![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 26. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 16:06:08
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 15:37:53
> Let's try, as an experiment, using Psycho-Babble Open "polls" for additional feedback on PBC and block decisions. Unfortunately, you need to be a member of PBO to vote, but it's a way to do this anonymously...
It's hard to include much information there, so let me just add this here:
The results of these polls are *not* guaranteed to result in any changes. When I ask a poster to please be civil or block them, I usually include a reason. If you agree with what I did, fine, but if you don't, please try to distinguish between disagreeing with my general rationale, my applying it to the particular post, and my applying it to the particular poster.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by oracle on September 15, 2002, at 18:40:41
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 15:37:53
> Hi, everyone,
>
> Let's try, as an experiment, using Psycho-What is the point ? You have never changed your mind on these issues so asking for more input
is, well, RUDE.We cannot be made happy for pretty beads and trinkets, Dr Bob.
Also, i think you have gotten ENOUGH input, and done nothing.
Until this changes, to me, all I see is more of the same. I find that rude and insensitive.
Posted by Pogo on September 15, 2002, at 20:14:36
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 15:37:53
I'm in total agreement with Dr. Bob.
I think his efforts are very commendable.Pogo.
Posted by mair on September 15, 2002, at 21:20:39
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 15:37:53
Bob
I went to the poll and was chagrined to discover that none of the choices really fit my desired response to your blocking of beardy. Choices 2 and 3 gave me the option of saying either that I disagreed with your general statement of the rule supposedly violated or that I agreed with the rule but thought it had been misapplied in this instance. This is all well and good except that each choice also contained the clause "and think you should have been more lenient." Maybe my knowledge of vocabulary is just too limited, but I generally think of leniency as being akin to mercy as with the judge who showed "leniency in sentencing." The concept of leniency doesn't break into my thinking about this unless there's been some breach of rules or etiquette. None of your alternatives allowed me to voice my conclusion that there simply was no such breach.
What I saw was that beardy wrote a rather opinionated post (as she frequently does). Judging from the tone of her response, it's obvious that Mash (sorry for the way I've shortened this) took beardy's remarks personally. Beardy's rejoinder, for which she was blocked, read to me like very much of an apology - something on the order of "my remarks were really intended as a criticism of Bob not you and I'm very sorry that you took it this way." The specific statement cited by you as a put-down was a statement that I thought said nothing about any other poster and rather only expressed an opinion of your PBC. Surely this statement probably was a put-down of you and your moderating decisions, but it seems that you've always allowed considerable leeway when criticisms have been directed your way and not to other posters.
This is an unfortunate example of 2 problems which seem to arise with some of your moderating decisions. 1) statements are frequently read out of the context in which they're made, and 2) sanctions sometimes come to quickly. That this blocking should arise out of statements made in the course of a seemingly sincere apology is particularly puzzling. Presumably if beardy had kept her mouth shut and had not attempted to apologize to someone who was obviously upset with her, she would have been fine.
This whole thread and poll sends some strange messages. Don't apologize. Don't reach out to someone you've hurt because anything you say can be construed (by a third party) as being worse than whatever rankled the first time. (Talk about the risks of posting) Then there's the poll, who's message seems to be that even if I thought beardy did nothing no warrant your intervention, I still thought you should be lenient towards her. In my opinion, Beardy doesn't really need your leniency as much as she needs you to more carefully read before you react.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 22:19:09
In reply to Re: Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by oracle on September 15, 2002, at 18:40:41
> What is the point ? You have never changed your mind on these issues so asking for more input
> is, well, RUDE.You don't have to agree, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by wendy b. on September 15, 2002, at 22:53:02
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 15:37:53
Reasons:
1.) The suggested options that Bob provides are, as Mair has so eloquently put it in the post just above, not sufficient. As we all know, research design affects the outcome of one's research. Bob! Didn't they teach you that in med school?
