![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 160 to 184 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:33:17
In reply to Babble :(, posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
>I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked. It was such a horrible feeling. I didn't know what had happened. Then I finally understood(I must have come across the block post) that I was blocked. I felt sick, my head spun. I was so embarrassed and ashamed. I'd just been trying to have a bit of fun.....
Yeah, that's right.
That's just nothing surely.
After all everyone has been through, do people care about stuff like that?
Direct personal attacks and viciousness, yes, I think there should be blocks for that.
In other words..... boundaries, but wider ones.For the record, and I emphasise that I have not read all of Twinleaf's posts, but I've read a few, I think I should have been blocked 5 times over compared to her if blocking was required.
Posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:34:59
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:59:07
> it's the same mindset.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good plan.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 14:39:48
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:34:59
(grin)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2010, at 5:04:49
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:33:17
> After all everyone has been through, do people care about stuff like that?
> Direct personal attacks and viciousness, yes, I think there should be blocks for that.
> In other words..... boundaries, but wider ones.I agree.
> But since those former posters who take such an interest in Babble rarely (if ever) seem to be positive about Dr. Bob and Babblers, it leads to a rather one sided contribution. The balance on the board becomes skewed from what it would be should those making use of the board be the contributors.
Former posters are often former posters (rather than present) for a reason. Their lack of positivity about the civility rules / Bob's decisions or current Babblers posting likely has something to do with that. The balance on the board wouldn't be so skewed if there were more remaining (who felt positive) than those who have left.
Were those who are mostly or wholly gone now really not contributing to the site in a positive way when they were around? Is the site really better off for people being blocked for the things Bob blocked them for (leaving aside personal attacks / viciousness to other posters)?
I wonder if Bob got sick of feeling like he had to check in. I wonder if he is happy with the consequences of his policies because he got his small board of posters who he selected after all...
C'mon now Dinah, you have threatened to leave should Bob do x or y. The x or y might be different for other posters (such that they have gone / have mostly gone)... But everyone's got their limits, you know.
I believe the difference is that you got what you wanted when you threatened to leave. Others... Did not.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 7:49:53
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2010, at 5:04:49
I've said that there were things that would cause me to believe that the cost outweighed the benefit of Babble. There are things that would cause me to leave. They were also things that many people objected to, and that Bob found a way to compromise on.
I've also said that when it becomes clear that Bob won't change those things, I would give up on Bob changing those things.
You've frequently compared this to a small board that Bob handpicked. Bob's policies on blocks are no different than they've ever been. The few changes have all been in the direction of leniency. It is posters, not Bob, who decide whether to live with them. It isn't as personal as some people seem to think it is. Dr. Bob's happy to have anyone post at Babble, so long as they agree to abide by site rules. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. When I go anywhere I assume that I will have to abide by the rules that govern that place. I have to swallow that fact at Babble as much as I do anywhere else.
People who say how harsh Dr. Bob is ought to consider how many places would allow former clients to enter the establishment to complain about it in front of current clientele. Many times. If you were to do that at a store, I'm guessing you'd be escorted outside. If you were to do that at a doctor's office or therapy group, I'm guessing you'd be escorted outside. If you were to do it at a home, I'm guessing the police would be called. Judges might require that protesters remain on public property. Most boards I know don't allow it either.
Dr. Bob allows it, so long as it isn't in violation of site guidelines. Perhaps that ought to be considered, when determining how unjust he is and how much he tries to rid himself of posters.
It would be interesting for Dr. Bob to tell us how many people are currently blocked, if he does not include blocks for actions protesting blocks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2010, at 9:40:53
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by damaged on November 4, 2010, at 6:05:47
> i am new.
Please don't change your posting name without following these steps:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#names
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceI've blocked this name and extended your previous block.
Please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Toph on November 5, 2010, at 9:41:41
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:02:38
> > I have no less interest and genuine concern for the issues of my family because I am not as involved with them on a daily basis now than I did when I was young and more interacting.
>
> Do you interact with them now primarily to criticize how things are done in your family? If, say, one sibling is taking on the burden of caring for your parents, does your concern take the form of complaining about their actions or about your parents?I don't have time to respond to all of your responses or questions, but this one sort of struck a nerve. I work in adult protective services. Sibling caregivers frequently do not have their parents' best interests in mind. Thankfully, out of town, more caring siblings often rescue their parents from their "more involved" siblings who are abusing, neglecting or stealing from their parents.
