![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 43. Go back in thread:
Posted by Cam W. on May 18, 2001, at 23:25:46
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by stjames on May 18, 2001, at 22:49:01
> Contract with Guido to really kill Satan.
>James - Couldn't we just have him exorcised? Oops, spoke too soon. Look above me. - Cam
Posted by stjames on May 18, 2001, at 23:40:39
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by CrystalX on May 18, 2001, at 23:05:03
> So you are comparing this board to a slum? Does that make you a slum lord?Broken windows do not make a slum.
>
> Perhaps you encourage a certain amount of window breaking by establishing an arbitrary definition of civility, never plainly telling people what is your idea of civility, assuming that all should know and share your standard, constantly changing your standard of civility and capriciously enforcing your secret standard.If you need a definition of civility (i.e. you cannot use common sence to decide what is/is not civil) then this board may not be the place for you. Or to put it another way, if you need a definition of civil, it is unlikely you will ever manifest this quality.
Your pot shots at Dr. Bob are rude and uncivil (these is that word again !)
For example:
(rude) "CrystalX is an ass."
(civil) "I found CrystalX's post to be very negative; there is nothing wrong with disagreeing
with Dr. Bob but it is uncivil to express this disagremment as a personal attack."James
Posted by Alii on May 19, 2001, at 0:42:29
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by stjames on May 18, 2001, at 23:40:39
James,
I am so tired with depression right now, truly dragging. I enjoyed your examples above. Laughed out loud all alone here in the study. Felt good. I needed that.
--Alii
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 1:40:38
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by stjames on May 18, 2001, at 22:13:06
> Blocking a network address (whole group of IP's) would be one way to deal with this.
Been there, done that. The problem was, "innocent" people got blocked that way, too.
> If you were to supply the ISP with the times and IP's they can tell what user this is. Some of the stuff that caused you to block people is aganist the user rules of major ISP's.
I've done that, too, and never heard back, even after asking to be notified of any action they take. But I guess that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't take any action, and it wouldn't hurt to do more of that. These aren't all major ISPs, BTW...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 1:55:11
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by CrystalX on May 18, 2001, at 23:05:03
> >I think there was a study once that showed that fixing broken windows in a neighborhood helped keep more windows from being broken. I think of this as like that.
>
> So you are comparing this board to a slum? Does that make you a slum lord?Maybe it does. Henceforth, you may address me as Lord of Babble-Slum. :-)
> Perhaps you encourage a certain amount of window breaking by establishing an arbitrary definition of civility, never plainly telling people what is your idea of civility, assuming that all should know and share your standard, constantly changing your standard of civility and capriciously enforcing your secret standard.
Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > > This last week has been like watching a train wreck; kinda gruesome but utterly compelling!
> >
> > Maybe it's attracted more viewers, at least? :-)
>
> You seem to be saying people should not behave in a certain way but that it is okay for you to maintain a forum that encourages such behavior if that behavior attracts attention to your efforts.And you seem to have missed the smiley.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 2:07:38
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by stjames on May 18, 2001, at 23:40:39
> (rude) "CrystalX is..."
Thanks, but I don't think we need examples like that. Besides, you just finished saying (or at least implying) that examples were unlikely to do any good in this case!
Bob
Posted by JahL on May 19, 2001, at 9:24:25
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by CrystalX on May 18, 2001, at 23:05:03
> >I think there was a study once that showed that fixing broken windows in a neighborhood helped keep more windows from being broken. I think of this as like that.
>
> So you are comparing this board to a slum? Does that make you a slum lord?The study actually related to CAR windows; cars can be parked in slums or otherwise. The study showed that crime begets crime (just as incivility begets incivility) & was proved to be successful. I think Mayor Guiliano (sp?) was first to implement it. He seems to have done all right on crime.
> > > This last week has been like watching a train wreck; kinda gruesome but utterly compelling!
> > Maybe it's attracted more viewers, at least? :-)
> > Bob
> You seem to be saying people should not behave in a certain way but that it is okay for you to maintain a forum that encourages such behavior if that behavior attracts attention to your efforts.JOKE!!! That's what the little smiley face means:-)
>Now I understand better the smug look on your current picture.
Pot, kettle,
j
Posted by Marie1 on May 19, 2001, at 11:06:04
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by stjames on May 18, 2001, at 23:40:39
Your pot shots at Dr. Bob are rude and uncivil (these is that word again !)