2.) In his rationalist-uber-alles way of thinking, Bob assumes that if he gives us a poll in which we can register "Yes,' 'No,' 'Maybe,' 'Well, uhhh, gee...,' that we will now be appeased and that we'll think 'Oh, thank goodness, we're finally able to register our (dis)satisfaction, Bob's really a good guy after all!' And then all the problems he's been experiencing will be over, and those troublesome posters will go crawl back under their rocks.
3.) Too little too late... These polls should be viewed as appeasement after the fact; they do nothing to make true amends to people whose feelings have been hurt. Nor do they make up for the months and months of negativity he has engendered due to his silencing of certain individuals through arbitrary PBCs and blocking. Just sweeping things under the carpet before the guests arrive doesn't make the house clean...
Sorry, Bob, but it's not enough,
Wendy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 23:24:38
In reply to the answer choices are limited » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on September 15, 2002, at 21:20:39
> I went to the poll and was chagrined to discover that none of the choices really fit my desired response to your blocking of beardy. Choices 2 and 3 gave me the option of saying either that I disagreed with your general statement of the rule supposedly violated or that I agreed with the rule but thought it had been misapplied in this instance. This is all well and good except that each choice also contained the clause "and think you should have been more lenient." Maybe my knowledge of vocabulary is just too limited, but I generally think of leniency as being akin to mercy as with the judge who showed "leniency in sentencing." The concept of leniency doesn't break into my thinking about this unless there's been some breach of rules or etiquette. None of your alternatives allowed me to voice my conclusion that there simply was no such breach.
Sorry, maybe those aren't the best choices, or worded the best way. I see what you mean, but by "should have been more lenient", I meant "over-reacted". How about if I just change it to that in the future?
> What I saw was that beardy wrote a rather opinionated post (as she frequently does). Judging from the tone of her response, it's obvious that Mash (sorry for the way I've shortened this) took beardy's remarks personally. Beardy's rejoinder, for which she was blocked, read to me like very much of an apology - something on the order of "my remarks were really intended as a criticism of Bob not you and I'm very sorry that you took it this way." The specific statement cited by you as a put-down was a statement that I thought said nothing about any other poster and rather only expressed an opinion of your PBC. Surely this statement probably was a put-down of you and your moderating decisions...
Here's how I imagined the options would apply in this case. Again, sorry if I put it in a confusing way. My post was:
> > The PBC is what is ignorant.
>
> Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down. Last time I blocked you from posting for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.So my rationale was that that statement of hers could lead others to feel put down. So the poll options are:
1. You agree that (a) in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil, (b) that statement was an example of that, and (c) being blocked for 2 weeks was reasonable.
2. You disagree that in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil, so you think I over-reacted.
3. You agree that in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil, but you don't think her statement was an example of that, so you think I over-reacted.
4. You agree that in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil and that that statement was an example of that, but given that it was beardy, you think I over-reacted.
5. You think I under-reacted.
I hope that's more clear. People who have already voted can change their minds if this makes a difference (or for any other reason)...
> but it seems that you've always allowed considerable leeway when criticisms have been directed your way and not to other posters.
I did at first, but changed my mind a while ago. Because I think uncivil posts are like broken windows, letting some go, even if they're my windows, leads to more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/windows.htm
> This is an unfortunate example of 2 problems which seem to arise with some of your moderating decisions. 1) statements are frequently read out of the context in which they're made, and 2) sanctions sometimes come to quickly.
Hmm, "context" isn't an option in the polls, I'll add it. How about:
I agree with the general principle and that it applies to this post, but given the context, I think you significantly over-reacted.
Which in this case would mean something like:
6. You agree that in general, posting something that could lead others to feel put down is uncivil and that that statement was an example of that, but given the context (for example, that she was apologizing), you think I significantly over-reacted.
(To the one person who voted in an initial version of the next poll while I've been typing this, sorry, can you vote again? :-)
> That this blocking should arise out of statements made in the course of a seemingly sincere apology is particularly puzzling. Presumably if beardy had kept her mouth shut and had not attempted to apologize to someone who was obviously upset with her, she would have been fine.
