![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 43. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2001, at 18:51:58
In reply to Re: rtn visits, posted by CrystalX on May 18, 2001, at 23:05:03
Hi, everyone,
Thanks to our loyal opposition, I can now provide you with a link to one of the original "broken windows" articles:
Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety
by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/windows.htm> Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in rundown ones... one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing. (It has always been fun.)
> An officer on foot cannot separate himself from the street people; if he is approached, only his uniform and his personality can help him manage whatever is about to happen. And he can never be certain what that will be -- a request for directions, a plea for help, an angry denunciation, a teasing remark, *a confused babble*, a threatening gesture.
> Until quite recently in many states, and even today in some places, the police made arrests on such charges as "suspicious person" or "vagrancy" or "public drunkenness" -- charges with scarcely any legal meaning. These charges exist not because society wants judges to punish vagrants or drunks but because it wants an officer to have the legal tools to remove undesirable persons from a neighborhood when informal efforts to preserve order in the streets have failed.
> A strong and commendable desire to see that people are treated fairly makes us worry about allowing the police to rout persons who are undesirable by some vague or parochial standard. A growing and not-so-commendable utilitarianism leads us to doubt that any behavior that does not "hurt" another person should be made illegal. And thus many of us who watch over the police are reluctant to allow them to perform, in the only way they can, a function that every neighborhood desperately wants them to perform.
>
> This wish to "decriminalize" disreputable behavior that "harms no one" -- and thus remove the ultimate sanction the police can employ to maintain neighborhood order -- is, we think, a mistake. Arresting a single drunk or a single vagrant who has harmed no identifiable person seems unjust, and in a sense it is. But failing to do anything about a score of drunks or a hundred vagrants may destroy an entire community. A particular rule that seems to make sense in the individual case makes no sense when it is made a universal rule and applied to all cases. It makes no sense because it fails to take into account the connection between one broken window left untended and a thousand broken windows.> The people expect the police to "do something" about this, and the police are determined to do just that.
>
> But do what? Though the police can obviously make arrests whenever a gang member breaks the law, a gang can form, recruit, and congregate without breaking the law. And only a tiny fraction of gang-related crimes can be solved by an arrest; thus, if an arrest is the only recourse for the police, the residents' fears will go unassuaged. The police will soon feel helpless, and the residents will again believe that the police "do nothing." What the police in fact do is to chase known gang members out of the project. In the words of one officer, "We kick ass." Project residents both know and approve of this.> None of this is easily reconciled with any conception of due process or fair treatment.
> We have difficulty thinking about such matters, not simply because the ethical and legal issues are so complex but because we have become accustomed to thinking of the law in essentially individualistic terms. The law defines my rights, punishes his behavior and is applied by that officer because of this harm. We assume, in thinking this way, that what is good for the individual will be good for the community and what doesn't matter when it happens to one person won't matter if it happens to many. Ordinarily, those are plausible assumptions. But in cases where behavior that is tolerable to one person is intolerable to many others, the reactions of the others -- fear, withdrawal, flight -- may ultimately make matters worse for everyone, including the individual who first professed his indifference.
> the most important requirement is to think that to maintain order in precarious situations is a vital job.
> Above all, we must return to our long-abandoned view that the police ought to protect communities as well as individuals. Our crime statistics and victimization surveys measure individual losses, but they do not measure communal losses. Just as physicians now recognize the importance of fostering health rather than simply treating illness, so the police -- and the rest of us -- ought to recognize the importance of maintaining, intact, communities without broken windows.
And also one to one advocating alternative sentences and community involvement:
Shattering "Broken Windows": An Analysis of San Francisco's Alternative Crime Policies
by Khaled Taqi-Eddin and Dan Macallair
http://www.cjcj.org/jpi/windows.html> While there is no evidence supporting the claims that the number of officers and arrests per capita affects the crime rate, public perception seems to accept this premise. San Francisco on the other hand utilized an alternative approach to crime that stresses alternative sentences and community involvement. Conservative critics like Guiliani have labeled this approach as "soft on crime" and continuously claim that they do not work.
>
> Despite popular assumptions, San Francisco experienced a larger decline in reported crime than most comparable national cities while enforcing these alternative policies.That's an interesting issue. What "alternative sentences and community involvement" might make sense here?
Officer Bob, on the beat and ready to kick ass :-)
Posted by JahL on May 21, 2001, at 21:09:25
In reply to Re: broken windows, posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2001, at 18:51:58
Seems to me both methods have merit. One (Broken Windows) works by excluding & thus alienating 'undesirables', the other by 'rehabilitation' & inclusion.
The aims of the San Fran. project are admirable but the salient point here is that the 'Broken Windows' policy engendered a sense of safety & security within the community; residents perceived civility & orderliness to have improved.
In order for a board like this to flourish participants need to feel safe. It's a case of putting the interests of the community before the rights of the individual.
In other words, Doc B, yr 'policy' is appropriate in this instance.
> That's an interesting issue. What "alternative sentences and community involvement" might make sense here?
Do you really think that the likes of 'Satan' shld be 'involved' in any community, in any capacity? :-)
I can think of a few 'alternative sentences' tho'....
> Officer Bob, on the beat and ready to kick ass :-)
The rpt did point out that when things got nasty, 'Officers' were more prone to attack. The above posts wld seem to bear this out. You ready for the jungle out there?:-0
J.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 27, 2001, at 13:40:17
In reply to Re: broken windows, posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2001, at 18:51:58
> What "alternative sentences and community involvement" might make sense here?
No suggestions? :-(
Well, here's an idea that was emailed to me. It's more a lighter sentence than an alternative one, but what if someone who otherwise would have their posts blocked instead just had them moderated? IOW, they could still submit posts, but those posts would need to be approved before actually being posted.
In theory, this might help us keep those members (under those names) while still maintaining a civil atmosphere.
The posting mechanism would need to be revised, so it would take some time. Also, I think doing the moderating would be too much for me. What if other Babblers did it?
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.