>
> For example:
>
> (rude) "CrystalX is an ass."
>
> (civil) "I found CrystalX's post to be very negative; there is nothing wrong with disagreeing
> with Dr. Bob but it is uncivil to express this disagremment as a personal attack."
>
> JamesThanks, James! I am LOL! (A rare occurance these days!)
Posted by stjames on May 19, 2001, at 12:38:00
In reply to Re: Blocking a whole group of IP's, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 1:40:38
> > Blocking a network address (whole group of IP's) would be one way to deal with this.
>
> Been there, done that. The problem was, "innocent" people got blocked that way, too.Well, if the the current conditions continue on this board (ie same trouble makers sign up againg and again) innocent people who are allready on this board will stop coming here. I just see it as a stop gap and not a perm. solution, ie do it till whoever get tired. The other option is to have you hand approve new sign ups for a time, provided they come from non suspect IP's.
>> I've done that, too, and never heard back, even after asking to be notified of any action they take. But I guess that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't take any action, and it wouldn't hurt to do more of that. These aren't all major ISPs, BTW...
I get results from major and minor ISP's at my job, I do suspect it helps that I work for a large ISP, but the method is important. Mail to admin,root and abuse @.whatever.com and wait 2 days, also going to networksolutions and doing a whois and including these people. If no one responds I start mailing 10X every 6 hours, 24/7.
Don't expect them to tell you what they did.Bob, for me, as this is not a list serv, I do not have the option of setting up mail rules to block
anoying people, which is what I would do so I can stay on a list with a signal to noise problem. At some point it just becomes too much trouble to wade through the noise, so i stop coming.James
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 12:39:53
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by Marie1 on May 19, 2001, at 11:06:04
> I am LOL! (A rare occurance these days!)
A good laugh is nice, but not at another's expense, please. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 12:45:00
In reply to Re: Blocking a whole group of IP's, posted by stjames on May 19, 2001, at 12:38:00
> Well, if the the current conditions continue on this board (ie same trouble makers sign up againg and again) innocent people who are allready on this board will stop coming here.
I know!
> I get results from major and minor ISP's at my job... If no one responds I start mailing 10X every 6 hours, 24/7.
> Don't expect them to tell you what they did.So eventually they respond, but won't tell you what they did? I could live with that...
Bob
Posted by kiddo on May 19, 2001, at 17:19:19
In reply to Re: Blocking a whole group of IP's, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 12:45:00
> > Well, if the the current conditions continue on this board (ie same trouble makers sign up againg and again) innocent people who are allready on this board will stop coming here.
>
> I know!What about requiring people to use their ISP's email address to register? It's been awhile since I've registered, so I don't remember the way you have it set up. Maybe sending an email like:
janedoe@aol.com (not allowing hotmail, yahoo, etc.)
alternate: jdoe@hotmail.com
Then you could look for jdoe@hotmail.com, they wouldn't have to use their real name on the board, jdoe@hotmail.com gets banned, and janedoe@aol.com does too, and couldn't register unless they switched ISP's.
I wouldn't like giving out my real name and email address, but if it wasn't public it may not be so bad.
You could also implement it now, and anyone getting banned from this point would be required to register that way.
Not fool proof, but even aol only gives out a certain number of alternate addresses, so there would be an end eventually.
Just thinking out loud.....
Kiddo
>
> > I get results from major and minor ISP's at my job... If no one responds I start mailing 10X every 6 hours, 24/7.
> > Don't expect them to tell you what they did.
>
> So eventually they respond, but won't tell you what they did? I could live with that...
>
> Bob
Posted by stjames on May 19, 2001, at 21:52:47
In reply to Re: Blocking a whole group of IP's, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 12:45:00
> So eventually they respond, but won't tell you what they did? I could live with that...
>
> BobJames here...
They really should not tell you what they did, just that will handle it as they see fit. There
is a privacy issue here. AOL is very good about this, one of the few good things about them.Some never respond, so then you contact their upstream provider. ISP's are quick to respond when their backbone provider contacts them ! If you have got a pesky problem feel free to mail me
and I can provide you with this info. All I need is the IP the person used when they posted. Backbone providers tend to be better run and have staff that deals with this issue. They also do not like it when someone has to resort to blocking IP's when their downstream clients will not deal with abuse.How many people sign up a day; or is it a reasonable number that during times of seige
you could hand approve this till it blows over ?james
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2001, at 10:00:50
In reply to Re: Blocking a whole group of IP's » Dr. Bob, posted by kiddo on May 19, 2001, at 17:19:19
> What about requiring people to use their ISP's email address to register?