Yes, if she hadn't posted anything, she would've been fine. But she also would've been fine if she'd just left out that one sentence...
Bob
Posted by ShelliR on September 16, 2002, at 0:28:01
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 15:37:53
Hi Dr. Bob.
I'm totally in agreement with Wendy to boycott this poll on PB-open. Both Mair and Wendy have listed so many excellent reasons why this poll would be biased as well as insignificant, that I see it as a total waste of time and energy. It also opens up the possibity that it will be interpreted by you in the same defensive way, you clung to the nonsensical excuses you created for actions you have taken in blocking posters for totally innocent comments.
Dr. Bob, it is absolutely obvious from the postings of the last few months that by far the majority of posters think that, in addition to intervening much too early and too often, that you've made some very serious mistakes. In at least two incidences, the one where a posting title didn't get changed in Sondra Dee's post and the other involving a simple joke (pun), you got no support from the participants on this board. (Yes, none). For those who have been actually reading the responses, it has also pretty much become apparent which posters find your presence in the type of role you have now taken on as very comforting. In the same way, the posters who find your warnings and censors at best annoying, at worst inexcusable by any of your rationalizations, can also pretty easily be listed by those who read the threads.
So there is no reason to fill in a poll. We know after months of discussion how most people feel and we basically know who they are. We also know that no matter what comes up as a result of your survey will probably not affect any changes (as you, yourself acknowledged). So what's in it for us? I'd say just further distraction from the truth, as well as deeper frustrations
For some reason, it appears to me (and others) that at this time, civility and support have not only become significantly more important than previously, but now almost compulsively so, to the exclusion of anything else. Why don't you just write up the stats based on a journey through the archives. How many people were blocked last summer? How many this summer? How many complaints against over and incorrect blocking were expressed in the first nine months of 2001, compared to 2002. You don't need to fill out a survey to answer this questions.I think you need to do some very serious thinking about the continued direction of the board in relationship to these issues, rather than focusing on a rather meaningless, distracting poll.
No thanks to answering the poll.
I would gratefully welcome you back to reality, should you decide to return.Shelli
Posted by shar on September 16, 2002, at 1:31:41
In reply to Re: Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions » Dr. Bob, posted by ShelliR on September 16, 2002, at 0:28:01
I like this idea. I believe that it MAY result in more representative input due to anonymity. I think there are lots of posters/readers with opinions who say nothing because they don't want to be attacked, or because they just don't want to stand out.
When one looks at admin, it is easy to see that the posts here are made by a subset of all posters, and lurkers. If I was less depressed and had more energy, it would be easy enough to calculate the percentage of all posters who are active on admin, and I think it would turn out to be a pretty small percentage. If an anonymous poll obtained a more representative sample of posters and lurkers, that would be good, imo.
The one thing I'm less comfortable with is the idea of decisions being changed on the basis of poll results. There is the obvious stuffing the ballot box issue. Also, there is the fact that whoever sets up the system, and enforces the guidelines, has a reason for the block. If popular opinion is to prevail, probably most blocks would have to be undone. And I don't think that is good.
Maybe it's because I'm a military brat and had a VERY military family. I think that, by and large, decisions should stand. It is fine for people to register their displeasure, which I have done more than once, but, I believe it is important not to set up a system that suggests complaining ENOUGH will change a decision. Or shouting louder, or whatever. (Maybe my position comes from being a parent and having to stand firm in the face of adversity...kids...)
Input can be considered, and if it is possible to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it turns out that Bob thinks it's true that he overreacted, he can change his decision. But, that should be a rarity, because some published standard exists and is being enforced when the block is issued (although there is a question of vagueness in the standards).
As I said before, I have disagreed with Bob's decisions to block at times, and said so. But, I would prefer a strong stance to stay with an unpopular decision if it was the right one in Bob's mind, rather than having decisions issued, and then vacated because a number of people complained.
