![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 77 to 101 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2006, at 15:00:16
In reply to Re: Why not start now?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2006, at 2:28:28
> Long term posters know the guidelines, too... And say I did know someone tended to get too tough with tough love. What then?
Then you realize that posting with love, particularly between two posters with an established positive relationship, does *not* deserve a six week punishment. It may deserve a one week cooling off period, perhaps with a reminder that no matter how much we may want to help others, there's only so much we can do.
Dr. Bob, you know that I am not against long blocks. My main problem with long term blocks is that they're capped at one year. But I think they should be limited in imposition. If a poster is clearly saying *^%& you to your authority, or to the civility rules, I think longer blocks are in order. But if a poster gets in an argument with you over what's right and what's not right, and perhaps in that argument racks up a couple of weeks of deserved blocks, but comes back and tries to comply with the civility guidelines, doesn't push the envelope, posts with charity to other posters, and then a fair period of time later comes afoul of the civility rules again, for example out of an excess of caring, passion, and a desire to help, why should that poster get a long block? Why not a one week cooling off block?
If said poster comes off that one week block, and immediately does the same thing again, a longer block would clearly be in order, because I've never actually opposed the near universal Babble rule of "If you do what Dr. Bob (or his deputies) *just* told you not to do, you're in for an automatic block, or doubling of the block, or whatever." Because you own this site, Dr. Bob. And you have a right to set rules and expect them to be respected. Even if we may not individually agree with those rules.
Do you understand any of what I'm trying to say?
Posted by wildcard on January 15, 2006, at 15:31:03
In reply to Posting with love » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2006, at 15:00:16
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2006, at 23:32:16
In reply to Posting with love » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2006, at 15:00:16
> > Long term posters know the guidelines, too... And say I did know someone tended to get too tough with tough love. What then?
>
> posting with love, particularly between two posters with an established positive relationship, does *not* deserve a six week punishment. It may deserve a one week cooling off period, perhaps with a reminder that no matter how much we may want to help others, there's only so much we can do.I think there are two questions, whether to block him and if so, for how long. Do we agree on the first, at least?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 16, 2006, at 14:58:08
In reply to Re: guest expert, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 2:00:13
> So that's one vote for Kali and one for John?
Does it have to be one or the other?
I'd be interested to hear what both have to say...
Posted by Toph on January 18, 2006, at 10:16:57
In reply to Posting with love » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2006, at 15:00:16
...But if a poster gets in an argument with you over what's right and what's not right, and perhaps in that argument racks up a couple of weeks of deserved blocks, but comes back and tries to comply with the civility guidelines, doesn't push the envelope, posts with charity to other posters, and then a fair period of time later comes afoul of the civility rules again, for example out of an excess of caring, passion, and a desire to help, why should that poster get a long block? ...>
>I hope I'm not going off on too great a tangent here Dinah, your argument as ever is logical and pursuasive. But you seem to be talking about a scenario where posters break civility rules who have the capacity to constrain themselves. I have always wondered about the inherently unsupportive nature of punishing posters whose emotional problems impair their ability to remain civil in the moment. Isn't it fair to assume that by not making differential analyses of the emotional state of the offenders, people who benefit greatly from this mental health environment are sent away?
I know that the problem with this criticism is that it is not constructive, it lacks a proposed improvement. PB has to be safe, so there has to be consequences for people who offend or attack others. It just strikes me that if I had been punished for everytime I acted uncivil in therapy, I would not have eventually benefited from treatment and likely would be in an institution somewhere.
Posted by verne on January 18, 2006, at 11:26:08
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 18, 2006, at 10:16:57
I agree Toph, I'd be in a locked ward without windows if therapy worked the way this site does.
I can understand a short block, perhaps, a week. Anything longer goes way past anything like therapy, or even the smooth operation of the site. Simple removal of offending posts is another option.
So I come back to the idea that the purpose of this site seems to be punishment and how the "community" and individual respond.
Perhaps, someone thought, "Gee, what if we invent a game based on language with strict rules and penalities? And what if we attract a group, like the mentally ill, who have the most trouble with language?
And then let's see how they react to being expelled from the game for as long as a year. Let's not forgive them for past infractions, doubling and tripling subsequent blocks, and see how they cope with being "on probation".
It's a good game. Wittgenstein would probably be proud. But let's not mistake it for therapy.