This is also true here where I have found some less involved participants to be more concerned for the welfare of other participants than more active or less critical participants.
It annoys me that you seem to characterize posters who complain about practices they find unfair to others and themselves as people less interested in the welfare of this community. It may be true in many cases, but I find it insulting to me.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:00:16
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Dinah, posted by Toph on November 5, 2010, at 9:41:41
I don't believe I said anything about the level of concern of posters.
You did.
I responded.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:04:54
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:00:16
If this is bothering you, you can back away....
I so sorry you caught in this.
Its Bob not you.
I wish you could disentangle yourself from him :(
Let him defend, or whats more likely, ignore.
He's a big boy, he gonna have to take care of his own problems and mistakes.
TC girl.
M
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:17:54
In reply to Dinah, posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:04:54
Muffled, I've always felt worse when I didn't stand up in these circumstances. While I know Dr. Bob can handle himself, it doesn't seem right to say nothing all the time in response.
My mother taught me to to take responsibility for my own choices, and not to blame others for them. Dr. Bob sets the rules. Others decide how to respond to those rules. That's fair enough. But it also seems fair to accept the consequences of those decisions.
There are guidelines for behavior on this site. If someone decides not to follow those guidelines one time, or if they don't understand the guidelines, they are told through a PBC. By the time someone has been blocked for a long period of time, the poster has made many choices that lead to this point.
I wish Dr. Bob would change "Please Be Civil" to "Please Follow Site Guidelines" and change the wording of admin decisions to highlight the choices they make.
Along the lines of...
"Please follow site guidelines. They are located in the FAQ. If you choose not to follow site guidelines again, the result will be a week long block."
Or
"I previously have asked you to follow site guidelines. You have made a different choice, and the result is a block of one week. I regret that this is the choice you made, because I appreciate your contributions here. I hope that when you return, you will decide to follow site guidelines so that we can continue to enjoy your contributions."
I've said what I wanted to say. I'm not sorry I said it, although I hope I remained civil. If others leave me out of the conversation in future, I will leave it at that.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:27:10
In reply to Re: Dinah » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:17:54
So does he warn for blocks now?
I mean in a timely fashion?
Cuz a PBC from months ago, long fogotten, and to do with an entirely different conversation, used to count as a warning...which IMHO is a crock. The warning should be IN the thread. Then if ignored, THEN a block(if needed).
Just seems to me that the blocks seem to just kinda shockingly *arrive* :( out of the blue sometimes.
I fully beleive there should always be warning except in very extreem cases.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:39:21
In reply to Babble warnings, posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:27:10
I think he's trying, though we don't necessarily like the results. I think his "Please help Poster X avoid a block" is meant to be a warning of sorts. Personally, I'd prefer that he just make it a warning or request. The Babble population have more than gotten the point that we can encourage others to comply with site guidelines.
I think he's gotten far better at warnings. Not perfect perhaps, but better.
I do think it's not unreasonable of him to block someone who just returned from a block only to return and do the exactly same thing very shortly after. The block itself could be considered a very strong warning.
I'm not talking about any particular situation. And in the case of Twinleaf on this thread, *I* don't think that applies at all, as I've previously stated.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:45:24
In reply to Re: Babble warnings » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:39:21
"I think he's gotten far better at warnings. Not perfect perhaps, but better."
He needs to do better. This is a mental health site.
He has the luxury of being able to review and look back, as it is the written word.
There is really no excuses.
I don't feel he has a friggin clue.
Makes me sad it does.
And scares me.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:50:58
In reply to Babble warnings, posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:27:10
I really am sorry if I upset you.
Your post to me earlier, talking about your own experiences with blocks, really touched me. Because you talked about your own experiences and vulnerabilities, it somehow didn't strike me in the same way that other Admin posts have. It didn't seem as negative, if that makes any sense. You were talking about Babble being hurtful, but you framed it in terms of how *you* were hurt on Babble. I am sorry that you were hurt on Babble.
Maybe I'm just burned out from an election season that seemed to last forever, and had me deserting regular TV for watching movies on DVD. I don't think I'll ever understand why a politician easily leading in the polls doesn't choose to take the high road. Even if I was already planning to vote for the politician, it always makes me want to have a little talk with them. Or turn them over to my mother in her best teacher mode.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:57:57
In reply to ((( Muffled ))), posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:50:58
I always say that I'm a Montessori mom at heart. And I am!