I've never really thought of admin as a place to get Bob to change his decisions. He definitely has the option and can do so, but I don't expect that. To me, he makes a decision and I live with it, and I can state my feelings about it for the record. I've never thought that stating what I think should change the decision; it is not part of an appeals procedure where he 'pencils in' the block, awaiting the crowd's reaction.
Of course, there's nothing to say there couldn't be an appeals procedure...but it's not here now.
Shar
Posted by oracle on September 16, 2002, at 2:05:58
In reply to Re: please be civil » oracle, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 22:19:09
> > What is the point ? You have never changed your mind on these issues so asking for more input
> > is, well, RUDE.
>
> You don't have to agree, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
>
> Bob
Sorry I really should of made that an "I statement".Dr. Bob. I can only judge you from past actions, and you have been very consistant. For me, asking for more input while in the past not changing do to input does not, to me, indicate that input will
do any good. Sone indication that this poll could have a different effect would help.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 16, 2002, at 10:21:11
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by oracle on September 16, 2002, at 2:05:58
Posted by OddipusRex on September 16, 2002, at 13:59:49
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 15:37:53
Here's another option
http://pub84.ezboard.com/bpsychobabble41556Also anonymous but no registration required. Written comments possible. Please add your own polling questions :) Totally unscientific of course.
Posted by IsoM on September 16, 2002, at 14:43:46
In reply to Another polling option!!, posted by OddipusRex on September 16, 2002, at 13:59:49
You need to make multiple choices an option. Failing that, you could make "all of the above" or something similar.
Posted by IsoM on September 16, 2002, at 14:44:58
In reply to Another polling option!!, posted by OddipusRex on September 16, 2002, at 13:59:49
Comments aren't possible without registering & I don't wish to.
Posted by Tabitha Šëëš Ýôú on September 16, 2002, at 15:01:08
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by shar on September 16, 2002, at 1:31:41
That's pretty much my attitude, though I don't think I could have put it in words so well as Shar did. I thought the point was to voice our objections here, allow Bob to offer some further explanation of his decision, but we still have to live with his decisions.
I know there's some kind of principle from corporate culture that it's harmful to the group to keep advocating for a different outcome after a decision has been made. I agree with that principle, though I know it's hard to do, and I'm not sure I do it so well myself. At some point, for the sake of the group's functioning, you just have to find a way to live with the outcome.
I generally find Bob's explanations here to be understandable and helpful, even when I know I wouldn't have taken the same action myself. I also don't see him as totally deaf to our input like many do. We're all different.
Posted by OddipusRex on September 16, 2002, at 16:22:23
In reply to Re: Another polling option - a bit more... » OddipusRex, posted by IsoM on September 16, 2002, at 14:44:58
> Comments aren't possible without registering & I don't wish to.
Iso-you can post without registering-just type in whatever you want for a name and leave the password blank. It worked for me.
The choices are imperfect. That's for sure. Choosing more than one answer isn't possible. I mainly thought of it as springboard for discussion. If you want to make your own poll questions just hit Add poll and give it a try. I just thought it would be fun.
Thanks for going and taking a look at it.
Posted by Dinah on September 17, 2002, at 0:00:59
In reply to Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 15:37:53
Hmmm. I went to Open, and had to admit to being overwhelmed with a string of polls. My first suggestion would be to put a description in the title of the message. The message names are all the same and it's confusing.
Can I ask what the purpose of the polls would be to you? Is it to remove the space taken on the admin board? I don't think it will work for that. When people feel strongly about an issue, I doubt that checking a box will satisfy their desire to put their feelings in their own words.
Are you thinking that your response to poll results would be different if the respondents were anonymous?
Are you looking for specific information as to the reason for people's objections?
