt while discussing matters concerning or related to the civility guidelines. how ironic. think about it. perhaps you could just try an experiment and see which way is more peaceful? a trial run, perhaps? if you don't like it, you can always go back to the old way..
people are going to be rude occasionally, but your civility guidelines and blocks always seem to step in after the fact. (they certainly didn't protect anyone from hermanmunster.) yes, there will be little arguments here and there, but they are there now already. that's life.
well that's enough admin for me. i'm going to try and quietly leave before i get sucked into the realm of neverending discussions..:-)
amy
Posted by rainy on December 3, 2004, at 5:53:18
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by rainy on November 30, 2004, at 3:52:26
Is HermanMunster blocked now?
rainy
Posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 9:01:54
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 5:37:49
I think that Amy makes some very valid points. Your civility guidelines did absolutely nothing to deter HermanMunster; rather, it appears to me that he/she either simply lost interest in teasing mentally ill people for a laugh or is taking a breather before he comes back for more. In any case, the system failed miserably. How many posts will he get onto the board next time before you get around to doing something? I really can't see the Through-the-looking-glass logic in blocking Susan47 for innocently using *ss as a substitute for donkey (and using it to describe herself only, to boot) but in permitting HermanMunster to continue participating in this site after he advocated self-harm with a .357 Magnum to another poster. I'm wondering if your reference to Haim Weinberg is rhetorical misdirection. (Since I utterly disagree with Freudian theory, I find the notion of a "collective unconscious" on the Internet to be dubious at best, ludicrous at worst.) If you were to remove all your punitive powers, as Amy suggests, and the boards did continue functioning more or less as they do now, how would that make you feel? Superfluous? Is this what you really fear? I do have to note that most administrators at similar sites are far less intrusive presences, almost invisible. I often wonder why this isn't simply called "Psycho-Babble" rather than "Psycho-Babble BY DR. BOB," with your photo appearing at both the top and bottom of every board page. There appears to be less of a need to "publicly" assert and demonstrate control over the posters at other mental health support sites. Of course, this is your sandbox; you can do whatever you want (glad to see the addition of that disclaimer disassociating the site from the U. of Chicago, by the way; however, your continued use of your university e-mail address, rather than a private one, could still confuse people -- as it did me when I was a newbie -- and lend the patina of the university's stellar reputation to what is, after all, just a bit of private enterprise). But I'd be curious to know what other posters think about what could conceivably be construed as excessive self-promotion by the administrator. Atticus
Posted by Toph on December 3, 2004, at 10:03:56
In reply to Dr. Bob : Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 9:01:54
> ...I often wonder why this isn't simply called "Psycho-Babble" rather than "Psycho-Babble BY DR. BOB," with your photo appearing at both the top and bottom of every board page...
>
May I suggest that for brevity's sake you call it "Psycho-Bobble" instead of "Psycho-Babble by Dr. Bob."
-Toph
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 12:35:28
In reply to Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Jai Narayan, posted by Gabbix2 on December 2, 2004, at 20:36:55
> That's the weird ( far to mild a word) thing about the blocking rules that people have been bashing their heads against as long as admin has been in existance. No matter how heinous, first offences only get a warning.
Unless they've been PBC'd already. And anyone can PBC someone. If Bob sees they've been PBC'd, that big old first offense moves on to a block.
I didn't PBC Herman Munster, but I PBC'd Shalom34Israel. When Bob came back, that meant a block was enforced, as the behaviour continued.
At least, if you see an uncivil post, whether a newcomer or not, refer to the FAQ, and ask them to be civil. If they don't change their ways, they can be blocked.
Lar
Posted by rainy on December 3, 2004, at 12:45:56
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 12:35:28
sorry, Lar, but what is a PBC?
newbie rainy
Posted by Tabitha on December 3, 2004, at 13:49:31
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 5:37:49
> all i have to say to that, dr. bob, is look at Psychcentral. they are a very peaceful community where the members are treated with respect. they have no civility guidelines or blocks. (the only rule they have is no political discussions.)
