![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 156 to 180 of 185. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2007, at 21:30:36
In reply to Lou's response to fayeroe's post-supsit » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2007, at 21:05:54
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2007, at 10:40:29
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2007, at 19:36:46
> It is the smallest r that guarantees that after 6 months, previous incivility will still factor. So even if the previous block was only one week, and that expired 6 months ago, then
>
> B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = S + 1*[3^(-24/39)] = S + 0.51 -> S + 1 week.
>
> KlavotBefore we make the decision to switch, I just want to remind people of the above. With the revised formula, too:
B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r) = 1 + (2 * 1 - 1) * exp(-24/35) = 1.5 -> 2 weeks
while currently:
B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * (1 - 24/10) < 0 -> 1 week
--
> and others could become more confused about this being a support website......some could be hurt more by it.....others may leave...
>
> fayeroeThat's true, some could be hurt more, and others may leave, but the goal here isn't to receive support from me or the deputies...
Bob
Posted by Klavot on July 7, 2007, at 12:55:08
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2007, at 10:40:29
> Before we make the decision to switch, I just want to remind people of the above. With the revised formula, too:
>
> B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r) = 1 + (2 * 1 - 1) * exp(-24/35) = 1.5 -> 2 weeks
>
> while currently:
>
> B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * (1 - 24/10) < 0 -> 1 weekAgain, I don't agree with the principle of multiplying S and D. In fact, the formula
B = 1 + (SD-1)*exp(-P/35)
might even be more severe than the currently used system. Zenhussy's block is an extreme case having large P and D; it should not be used as a representative example. Moreover, the values for r (r = 35 or r = 39 depending on which type of exponential function is used) were suggested by me based on the formula
B = S + D*exp(-P/r).
If you're going to use a different formula, then the values for r should be recalculated.
But it's your website, so do what you want / must. Just remember, this might be cyberspace, but there are real people involved who's lives are being messed around with.
Klavot
Posted by Honore on July 7, 2007, at 13:02:29
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2007, at 10:40:29
I believe fayeroe was not implying that it was the "point" of the site to receive support from you and the deputies.
But rather, that it was presumably part of the assumption that one would *also* receive support from you and the deputies. If not that, it would certainly be part of site not to receive the opposite of support from you and the deputies--or for you and the deputies not to undermine or break down the support that participants receive from one another here.
Honore
Posted by muffled on July 7, 2007, at 13:11:14
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Klavot on July 7, 2007, at 12:55:08
>But it's your website, so do what you want / must. Just remember, this might be cyberspace, but there are real people involved who's lives are being messed around with.
Klavot
**WELL said, Klavot, and thanks for your work on this.
And I can see your getting a little fried bout this.
Dealing w/admin is VERY challenging...:-(
I am glad you said what you did, cuz mebbe Bob will hear it better cuz he knows your pretty smart and all.
You are exactly right.
Thanks klavot,
(((()))) hugs if you want them.
M
Posted by muffled on July 7, 2007, at 13:17:28
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2007, at 10:40:29
> and others could become more confused about this being a support website......some could be hurt more by it.....others may leave...
>
> fayeroeThat's true, some could be hurt more, and others may leave, but the goal here isn't to receive support from me or the deputies...
Bob
**Did she even SAY that Bob?
And Honore said it well.
We babblers(incl the deps) DO support one another. We do not receive support from you, I DO NOT want support from you. I do not think...well...not civil...
So, what I would like to see is for BOB to support his depities, thats all.
So like Honore said, DON'T allow your(Bob) propensity for overzealous(IMHO) blocking to UNDERMINE the work WE(Babblers/deps) do the make babble a supportive place.
DO you ACTUALLY listen to what your deps have to say?
I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO frustrated, yet again by you Bob.
:-(
Not happy.
M
Posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2007, at 13:19:45
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Klavot on July 7, 2007, at 12:55:08
> > Before we make the decision to switch, I just want to remind people of the above. With the revised formula, too:
> >
> > B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r) = 1 + (2 * 1 - 1) * exp(-24/35) = 1.5 -> 2 weeks
> >
> > while currently:
> >
> > B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * (1 - 24/10) < 0 -> 1 week
>
> Again, I don't agree with the principle of multiplying S and D. In fact, the formula
>
> B = 1 + (SD-1)*exp(-P/35)
>
> might even be more severe than the currently used system. Zenhussy's block is an extreme case having large P and D; it should not be used as a representative example. Moreover, the values for r (r = 35 or r = 39 depending on which type of exponential function is used) were suggested by me based on the formula
>
> B = S + D*exp(-P/r).