Do you think that there are a number of posters who feel one way or the other but are shy about posting their opinions under their posting names? And would it make a difference to you in your decision making process? Do you have your own ideas whether those who don't comment more often approve or disapprove? Would learning you were mistaken make a difference?
Are you taking into account the small number of posters and lurkers on Babble who are signed up under Yahoo for Open? Do you anticipate that greater numbers will sign up? I've got to tell you that Kiddo did a marvelous job on the Book Club polls on Yahoo, only to find that a good number of people did not want to deal with Yahoo.
May I propose that before you spend a lot of time setting up polls for each PBC or block that you first do a poll on the feasibility of this project? Something like:
1) Are you unwilling to post your opinion of admin actions on the Admin board because of the lack of anonymity. And would you be willing to register at Yahoo if necessary and answer polls on Open on a regular basis.
2) Are you unwilling to post your opinion of admin actions on the Admin board because of the lack of anonymity. And would you be willing to register at Yahoo if necessary and answer polls on Open for those admin actions you feel strongly about.
3) Do you have no problem posting your opinions of admin actions on the Admin board under your posting name, but would also be willing to register at Yahoo if necessary and answer polls on Open on a regular basis.
4) Do you have no problem posting your opinions of admin actions on the Admin board under your posting name, but would also be willing to register at Yahoo if necessary and answer polls on Open for those admin actions you feel strongly about.
5) Do you have no problem posting your opinions of admin actions on the Admin board under your posting name, but would be willing instead to register at Yahoo if necessary and answer polls on Open on a regular basis.
6) Do you have no problem posting your opinions of admin actions on the Admin board under your posting name, but would be willing instead to register at Yahoo if necessary and answer polls on Open for those admin actions you feel strongly about.
7) Do you not wish to participate in these polls because of having to register with Yahoo.
8) Do you not wish to participate in these polls because of principle.
9) Do you not wish to participate in these polls for other reasons.Obviously, this poll would have to be conducted on admin as well as Yahoo, since it involves willingness to register at Yahoo.
Am I missing any reasons why this poll idea is a useful one? I honestly didn't bother to answer the poll questions and don't think I will without further clarification on why they are preferable to free-style comments on Admin.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 17, 2002, at 15:02:35
In reply to Re: Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 17, 2002, at 0:00:59
> Hmmm. I went to Open, and had to admit to being overwhelmed with a string of polls. My first suggestion would be to put a description in the title of the message. The message names are all the same and it's confusing.
They're not all *exactly* the same! :-)
> Can I ask what the purpose of the polls would be to you?
(1) To give posters an anonymous way to express their opinions. (2) To give me a way to get more (and perhaps different) feedback.
> Are you thinking that your response to poll results would be different if the respondents were anonymous?
My response to the results, or the results themselves? I guess either's possible...
> Are you looking for specific information as to the reason for people's objections?
Yes, that's the idea of the different options.
> Do you think that there are a number of posters who feel one way or the other but are shy about posting their opinions under their posting names? ... Would learning you were mistaken make a difference?
Yes, I think there might be. And being wrong is always a good learning opportunity. :-)
> Are you taking into account the small number of posters and lurkers on Babble who are signed up under Yahoo for Open? Do you anticipate that greater numbers will sign up?
Yes, I'm keeping that (and other limitations) in mind. I wasn't anticipating that, but it's possible.
> May I propose that before you spend a lot of time setting up polls for each PBC or block that you first do a poll on the feasibility of this project? Something like...
> Obviously, this poll would have to be conducted on admin as well as Yahoo, since it involves willingness to register at Yahoo.But responding here wouldn't be anonymous, wouldn't that be an issue?
> I honestly didn't bother to answer the poll questions and don't think I will without further clarification on why they are preferable to free-style comments on Admin.
I wouldn't say either way is preferable to the other, and no one is obligated, of course, to do either.