Hmm, interesting idea. If people with hotmail addresses, for example, also have addresses through their ISPs, then I could just disallow the former...
> I wouldn't like giving out my real name and email address, but if it wasn't public it may not be so bad.
It wouldn't be public unless you chose to post it. But still it might deter others, I think that would be the main issue.
> Not fool proof, but even aol only gives out a certain number of alternate addresses, so there would be an end eventually.
AOL only lets you have a certain cumulative total number of aliases, or only a certain number at any given time? And isn't it easy just to open a new AOL account if you want?
Bob
Posted by dougb on May 20, 2001, at 14:39:46
In reply to Re: banishment-second chances? » dougb, posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2001, at 15:47:32
>
> Needing help isn't the issue, being civil is. I'm biased, of course, but I think it's better if I just do my best to decide. And to be open to feedback...--- Benevolent dictator, open to feedback, efficient system, i like it.
Posted by Kristi on May 20, 2001, at 14:59:41
In reply to Re: not allowing hotmail, yahoo, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2001, at 10:00:50
> AOL only lets you have a certain cumulative total number of aliases, or only a certain number at any given time? And isn't it easy just to open a new AOL account if you want?
> BobAOL lets you have 7 different screen names at one time(at least the new version)... but it is incredibly easy to delete one.... and create a new one. So you pretty much have unlimited access to how many different names you can come under.
Just FYI,
Kristi
Posted by dougb on May 20, 2001, at 15:00:13
In reply to Re: comparing this board to a slum, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2001, at 1:55:11
Dr. B:
Please tell us what kind of medecine You take, to be able to put up with all of the hostility and immature posts... (thank you, again)db
> >I think there was a study once that showed that fixing broken windows in a neighborhood helped keep more windows from being broken. I think of this as like that.
that.
> >
> > So you are comparing this board to a slum? Does that make you a slum lord?
>
> Maybe it does. Henceforth, you may address me as Lord of Babble-Slum. :-)
>
> > Perhaps you encourage a certain amount of window breaking by establishing an arbitrary definition of civility, never plainly telling people what is your idea of civility, assuming that all should know and share your standard, constantly changing your standard of civility and capriciously enforcing your secret standard.
>
> Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> > > > This last week has been like watching a train wreck; kinda gruesome but utterly compelling!
> > >
> > > Maybe it's attracted more viewers, at least? :-)
> >
> > You seem to be saying people should not behave in a certain way but that it is okay for you to maintain a forum that encourages such behavior if that behavior attracts attention to your efforts.
>
> And you seem to have missed the smiley.
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2001, at 17:09:13
In reply to Re: Blocking a whole group of IP's, posted by stjames on May 19, 2001, at 21:52:47
> Some never respond, so then you contact their upstream provider. ISP's are quick to respond when their backbone provider contacts them ! If you have got a pesky problem feel free to mail me
> and I can provide you with this info.OK, will do, thanks.
> How many people sign up a day; or is it a reasonable number that during times of seige you could hand approve this till it blows over ?
I'd hate to slow down the process for innocent people. Plus how would I decide who not to approve? There were 11 new registrations yesterday.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2001, at 17:10:14
In reply to Re: not allowing hotmail, yahoo, etc.-Dr. Bob, posted by Kristi on May 20, 2001, at 14:59:41
> AOL lets you have 7 different screen names at one time(at least the new version)... but it is incredibly easy to delete one.... and create a new one. So you pretty much have unlimited access to how many different names you can come under.
That's what I was afraid of. :-(
Bob
Posted by Kristi on May 20, 2001, at 17:22:17
In reply to Re: not allowing hotmail, yahoo, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2001, at 17:10:14
One thing I've noticed though(I've been on a long time just reading, don't post a lot)... is that most of those people seem to have gone?! I haven't seen anything hostile in a while.. hopefully it just blew over and they finally figured it wasn't worth their while? Hopefully anyway. Maybe it was just a "phase"
> > AOL lets you have 7 different screen names at one time(at least the new version)... but it is incredibly easy to delete one.... and create a new one. So you pretty much have unlimited access to how many different names you can come under.