>
> If you're going to use a different formula, then the values for r should be recalculated.
>
> But it's your website, so do what you want / must. Just remember, this might be cyberspace, but there are real people involved who's lives are being messed around with.
>
> Klavotand the reality of it all is that probably 85% of us don't have a clue about the formulas. of course, it messes with us. we never know how the h"B = S + D*exp(-P/r)"l the block time is arrived at........fayeroe
Posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2007, at 13:22:39
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Honore on July 7, 2007, at 13:02:29
Posted by zeugma on July 7, 2007, at 17:27:37
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2007, at 10:40:29
> That's true, some could be hurt more, and others may leave, but the goal here isn't to receive support from me or the deputies...
>
> Bob>>I try to keep the atmosphere supportive, but unfortunately it isn't always.- Dr. Bob, FAQ, Policies.>>
I don't understand why you "try to keep the atmosphere supportive," if "the goal here isn't to receive support" from the rules which you have gone to such trouble to refine, and which you, yourself, enforce?
You invoke "sensitivity to the feelings of others" as the rationale for your actions, and then say your goal is not to provide support!
-z
Posted by Phil on July 7, 2007, at 19:17:06
In reply to empty variables » Dr. Bob, posted by zeugma on July 7, 2007, at 17:27:37
Listen to my favorite performer. Sometimes I've got to talk through music cause I get really pissed otherwise.
Break it down, Sly.
Posted by cactus on July 8, 2007, at 2:23:31
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2007, at 10:40:29
Dr Bob, people are here because they are suffering. Short fuses, paranoia, triggers, depression, agitation and mania play a major role as to why we come here. We all lose our cool at some point and I understand that this is a safe haven for support for people like us but, we are ill. I do not condone personal attacks or verbal abuse in anyway at all but blocking people for weeks on end is going to cause either, great distress or stewing vengence.
Why not try blocking someone who steps over the line for 1 week, if they do it again, block them for another week and if they do it again, block them for another week. I feel most people will respond better to being blocked for a week at a time instead of being blocked for weeks on end. If it gets to the point where somebody continually steps over the line then why not send them an e-mail telling them that this might not be the right place for them because they are causing people great distress.
I think that one week in the sin bin is a much better way of coping with aggressive or negative posting. I also think that it will make it sink in quicker that they have done the wrong thing, get a week to think about it and come back with a clean slate and clear head. This place is a life line for so many people and sometimes it gets heated so why not a week at a time to reflect on their transgression? Just a thought.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2007, at 13:59:45
In reply to empty variables » Dr. Bob, posted by zeugma on July 7, 2007, at 17:27:37
> Dr Bob, people are here because they are suffering. Short fuses, paranoia, triggers, depression, agitation and mania play a major role as to why we come here. We all lose our cool at some point and I understand that this is a safe haven for support for people like us but, we are ill. I do not condone personal attacks or verbal abuse in anyway at all but blocking people for weeks on end is going to cause either, great distress or stewing vengence.
>
> Why not try blocking someone who steps over the line for 1 week, if they do it again, block them for another week and if they do it again, block them for another week. I feel most people will respond better to being blocked for a week at a time instead of being blocked for weeks on end. If it gets to the point where somebody continually steps over the line then why not send them an e-mail telling them that this might not be the right place for them because they are causing people great distress.
>
> I think that one week in the sin bin is a much better way of coping with aggressive or negative posting. I also think that it will make it sink in quicker that they have done the wrong thing, get a week to think about it and come back with a clean slate and clear head. This place is a life line for so many people and sometimes it gets heated so why not a week at a time to reflect on their transgression? Just a thought.
>
> cactusThanks for your thoughts. I'm reminded of what Honore posted before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/767166.html
It's a challenge to maintain a safe haven when people have short fuses, etc. I'd like to cause as little distress and vengeance as possible, but at the same time, an email suggesting that this might not be the right place for someone might not be effective.
--
> it was presumably part of the assumption that one would *also* receive support from you and the deputies. If not that, it would certainly be part of site not to receive the opposite of support from you and the deputies--or for you and the deputies not to undermine or break down the support that participants receive from one another here.
>
> Honore> I don't understand why you "try to keep the atmosphere supportive," if "the goal here isn't to receive support" from the rules which you have gone to such trouble to refine, and which you, yourself, enforce?
>
> You invoke "sensitivity to the feelings of others" as the rationale for your actions, and then say your goal is not to provide support!