Verne
Posted by wildcard on January 18, 2006, at 11:31:53
In reply to A Mouse Goes over the Wall, posted by verne on January 18, 2006, at 11:26:08
This was my entire point from the beginning but ya'll word it much better. Re: Larry's block~ 6 weeks is BS. Re: Muffled and the word f*rt~BS for even a week but yes, a week is USUALLY enough time for the majority of posters here and these blocks cause more harm than good. IMO..now I'm saying bye. ;-)
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 18:28:42
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 18, 2006, at 10:16:57
This isn't therapy. We aren't trained professionals. If someone is so ill that they can't control their reactions, is this necessarily the best place for them to be? Wouldn't it be better for them to be in therapy or in medication consultations with trained professionals?
I think it's really important to remember what Babble just can't be, as well as the wonderful things it is.
Should blocking always be considered a punishment? Isn't there more than one way to view it?
Posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 19:59:17
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 18, 2006, at 10:16:57
>
> I hope I'm not going off on too great a tangent here Dinah, your argument as ever is logical and pursuasive. But you seem to be talking about a scenario where posters break civility rules who have the capacity to constrain themselves. I have always wondered about the inherently unsupportive nature of punishing posters whose emotional problems impair their ability to remain civil in the moment. Isn't it fair to assume that by not making differential analyses of the emotional state of the offenders, people who benefit greatly from this mental health environment are sent away?
>
Toph I think I've said it before and if so, then I'm saying it again and I hope you're not offended, but damn it, I love you.
Posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:00:48
In reply to A Mouse Goes over the Wall, posted by verne on January 18, 2006, at 11:26:08
> I agree Toph, I'd be in a locked ward without windows if therapy worked the way this site does.
>
Verne, sometimes therapy does work the way this site does. Yup, yessir, "therapy" is not always good for us when we're turned away, faces slapped to the wall, hands cuffed, legs spread.
Posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:03:55
In reply to Re: A Mouse Goes over the Wall » verne, posted by wildcard on January 18, 2006, at 11:31:53
> This was my entire point from the beginning but ya'll word it much better. Re: Larry's block~ 6 weeks is BS. Re: Muffled and the word f*rt~BS for even a week but yes, a week is USUALLY enough time for the majority of posters here and these blocks cause more harm than good. IMO..now I'm saying bye. ;-)
I agree, and unfortunately as well, it seems to me very much like the blocks are a reinforcement of DB's power. Which is considerable, if you give it to him. Which we have. We have. And he uses it, oh yes, in the name of civility .. or that's what a person would think, who didn't understand. I'm sure there are good reasons, at the time, why someone thinks a block is a good idea .. something besides the thrill of the hunt, the power that's given to them when they can say, no, I disagree with what you've said, and I'm going to prove how bad you are for everyone, now, by blocking you. It's completely subjective. Unless it's put before a committee. Is it?
Posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:08:35
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 18:28:42
> This isn't therapy. We aren't trained professionals. If someone is so ill that they can't control their reactions, is this necessarily the best place for them to be? Wouldn't it be better for them to be in therapy or in medication consultations with trained professionals?
>
Sorry to take out the rest of your post but I want to just answer this tiny little bit I think I understand ... why is it a choice we have a right to take away from anyone? If someone, an adult with, presumably, voting rights, and even inmates have those, then who are we or DB or anyone else to say they can't do that? Certain civlity rules make sense, such as turning overriding civilty censors (?) .. and I think most people would agree that's fine. And child pornography would best be left out, and violence, and explicit sex ... but we don't leave ANY of that stuff out of here, not really, because some of us,many of us, ALL of us have or had that stuff going on IRL at one time or another, it's just that we're not writing in order to TITILLATE anyone into thinking or doing or being a certain way, we're writing in order to help each other be more effective, happy citizens who bring positivity into the world, even just by making a sincere, heartfelt connection ...
blah blah blah. You get the picture, I've babbled enough .. who are we to judge, though, what's good for someone in pain?????
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:15:58
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:08:35
I guess I'm assuming that anyone so ill as to be totally unable to control their actions needs real life help.
I suppose there could be disagreement on that point.
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:26:29
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Susan47, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:15:58
I thought seriously about just not responding, but I didn't want to be rude.
I'm not sure I feel up to logical inquiry tonight. It's been a long long day.
It may all be a question of misunderstanding anyway. I might not have properly understood what Toph was trying to say.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2006, at 22:25:57
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:08:35
> Certain civlity rules make sense
OK, so it's just the details that there's disagreement on. :-)
> who are we to judge, though, what's good for someone in pain?????