>It's true Psychcentral appears peaceful, but it might not be an entirely fair comparison. I think some of the moderating there goes on behind the scenes through private messages, and in the past I've seen heated threads get locked and/or deleted. I'm not exactly sure what the rules are there for the moderators. At this site, it's all out in the open, which IMO has both advantages and disadvantages.
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 15:27:42
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Larry Hoover, posted by rainy on December 3, 2004, at 12:45:56
> sorry, Lar, but what is a PBC?
> newbie rainyPlease Be Civil, PBC. It's the warning that comes before blocking begins.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 16:07:14
In reply to Dr. Bob : Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 9:01:54
Atticus,
You wrote,[...I'm curious in what others think...about ...self promotion by the administrator...].
This has bee nmentioned also by the poster ,Mary Bowers. My thinking is to put myself in Dr. Hsiung's place as administrator of a site like this and try to answer your question.
If I was the administrator, I would not put my picture in the title of the site, butI would put my name. If I had such a forum, I would call it, "Lou's Haven of Rest."
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 16:37:52
In reply to Dr. Bob : Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 9:01:54
Atticus,
You wrote,[Freudian...the notion of "colllective unconcious"...].
I am not familiar with that. Could you give some capsal form, if possible, like the Reader's Digest condenced version of such?
Lou
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 18:58:03
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 16:37:52
> Atticus,
> You wrote,[Freudian...the notion of "colllective unconcious"...].
> I am not familiar with that. Could you give some capsal form, if possible, like the Reader's Digest condenced version of such?
> Lou
>The collective unconscious is Jung's, not Freud's. See:
http://www.lcc.ctc.edu/faculty/dmccarthy/engl204/seven-lecture.htmLar
Posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 19:23:38
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 16:37:52
Sorry, Lou, I really can't sum it up in a single post. I believe Freudianism is nonsense, so it's not really worth the effort. There is no more hard empirical scientific evidence to support Freud's and Jung's theories about concepts such as ego, id, superego, and collective unconscious than there is hard empirical scientific evidence to quantify how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. "Collective unconscious" is a bit of what I perceive as pseudo-scientific gobbledegook that was tossed around by Dr. Bob in his post that prompted my original queries to him. Perhaps you should ask him, as he appears to be a true believer. To my way of thinking, Freudian-based psychoanalysis is really more of a kind of secular faith than it is science. Most therapists steer well clear of it these days. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 19:38:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus- » Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 18:58:03
True, the notion of a "collective unconscious" is Jung's -- but he was drawing on Freud's notion of the individual "unconscious" and the role it supposedly plays in shaping our behavior. I believe this "unconscious" -- individual or collective -- to be purely a mythical creation, and that what is really going on is the chemical interplay of constantly morphing groups of neurons called "cell assemblies" in the hippocampus portion of the brain, which real hard scientific data strongly suggests controls memory and learning, and therefore affects behavior. If you're interested in pursuing this line of inquiry, see if you can track down the published papers of neuroscientists such as Gyorgy Buzsaki, Mark Gluck, and Catherine Myers for more detailed information (but admittedly a lot of these articles in scholarly journals such as Science can be pretty tough slogs). Atticus
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2004, at 20:01:58
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 12:35:28
> No matter how heinous, *first* offences only get a warning.
>
> Unless they've been PBC'd already. And anyone can PBC someone. If Bob sees they've been PBC'd, that big old first offense moves on to a block.Umm, how can it be a first offence if they've been P.B.C'd already?
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 22:34:44
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2004, at 20:01:58
> > No matter how heinous, *first* offences only get a warning.
> >
> > Unless they've been PBC'd already. And anyone can PBC someone. If Bob sees they've been PBC'd, that big old first offense moves on to a block.
>
> Umm, how can it be a first offence if they've been P.B.C'd already?From Bob's perspective, not seeing post after post until he sees them all during a review, it's one offense. But, if in the meantime, someone has admonished the individual to be civil, and he can see the continued incivility, he can block....even though he saw it all for the first time.