Bob
Posted by jane d on September 19, 2002, at 9:45:32
In reply to Re: Anonymous feedback on PBC and block decisions » Dr. Bob, posted by ShelliR on September 16, 2002, at 0:28:01
> Dr. Bob, it is absolutely obvious from the postings of the last few months that by far the majority of posters think that, in addition to intervening much too early and too often, that you've made some very serious mistakes. In at least two incidences, the one where a posting title didn't get changed in Sondra Dee's post and the other involving a simple joke (pun), you got no support from the participants on this board. (Yes, none).
Shelli,
For starters: Please know that I am not singling out your post for this reply, you have merely said concisely the same things that have bothered me in many other posts on this subject. *Have you missed the possibility that people who don't agree with you may not feel as free to speak up in these threads? I'm one of those people. Overall I have agreed with most of the blocks. For one thing I don't think that deliberately insulting other posters is appropriate. I'm not a fan of tough love and I don't think conflict makes this board or the people who post here any better. But that means I have a real problem jumping in on any of these threads complaining about blocks and saying "oh yeah - I thought so and so deserved it for that one." In any individual case I think that just makes people mad all over again. I realize this post may do the same thing but I can no longer stand the idea that in every future thread someone is going to say "nobody disagreed therefore everyone supports us". It's not true.
I said I agreed with most blocks. There are a few I thought were mistakes. There were more that I would have called a little differently if it were my call. Not better, just differently. I just don't feel that it is in the interests of the board to quibble over every one.
I do agree with the posters who say things are getting stricter but I place the blame for that a little differently. I think it started with the first person who said somthing like "I don't care if I'm blocked I have to tell you that you are a moron" in a dispute. It was exacerbated by every request to Bob to clarify just how mean you could be before you were reprimanded made by people who didn't want to miss out on one cutting comment that they could make. That's why there is less tolerance for honest mistakes in my opinion and I find it outrageous that the actions of intentionally cruel posters are being blurred together with true mistakes.
- Jane
*The starting disclaimer should not be interpreted as evidence that I am intimidated by the rules on civility or the possibility of conflict. I just prefer to avoid conflict based just on misunderstanding.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2002, at 19:11:05
In reply to Re: block decisions - a different view, posted by jane d on September 19, 2002, at 9:45:32
> people who didn't want to miss out on one cutting comment that they could make.
> intentionally cruel posters
Thank you for your point of view, but could you please rephrase the above characterizations? You know, so people don't end up feeling accused or put down? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by jane d on September 19, 2002, at 21:00:10
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » jane d, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2002, at 19:11:05
> > people who didn't want to miss out on one cutting comment that they could make.
>
> > intentionally cruel posters
>
> Thank you for your point of view, but could you please rephrase the above characterizations? You know, so people don't end up feeling accused or put down? Thanks,
>
> BobNo problem. I should not have speculated about anyone's intentions so I'll retract both statements.
I do think that the board would be better off if we all tried to stay completely out of the grey zone where civil becomes not. That way any accidents shouldn't leave anyone hurt.
Rereading my post I also don't like my use of the word you. It wasn't meant to apply to anyone in particular but since I used Shelli's name in the post it sounds like it could mean her. It doesn't.
I think, also, I have demonstrated my point about how hard it is to post this particular opinion without giving offense. At least it is for me since words don't come easily. I'm still not sure I've made myself clear but I since I think the 'please rephrase' request is intended to defuse a possible blow up I think I'd better get this amended version out there as soon as possible.
Jane
Posted by Zo on September 21, 2002, at 4:09:01
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » jane d, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2002, at 19:11:05
Posted by Zo on October 30, 2002, at 17:11:32
In reply to Re: block decisions - a different view, posted by jane d on September 19, 2002, at 9:45:32
I wonder if you've thought about the necessity of "blocking" at all. For flamers, trespassers, internet loonies, yes. But blocks? And of increasing lengths?
Where else do you see this kind of archaic and ineffective model of error and punishment employed?
Most importantly, what do you think it teaches? Promotes?