But I suppose there's also more than a bit of teacher in me too, handed down from my mother. :)
Can't you just see me, arms akimbo, in front of a class? Or facing a politician?
If it makes it any better, I turn it on Dr. Bob on a not infrequent basis.
It's just that my pull to the center is so strong, that I can't maintain my own negative feelings about Bob when so much negativity is shown towards him. While if the board was full of breathless admiration for him, I'd probably make a few pithy remarks in the opposite direction.
Balance. I crave balance.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 13:00:03
In reply to Re: ((( Muffled ))), posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:57:57
Sigh. Miss ya.
Wished I could be here.
TGC eh?
M
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 13:03:01
In reply to ((( Dinah))), posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 13:00:03
> Sigh. Miss ya.
> Wished I could be here.
> TGC eh?
> MI miss you too, and wish you could be here. Maybe join us sometimes in chat?
TGC? I'm terrible at acronyms.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 13:06:03
In reply to ((( Muffled ))), posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 13:03:01
TGC=take good care ! :)
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 13:10:16
In reply to LOL!, posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 13:06:03
Posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 13:13:29
In reply to LOL!, posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 13:06:03
"Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
Posted by Solstice on November 5, 2010, at 13:57:13
In reply to Re: Thank you for the conversation. )Dinah » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:56:58
> We also kept it respectful, or at least I tried to.
>
> Should other dialogues take place respectfully, there would be no impediment from Dr. Bob.
>
> It's not against site guidelines to disagree. It's not against site guidelines to be angry. Incivility may be more likely to take place under those conditions, but it isn't a requirement.
I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene. I'm envisioning something like this:1. An infraction occurs.
2. A PBC "warning" is given each time (no immediate harsh discipline for a subsequent, but different offense... my reasoning is that many people with mental health issues also struggle with an internal sense of time and place... as well as some whose brains simply do not allow them to make the connection between punishment yesterday for an infraction, and the behavior choice they make today.)
3. If infractor does the rephrasing, apology, whatever that's required.. then all is well and no block will happen.
4. If the bock-preventing behavior is not forthcoming, a Mediator steps in to work toward resolution. PBC's seem to usually involve someone who was not civil by site guidelines toward another specific member or members. Mediator can assist both parties in resolving it, all the while modeling the civil thinking and behavior expected.
5. If the infractor is cooperative with that process - then all is well. No block happens, and the infractor doesn't feel rejected or shocked - and may receive tremendous benefit from the caring that takes place with a Mediator 'virtually' taking them by the hand to lead them back to Psycho-babble's 'straight & narrow' road.
5. If the infractor is not cooperative with the Mediator-assisted process - if they don't agree with it, or just don't like it, etc... then they are opting for the currently practiced PBC/blocking process, which would be done by Bob That gives the infractor who got PBC'd the power of where it ends up. They can cooperate with Mediator assistance, or they can throw themself at the mercy of the current PBC/blocking process. Their choice.
This might involve some tweaks to the current structure such as:
a) When a PBC/block warning is issued, the infractor's status is in suspension for a specific period of time. Say, one week, or ten days, whatever seems a reasonable amount of time for the infractor to sleep on it, wake up realizing they'd like to rephrase/apologize, or for a Mediator to step in and assist through to resolution. The suspension doesn't change anything about the infractor's ability to post, it just means there won't be any immediate blocking going on. Seems like it kind of works like that now - in that Dr. Bob generally gives a person time to repair... I just think a specific and consistent amount of days would be good.
b) Medsiators should gave the ability to turn a poster's posting ability off. That way, if a poster-in-suspension is so angry that they are escalating and really losing control, a Mediator can stop the damage while offering assistance. If the infractor refuses, then they are opting for standard Dr. Bob-blocking. If they are responsive to assistance, then Mediator turns them back on and the mediation process starts or resumes.