Civility is more likely to be good for them than incivility?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 22:35:52
In reply to Re: Posting with civility, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2006, at 22:25:57
> Civility is more likely to be good for them than incivility?
>
> BobI don't think we thank you often enough for making this a pleasant site to visit.
I've been lurking at a site quite unrelated to mental health, and the stuff there is unbelievable to me. Hatred and racism and sarcasm and the most ignoble aspects of mankind *everywhere*, even on the most noncontroversial of "boards" - all being met with rank incivility, which while it may be understandable hardly adds pleasure to my visits.
I sometimes think I'm very naive.
Posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:18:06
In reply to Re: Posting with civility » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 22:35:52
I second what Dinah said! I also participate in other non-health forums, and some of the people there are MEAN. And so are the moderators, at times -- sarcastic, rude to the newcomers, dismissive, and snobby. Things are not policed, regulated or dealt with kindly. There's a lot of attitude all around.
I mean, I complain here sometimes, it's true. But in general, I REALLY appreciate the safe feeling I get at babble, and the fact that people here DO care about civility, and believe it makes the site better. I believe it does.
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:22:31
In reply to A Mouse Goes over the Wall, posted by verne on January 18, 2006, at 11:26:08
or maybe someone thought,
"I'd like to make a place where people can come to talk honestly and safely about mental health concerns. Because it is a forum where people are sensitive and want to feel safe, we need to have some kind of rules about what is allowed to be posted, and what is not. We're going to do the best job we can at making rules that are sensible and fair and help reinforce the stated goals of the site. Although we're not going to be perfect at this, we're going to be consistent about it. We'll make changes over time; sometimes the changes will happen slowly, but it's a priority here that people treat each other with respect."
I like to think that THIS is the operating philosophy! In my opinion, I believe it's closer than the one you posited. At least I HOPE it is!
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:31:09
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 18, 2006, at 10:16:57
I disagree that people do not have the capability of controlling their responses, especially over the internet, where there is the ability to step back, rephrase, retype. Whether people WANT to control themselves or put the necessary effort into it is another issue, though.
If people do not have the ability to control their responses, then it's possible that they do not belong in internet chat groups and forums that rely on a basic level of self-restraint and self-editing in order to function at a successful group level.
This isn't therapy here, not formal therapy anyway. And as a private site, it can be set up to follow the rules of the administrator(s). In individual therapy, there are still "rules" of a type -- I'm sure that gross incivility or physical attacks could end therapy immediately, as could other transgressions on the part of the client. Even if the client could NOT control him/herself, that does not mean that he/she "deserves" therapy or is "owed" therapy in some sense.
If we want to participate in this site, we have to abide by the rules, like them or not. If we will not or cannot abide by the rules, we will be excluded eventually -- that's just the way this site (and life, too, right?) works... (in my opinion, anyway!)
I'm not saying that I agree with all the decisions made here - I don't. BUT, even so, I understand why the decisions were made.
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:33:32
In reply to A Mouse Goes over the Wall, posted by verne on January 18, 2006, at 11:26:08
But...do you really, truly think this is the philosophy of Dr. Bob? Do you REALLY think that is how he wants the site to operate -- as a trap to catch people up and punish them? I just don't see that! I'm not trying to be sarcastic or "smart" with you. I really want to know if that's how you feel about this site...
JenStar
Posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:31:09
but punishment.
I have no problems with civility or even love and charity. The issue for me is punishment.
To say, "If we want to participate in this site, we have to abide by the rules, like them or not. If we will not or cannot abide by the rules, we will be excluded eventually -- that's just the way this site" reminds me of another time.
And to follow it up with, "that's just the way of this site" ends all discussion. We are to understand and accept that it's the "way of the site". We can't question the way you all do things?
Once again, what I was getting at is the punishment - and it is punishment - that isn't necessary to maintain civility or even the smooth operation of the site.
Years ago, others, even governments, had the idea that others should be "excluded" for a rule they could never live up to. Do you want to embrace this kind of thinking?
I bring up punishment, and nearly all the responses - including Dr Bob's - sidestep it and bring up "civility". I don't think he's cryptic or coy, just dumb.
I never said civility was a bad thing.
Verne
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 2:26:31
In reply to but do you really think that? » verne, posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:33:32
> But...do you really, truly think this is the philosophy of Dr. Bob? Do you REALLY think that is how he wants the site to operate -- as a trap to catch people up and punish them? I just don't see that! I'm not trying to be sarcastic or "smart" with you. I really want to know if that's how you feel about this site...