Interesting subject.Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 3, 2002, at 14:29:37
In reply to Re: More information, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2002, at 16:06:08
> When I ask a poster to please be civil or block them, I usually include a reason. If you agree with what I did, fine, but if you don't, please try to distinguish between disagreeing with my general rationale, my applying it to the particular post, and my applying it to the particular poster.
OK, I tabulated the results of those polls. There were 15 over the course of 1 week (9/15 through 9/21). Each was open for voting for 1 week. 7 were after I asked someone to please be civil (or supportive), 8 after I blocked someone. Here are the totals (incorporating a midstream wording change):
I think your reaction was more or less reasonable: 42 votes
I disagree with the general principle and think you significantly over-reacted: 29 votes
I agree with the general principle, but I disagree that it applies to this post and think you significantly over-reacted: 16 votes
I agree with the general principle and that it applies to this post, but given the context, I think you significantly over-reacted: 1 vote
I agree with the general principle and that it applies to this post, but given the particular poster, I think you significantly over-reacted: 5 votes
I think you significantly under-reacted: 9 votes
Total = 102 votes, an average of 6.8 per poll.
That isn't very many. Plus there were a number of limitations to this methodology, some of which have already been raised: people may have boycotted the polls, or been unwilling or unable to register at Yahoo, or voted multiple times, or been overwhelmed by the number of polls, or not appreciated the differences between the options, etc. Nevertheless...
We obviously don't all agree on them, but I feel strongly about the general principles. I'd rather people not feel accused or put down here, for example, and I don't think I'm going to change my mind. So, putting aside those 29 votes, the subtotals are:
I think your reaction was more or less reasonable: 42 votes = 58%
I think you significantly over-reacted: 22 votes = 30%
I think you significantly under-reacted: 9 votes = 12%30% > 12%, but that doesn't seem too bad...
Did it make a difference whether I asked someone to please be civil or blocked them? The vote subsubtotals, in that order, are:
I think your reaction was more or less reasonable: 17, 25
I think you significantly over-reacted: 9, 13
I think you significantly under-reacted: 4, 5Those results are pretty similar. If I did it right, the chi-square is .049 with 2 degrees of freedom and p = .98.
Did the particular general principle make a difference? I invoked 4 different ones that week: don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, don't use language that could offend others, be supportive, and don't post when blocked. The vote subsubtotals (which don't add up exactly to the subtotals because in one case two general principles were involved, so I counted those votes twice), in the above order, are:
I think your reaction was more or less reasonable: 27, 7, 6, 4
I think you significantly over-reacted: 16, 3, 3, 2
I think you significantly under-reacted: 5, 1, 1, 2Those results are also pretty similar. If I did it right, the chi-square is 1.8 with 6 degrees of freedom and p = .94.
Bob
Posted by BeardedLady on November 3, 2002, at 16:58:15
In reply to Re: poll results, posted by Dr. Bob on November 3, 2002, at 14:29:37
First of all, when folks disagree with you, they disagree, whether it's that you overreacted, that the rule doesn't apply to this poster, or that the context was wrong. This means it's not 42 votes to 29 votes to 16 to one to five to nine.
It's 29 + 16 + 1 + 5 = 51 and 42 + 9 = 51.
This means the board is split 50/50 as to whether we agree with your decisions. I don't think this is, in any way, a runaway in your favor.
I saw there was more in your post, but I'm suffering from a lack of concentration today. Sorry!
beardy
> I think your reaction was more or less reasonable: 42 votes
>
> I disagree with the general principle and think you significantly over-reacted: 29 votes
>
> I agree with the general principle, but I disagree that it applies to this post and think you significantly over-reacted: 16 votes
>
> I agree with the general principle and that it applies to this post, but given the context, I think you significantly over-reacted: 1 vote
>
> I agree with the general principle and that it applies to this post, but given the particular poster, I think you significantly over-reacted: 5 votes
>
> I think you significantly under-reacted: 9 votes
This is the end of the 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.