>
> -zI do want this to be a supportive community, but I myself try to be supportive only indirectly, by moderating. And unfortunately moderating sometimes means blocking people, which of course directly interferes with them receiving support from others.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2007, at 13:59:51
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Klavot on July 7, 2007, at 12:55:08
> > My concern was simply that the calculator that comes bundled with MS Windows does not seem to have a function for retrieving e.
>
> In theory, one could set up a google spread sheet that could be shared with everyone.. Or a simple form could be used where people can enter the variables, and it calculates block length
>
> NikkiThanks, I don't know much about Google spreadsheets, does anyone here have experience with them? I'd be happy to create an Excel spreadsheet if someone else would take care of the Google side...
Or I could add a form to the FAQ. But it would only do one calculation at a time...
--
> the formula
>
> B = 1 + (SD-1)*exp(-P/35)
>
> might even be more severe than the currently used system. Zenhussy's block is an extreme case having large P and D; it should not be used as a representative example.Right, that was what I wanted to make sure people understood.
> If you're going to use a different formula, then the values for r should be recalculated.
>
> KlavotI thought it would be the same?
Bob
Posted by Klavot on July 10, 2007, at 14:42:36
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2007, at 13:59:51
> > > My concern was simply that the calculator that comes bundled with MS Windows does not seem to have a function for retrieving e.
> >
> > In theory, one could set up a google spread sheet that could be shared with everyone.. Or a simple form could be used where people can enter the variables, and it calculates block length
> >
> > Nikki
>
> Thanks, I don't know much about Google spreadsheets, does anyone here have experience with them? I'd be happy to create an Excel spreadsheet if someone else would take care of the Google side...
>
> Or I could add a form to the FAQ. But it would only do one calculation at a time...It should be easy to use a script similar to the one you have on your web site used to calculate BMI.
Dr Bob, I am sorry if I was a bit short with you in my previous post.
Klavot
Posted by Klavot on July 10, 2007, at 15:01:41
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by Klavot on July 10, 2007, at 14:42:36
> It should be easy to use a script similar to the one you have on your web site used to calculate BMI.
And I would do it for you if you want. On the other hand, some posters have made the point that a formula based blocking system is too complex.
Klavot
Posted by Klavot on July 10, 2007, at 15:38:54
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2007, at 13:59:51
Well Dr Bob, perhaps I judged your suggested formula too soon. Here are two hypothetical scenarios to illustrate block escalation based on your formula
B = 1 + (SD-1)exp(-P/35).
These scenarios assume regular and repeated acts of incivility. In the first case the incivility is severe, while in the second case the incivility is minor.
Case 1: A poster is repeatedly very uncivil and in quick succession. Specifically, every time the poster has been unblocked for a period of 4 weeks (1 month), he commits another S = 3 incivility. Then
First block: B = 1 week.
Second block: B = 1 + (3*1 - 1)*exp(-4/35) -> 3 weeks.
Third block: B = 1 + (3*3 - 1)*exp(-4/35) -> 8 weeks.
Fourth block: B = 1 + (3*8 - 1)*exp(-4/35) -> 22 weeks.Considering that there are four weeks that pass between each of these blocks, that takes us up to 46 weeks. Then another 4 weeks pass before the poster is blocked again. This takes us up to 50 weeks. There are then two weeks remaining for that year. This means the poster would have been blocked for a total of 1 + 3 + 8 + 22 + 2 = 36 weeks out of the 52 weeks of that year, or roughly 70 % of the time.
Case 2: A poster only occasionally commits a minor incivility. Specifically, every time the poster has been unblocked for a period of 12 weeks (3 months), he commits another S = 2 incivility. Then
First block: 1 week.
Second block: B = 1 + (2*1 - 1)*exp(-12/35) -> 2 weeks.
Third block: B = 1 + (2*2 - 1)* exp(-12/35) -> 3 weeks.
Fourth block: B = 1 + (3*2 - 1)*exp(-12/35) -> 5 weeks.Considering that there are 12 weeks that pass between each of these blocks, that takes us up to 47 weeks. Then another 12 weeks would pass before the poster is blocked again, so that the poster would not be blocked for the remainder of that year. This means the poster would have been blocked for a total of 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 11 weeks out of the 52 weeks of that year, or roughly 20 % of the time.
Mmm, that actually seems quite reasonable to me. Perhaps other posters would like to comment on whether it seems fair or not?