>
> JenStarWould it matter if it wasn't? That's a real question.
I mean, if I had a ditch in my backyard that was covered with bramble, and leaves, and people kept falling into it and getting hurt, would it make a difference if I said "Well, that wasn't my intention, I just like how it looks and I'll keep it that way"
Posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 3:32:17
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
Hey Verne.
I think I get what you mean. I have a problem with rules that I perceive as arbitrary. I got into a lot of trouble at high school for infractions such as refusing to pull up my socks and tuck in my shirt and smoking (discretely) behind the shops when teachers would purposely hide behind rubbish skips etc to jump out and snap me. I didn't see what pulled up socked and tucked in shirts had to do with education. And I didn't see how it was their f*cking business if I was smoking, especially since I was 16 (legal age for that when I was a kid) and when I purposely went out of my way to be discrete so the other students didn't see me.
I got suspended from school a fair few times. For those kinds of infractions. So... The 'punishment' delivered for breaking their arbitrary f*cking rules was that I was excluded from being able to attend which DID interfere with my education. I organised a number of student protests :-) We weren't allowed to wear yellow doc martin laces in our shoes - but we got that rule changed. We weren't allowed to wear brown shoes (they were cooler than black at the time) - and we got that rule changed too.
I think...
There are times when civil disobedience is justified. By 'civil disobedience' I'm talking breaking the laws / rules in order to bring about a change in the rules. I think a lot of protest activities fit into this (tying yourself to a tree to prevent logging; hampering boat movements to prevent whaling; saying 'i won't stand up' in protest of race laws etc.
One of my office mates wrote a paper on civil disobedience (in the above mentioned sense) and he considered WHEN civil disobedience is justified and WHAT civil disobedience activities may be justified in what circumstances. One of the requirements... Was that more peaceful / lawful options are unavailable.
Here... We can talk about the rules and the consequences (or punishers if you like) for breaking the rules. We are able to discuss that.
At some other sites... Not so. If you question the rules; suggest alternatives; if you inquire about the rules and the rationalisations for them then your posts will be deleted from the forums and you can be blocked. I was blocked off another forum for posting about the rules after being requested not to. I considered that I was justified as it was a case of legitimate civil disobedience. I was blocked for 4 weeks as a consequence or punisher. I've had a while to reflect on my actions. I knew I would probably be blocked. My office mate thought that if you broke a law in protest then you had to accept the consequence (punishment) for doing so. If you trespass to protest then protest might be a case of justified civil disobedience but your country is also justified in prosecuting you for your civil disobedience. Because the laws of the country protect you (there are laws against other people stealing your property and killing you and your family members etc) and thus you have an obligation to your country to obey its laws. Sometimes there is conflict (and you are also justified in breaking the laws) - but one must also accept the consequences for doing so.That is not to say that one can't campaign and / or speak out against the laws. But it is to say that until they are changed... One is bound by them. We can speak out here. It might feel like bashing our heads against a brick wall sometimes. But I think... If people can suggest an alternative system... And can provide reasons for why the alternative system would be better / fairer etc then that does have some impact. When people just rail against perceived unfairness then it is hard to know precisely what people want regarding the precise changes that people are advocating for.
Blockings aren't forever. They max out at one year. Nobody is excluded forever (to the best of my knowledge). No matter what you have done you are welcomed back after one year. One year is a long time. But then some people do post some doozys... And some people don't seem to learn... Delivering a punisher leads to a decrease in problematic behaviours. From that individual and across the board. That has been shown empirically (though it is true by definition of 'punisher').
You are pretty good at figuring out the reasons for the PBC's / blockings at times. You helped me out a lot with my block over on politics a while back. I know blocks used to mortify me. I was really very upset. They took me back... Took me back to my childhood when my mother used to shut me in my room for days... Weeks... And I was only allowed out for school, bathroom, and dinner. Isolation. Especially on weekends and public / school holidays and the like. I really do have sympathy with how hard blocks can be.
But something is changing for me. I still take them seriously, don't get me wrong, but I'm not mortified by them anymore. I can still email people. I can still post at other message boards. I can still go outside and go for a walk and look at the sun :-) I can still read the posts on these boards :-)
I don't know.
I'm sorry to ramble...
Posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 4:07:54
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » verne, posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 3:32:17
Hi Alexandra,
How about you admit, "you don't know", and you do ramble? Imagine how free you will be!
love verne
Posted by crazy teresa on January 19, 2006, at 6:59:49
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » alexandra_k, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 4:07:54
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.