>
> That's what I was afraid of. :-(
>
> Bob
Posted by stjames on May 20, 2001, at 19:13:22
In reply to Re: Blocking a whole group of IP's, posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2001, at 17:09:13
> > How many people sign up a day; or is it a reasonable number that during times of seige you could hand approve this till it blows over ?
>
> I'd hate to slow down the process for innocent people. Plus how would I decide who not to approve? There were 11 new registrations yesterday.
>
> Bobjames here....
Keep in mind i am only sugesting this as a short term fix, till whoever gets tired. You would pass all IP's of non-suspect users and hold the suspect
for your approval. Perl could extract this so non-suspect IP's would have no delay and get approved
at once. Keep in mind also that major ISP's have several class C network blocks for dial up users, we have 10 Class C's for this, so give me an IP and I can tell you all the network addresses owned by the org and which are for users.I don't do Perl yet but Racer does, you could contact her if you need help with scripting to do this.
James
Posted by stjames on May 20, 2001, at 19:23:58
In reply to Re: not allowing hotmail, yahoo, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2001, at 17:10:14
> > AOL lets you have 7 different screen names at one time(at least the new version)... but it is incredibly easy to delete one.... and create a new one. So you pretty much have unlimited access to how many different names you can come under.
>
> That's what I was afraid of. :-(
>
> BobJames here....
To me this idea is not pracitle. Many, many users never use the addy they get from their ISP, and use something like a yahoo.com address so it never changes. Many of these have no clue on how to use their ISP e-mail account.
OTOH, you could require registration from a primary e0mail address and hand approve people who
really can't figure out how to do this and the few who really don't have a non yahoo type e-mail address.The AOL "screen names" all point to the primary address, not a very effective way to hide.
james
Posted by kiddo on May 20, 2001, at 21:59:17
In reply to Re: not allowing hotmail, yahoo, etc., posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2001, at 10:00:50
> > What about requiring people to use their ISP's email address to register?
>
> Hmm, interesting idea. If people with hotmail addresses, for example, also have addresses through their ISPs, then I could just disallow the former...
>
> > I wouldn't like giving out my real name and email address, but if it wasn't public it may not be so bad.
>
> It wouldn't be public unless you chose to post it. But still it might deter others, I think that would be the main issue.
>
> > Not fool proof, but even aol only gives out a certain number of alternate addresses, so there would be an end eventually.
>
> AOL only lets you have a certain cumulative total number of aliases, or only a certain number at any given time? And isn't it easy just to open a new AOL account if you want?
>
> BobYes, you are allowed to create up to 7 now. If they opened a new aol account, or whatever, they'd have to close the other one first, switch all of the email etc., and may or may not have to get approval of their ISP. A lot of hassle to post to the board again. Either that or pay for an additional.
Posted by kiddo on May 20, 2001, at 22:14:32
In reply to Re: not allowing hotmail, yahoo, etc., posted by stjames on May 20, 2001, at 19:23:58
> > > AOL lets you have 7 different screen names at one time(at least the new version)... but it is incredibly easy to delete one.... and create a new one. So you pretty much have unlimited access to how many different names you can come under.
> >
> > That's what I was afraid of. :-(
> >
> > Bob
>
> James here....
>
> To me this idea is not pracitle. Many, many users never use the addy they get from their ISP, and use something like a yahoo.com address so it never changes. Many of these have no clue on how to use their ISP e-mail account.
>If they provided the ISP email and secondary address. They would only need to check their ISP email address to validate. They really wouldn't have to start using the ISP address again, only once to verify.
With AOL it's about as easy as it can get., "you've got mail" blasting at you. If AOL users are the primary 'problem' it may not be as effective. But with other primary ISP's it may be more of a solution.
Just trying to help....
:-)
> OTOH, you could require registration from a primary e0mail address and hand approve people who
> really can't figure out how to do this and the few who really don't have a non yahoo type e-mail address.
>
> The AOL "screen names" all point to the primary address, not a very effective way to hide.
>
> james
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2001, at 18:43:07
In reply to Re: Blocking a whole group of IP's, posted by stjames on May 20, 2001, at 19:13:22
> You would pass all IP's of non-suspect users and hold the suspect for your approval.
OK, but which IP addresses would be suspect? And of those, which would I approve?
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.