Klavot
Posted by Klavot on July 10, 2007, at 15:51:27
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Klavot on July 10, 2007, at 15:01:41
> > It should be easy to use a script similar to the one you have on your web site used to calculate BMI.
>
> And I would do it for you if you want.By which I mean "adapt the script".
Klavot
Posted by Dinah on July 10, 2007, at 17:08:04
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2007, at 10:40:29
> That's true, some could be hurt more, and others may leave, but the goal here isn't to receive support from me or the deputies...
>
> BobI think I liked it better when you said there was inevitably tension between administrating (or deputizing) and support. I realize that you don't intentionally provide support on Babble (although you are often inadvertently supportive I'm sure), but that isn't true of deputies, who spend far more time trying to be supportive than they do being administrative (or at least that's my hope for myself).
But I'm sure you meant only in their deputorial role, and would be happy to clarify that.
And I really really wish that people could see that PBC's, Please Be Sensitive's, etc. aren't really intended to be punitive and actually can be supportive in intent, in that they are usually intended to be educational or reminders in the heat of the moment. I guess they are inevitably linked to blocks in people's minds. :(
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2007, at 21:03:55
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 10, 2007, at 17:08:04
>And I really really wish that people could see that PBC's, Please Be Sensitive's, etc. aren't really intended to be punitive and actually can be supportive in intent, in that they are usually intended to be educational or reminders in the heat of the moment. I guess they are inevitably linked to blocks in people's minds. :(
Dinah, I just want to say that I see PBCs and PBSs as a kind and helpful reminder of where the barriers are, and I appreciate them when I see them.
Posted by cactus on July 11, 2007, at 4:13:18
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Klavot on July 10, 2007, at 15:01:41
> > It should be easy to use a script similar to the one you have on your web site used to calculate BMI.
>
> And I would do it for you if you want. On the other hand, some posters have made the point that a formula based blocking system is too complex.
>
> KlavotExactly my point, it's getting too complex, does anyone support a week at a time? Even though it sounds weird at first maybe it might work a little bit more like a school based detention system (even though that's a very bad example of what I'm trying to convey). One week at a time until the lessen is learnt, but not everyone does learn the lessen. I really do think it could be a lot more therapeutic in the long run for everyone involved. One week out to reflect. Does anybody like this idea? Or do you think it's a pointless waste of time, just by keeping it simple and a lot less traumatic.
Posted by fayeroe on July 11, 2007, at 8:10:49
In reply to Re: block idea to consider, posted by cactus on July 11, 2007, at 4:13:18
" Or do you think it's a pointless waste of time, just by keeping it simple and a lot less traumatic."
i think it's a pointless waste of time as it is now......it's for punishment and the sooner we realize that it isn't going to change, the sooner we can move on.......that is my story and i' sticking with it.......faye
a week is enough......and then it could be structured to increase the time in increments that my granddaughter could understand......
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2007, at 8:47:45
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 10, 2007, at 17:08:04
> I think I liked it better when you said there was inevitably tension between administrating (or deputizing) and support. I realize that you don't intentionally provide support on Babble (although you are often inadvertently supportive I'm sure), but that isn't true of deputies, who spend far more time trying to be supportive than they do being administrative (or at least that's my hope for myself).
>
> But I'm sure you meant only in their deputorial role, and would be happy to clarify that.Thanks, you're right, I should've been more clear about that, there's tension between support and administration, and for the posters who are deputies, between their poster and deputy roles.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2007, at 9:36:33
In reply to Re: tension, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2007, at 8:47:45
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2007, at 9:39:03
In reply to Re: blocks » Dinah, posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2007, at 21:03:55
Well that is certainly the way I approach them. It's good to know it gets across at least sometimes.
I suppose that's why I am in general in favor of giving PBC's more frequently and blocks less frequently. Because I don't really see PBC's as being the same as blocks at all.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2007, at 15:13:00
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by Klavot on July 10, 2007, at 15:38:54
> It should be easy to use a script similar to the one you have on your web site used to calculate BMI.
>
> Dr Bob, I am sorry if I was a bit short with you in my previous post.> Mmm, that actually seems quite reasonable to me.
Thanks, let's go ahead with this change. I've updated and added a calculator to the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Also, I agree that P should be the period of time since the end (rather than the beginning) of the previous block. In Zenhussy's case, that makes it 99, not 147, so:
B = 1 + (3 * 48 - 1) * exp(-99/35) = 9.20 -> 9 weeks
And I'll change it to that. Thanks, everyone, for your patience,
Bob
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.