I think there might be several advantages to this that will address the values Dr. Bob has that Dinah mentioned, as well as the legitimate issues that many in the community have consistently brought up:i) People who join this site are often in pain, are in stressful situaitons and have impairments in their ability to function optimally, etc. It seems unfair to expect people dealing with those things to first, maintain optimal civility at all times, and second, to extract themselves from a hole the dug while they were affecteds by a condition they don't even want to have (i.e., depression, anxiety, paranoia, etc.) The expectation that they can figure out how to extract themselves places a great amount of pressure on what may be a profoundly weak area. The Mediation process would be a bridge over that weak area. A way to comply with site guidelines... simultaneously respecting the legitimate responsibility Dr. Bob has to protect the community from harm, and also respecting the special fragilities of functioning found in a community of those affected by mental health issues
ii) The members - the infractors themselves would be making the decision - they would have the power to determine the outcome. They can opt to cooperate with Mediator guidance, or they can opt for Dr. Bob blocking mechanisms. That way, the power is where it belongs. The infractor is in control of where they land.
iii) Mediator-assistance will likely lead to LESS blocks, particularly the ones the community seems to especially despise - the ones for relatively minor infractions.
I think Sr. Bob gains in this scenario because:1. His rules, policies about civility, etc. remain intact.
2. He's still in control.
3. It will eliminate what has got to be uncomfortable for him - blocking for minor infractions just because the infractor hasn't rephrased/apologized (in Mesdiation-assistance, the Mediator would help the infractor understand where they got off track. If infractor rejects assistance... they are opting for Dr. Bob-blocks). So bottom line is - if a he blocks someone, it's because THEY OPTED to be blocked.
4. He seems to like the community assisting the community idea. This is just another version of it.
5. I think he'd like that infractors opting to cooperate with Mediator assistance will be learning through Mediator modeling the kind of self-restraint he wants to see - and everyone grows from that.
Sorry this is so long - and I know there may be problems with it that I haven't thought about - - but it's an idea. I think it might work. I think it might honor the values Dr. Bob has, as well as the values of the community (self-autonomy and more merciful implementation of site guidelines).
Solstice
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 14:05:46
In reply to Re: A thought from a newcomer..., posted by Solstice on November 5, 2010, at 13:57:13
ooooohhh, nice :)
Posted by sigismund on November 5, 2010, at 14:09:55
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:29:32
>That's what saddens me about Dr. Bob's interactions with Twinleaf this time. I think Twinleaf recognized the benefit of approaching Dr. Bob in a more constructive way, and Dr. Bob didn't perceive the difference as I did.
Twinleaf's case has been the saddest of my time at Babble, I suppose because so evidently she has tried to be a kind, considerate and supportive poster.
I'm not saying having issues of principle justifies anything, but I do think context is important. A person who had been a deputy once said that the training involved evaluation of posts out of context. Sometimes I think Bob takes context into account (that's how I explain my survival) and sometimes I'm not sure. Maybe he has some problem with people taking up issues of principle, I don't know.
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2010, at 15:05:41
In reply to Food for thought, posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 13:13:29
> "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
I avoided a deer the other day while driving. It remained motionless in my lane as I headed right for it at 50 miles per hour. I could have hit it if I wanted to. In the long run, however, I believe that such an exposure would have left both me and the deer destitute of future adventures.
I think I understand the lesson of Helen Keller's allegory. However, my guess is that she would have been horrified to learn that someone died because they were intent on following her words to the letter such that they forgo avoiding danger and neglect working towards establishing a balance that the gift of common sense affords us.
I'm just being difficult. I am surprised, though, that Helen Keller should offer such a polar perspective as a lesson.
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 15:13:15
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by SLS on November 5, 2010, at 15:05:41
> > "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
>
> I avoided a deer the other day while driving. It remained motionless in my lane as I headed right for it at 50 miles per hour. I could have hit it if I wanted to. In the long run, however, I believe that such an exposure would have left both me and the deer destitute of future adventures.
>
> I think I understand the lesson of Helen Keller's allegory. However, my guess is that she would have been horrified to learn that someone died because they were intent on following her words to the letter such that they forgo avoiding danger and neglect working towards establishing a balance that the gift of common sense affords us.
>
> I'm just being difficult. I am surprised, though, that Helen Keller should offer such a polar perspective as a lesson.
>
>
> - ScottScott, if one takes (or misinterprets) such a statement literally, or doesn't understand the writer's intent, so be it.
When I first read it, I thought of the folks here who have so often and so passionately spoken about the need for safety in Babble. I wonder what these folks would say to support a person with Agoraphobia; would they tell her to stay home and be safe?
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.