Lar
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 22:54:03
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » alesta, posted by Tabitha on December 3, 2004, at 13:49:31
hi, tabitha,
IMO, all these rules implemented by bob are frequently unfair and a definite *source* of conflict. and pretty worthless. also, 2 of the biggest arguments/conflicts i've seen on pb were over without any intervention from the moderator!all that is needed is *common sense*. let people have their little quibbles..step in under *extreme* circumstances, eg munster. that's it. simple.
i just wanted to add that i fully respect your opinion, of course, as well. :)
amy :)
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 22:59:56
In reply to Dr. Bob : Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Atticus on December 3, 2004, at 9:01:54
hi atticus,excellent points! i also appreciate the validation of my views a *lot*..i really needed that. :)
amy :)
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 4, 2004, at 0:33:07
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules incl poss trigger. » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2004, at 22:34:44
> >
> > Umm, how can it be a first offence if they've been P.B.C'd already?
>
> From Bob's perspective, not seeing post after post until he sees them all during a review, it's one offense. But, if in the meantime, someone has admonished the individual to be civil, and he can see the continued incivility, he can block....even though he saw it all for the first time.
>
> Lar
I realize that, and it's really not that important, all I had said was that the first offence will not recieve more than a warning,
not the first sighting by Bob. You stated the person can be blocked after they have recieved a warning, from Bob, or another poster, yes, in other words, the first offence will only recieve a warning, one way or another.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 4, 2004, at 0:45:29
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on December 4, 2004, at 0:33:07
the communication problem that is.
And why the hell am I posting on the admin board at quarter to eleven on friday night?
Posted by Atticus on December 4, 2004, at 8:18:20
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob : Re: Crazymaking admin rules » Atticus, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 22:59:56
Hi Amy,
Well, no one ever said questioning the establishment was easy. Took a lot of guts for you to make your stand. Figured some back-up wouldn't hurt. Ta. ;) Atticus
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 18:27:57
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » alesta, posted by Tabitha on December 3, 2004, at 13:49:31
> all i have to say to that, dr. bob, is look at Psychcentral. they are a very peaceful community where the members are treated with respect. they have no civility guidelines or blocks. (the only rule they have is no political discussions.)
>
> amy> It's true Psychcentral appears peaceful, but it might not be an entirely fair comparison. I think some of the moderating there goes on behind the scenes through private messages, and in the past I've seen heated threads get locked and/or deleted. I'm not exactly sure what the rules are there for the moderators. At this site, it's all out in the open, which IMO has both advantages and disadvantages.
>
> TabithaI'm interested in how to keep it peaceful. The key is not to have civility guidelines? Not to have political discussions? Maybe there's more than one way, each having its advantages and disadvantages...
--
> Your civility guidelines did absolutely nothing to deter HermanMunster; rather, it appears to me that he/she either simply lost interest in teasing mentally ill people for a laugh or is taking a breather before he comes back for more. In any case, the system failed miserably. How many posts will he get onto the board next time before you get around to doing something?
>
> AtticusThe system isn't perfect. If he comes back, and if something needs to be done, I don't know how many posts he'll get onto the board first.
Bob
Posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:30:06
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 18:27:57
<The key is not to have civility guidelines? Not to have political discussions?maybe the key is no political discussions. it's better than political discussions biased toward republicans. another alternative is to alter your civility guidelines concerning politics, as has been said already!
for answers to your other questions/comments, they're all in my previous posts. i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as i see you aren't going to budge.
amie
Posted by rainy on December 5, 2004, at 6:02:03
In reply to Re: Crazymaking admin rules » Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:30:06
Explain, please how blocking works. If someone like HM who has "appeared" to have been seriously unsupportive or "seemed" to have been less than civil attempts to post, can't his/her registration jingle or something? It appears like one could get quite a few more licks in before a block takes over.
And how is that the "apparently" cruel (in this case) post remains on the board as a welcome signal for all future posters? Perhaps to show them first hand the risk to which they expose themselves again and yet again?
rainy
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.