![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by Elle2021 on January 11, 2004, at 21:13:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Elle2021, posted by fayeroe on January 11, 2004, at 13:43:23
> I still support self-blocking. It worked for five of us and we support each other very well through e.mail.
I'm glad that works for you guys.
Elle
Posted by Elle2021 on January 11, 2004, at 21:23:08
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on January 11, 2004, at 5:25:18
I like "Dr. Bob handed out punishments." I don't think I would take well to getting ones from my fellow Babblers... I'm not sure anyone else would either.
Elle
Posted by shar on January 11, 2004, at 21:49:22
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? » Dr. Bob, posted by Elle2021 on January 11, 2004, at 21:23:08
Hmmm, how about a poll over at PB Open (the yahoo group). Then any member who wanted to could express their opinion, and the final decision would be up to Bob. Or, as in an election, the final decision could be left up to the people who expressed their opinion.
Options could be to unblock, or reduce the number of weeks blocked, or other things I can't think of.
And, for a cap, I think 3 months is plenty; however, there are folks who might return after 3 months and create havoc, and then what? Maybe another poll: should this person's block be INCREASED?
I'm tired and not thinking too clearly, but that's the gist of what I was thinking.
Shar
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 21:54:19
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board?, posted by shar on January 11, 2004, at 21:49:22
There are those for whom three months would not seem nearly sufficient for the pain they caused and the havoc wrought, IMHO. Again, I don't wish to name names, but I'm sure you can think of a few.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:08:16
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? » shar, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 21:54:19
Yeah, but history has a way of reapeating itself, does it not?
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:23:47
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? » Dinah, posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:08:16
Since history has a way of repeating itself, it would be wise to chose who you associate with (or not) based on former encounters. The way the board is set up it is easy not to get involved, if you chose not to.
I think a 3 month cap on bans would be nice. I believe there are very few posters who deliberately post under false pretenses. This is a mental health message board and most of the posters here do have mental health issues. But, if one thinks there may be a poster of such nature, one can chose to have no interaction with such poster. It would be fair to everyone else who tries to follow civility guidelines most of the time to limit the amount of time they are booted.
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 22:38:07
In reply to Allow me to elaborate, posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:23:47
Unfortunately, history does have a habit of repeating itself. It wasn't all that long ago that some people were calling for lifetime blocks for certain offenses. And some people do unfortunately break the rules, come back under other names, and rack up quite a lot of time blocked because they break the rules again. That isn't in the archives because the posts of blocked posters get deleted.
I can't really describe the behaviors on the board for fear of being uncivil. However, if you like you can email me and I'll let you know of a few examples. My email is in the FAQ.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 22:51:58
In reply to Re: Allow me to elaborate » Karen_kay, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 22:38:07
I may take you up on that offer. But I believe I know exactly what you are talking about. I've been through the old posts and viewed them. And I too wouldn't disagree with a decision of a lifetime block for certain posters who break rules regarding privacy violations, ect. But, in fairness to those who do try their best to stay with the civility guidelines it would be nice to have a 3 month limit to blocks. Certian "heinous offenses" should be punished to the maximum law guidelines. Are there any such guidelines set in place? And how is it that they can be circumvented? Maybe this particular discussion should take place elsewhere, as I am not certain as to what I am allowed to say and what I am not.
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 23:00:52
In reply to Re: Allow me to elaborate » Karen_kay, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 22:38:07
I just as well clarify on board at the risk of getting a pbc, or everyone will be imagining i'm talking about them. For some reason people read things into my posts that I don't intend.
I'm still upset about the poster who I don't even know who it was but kept coming back and coming back under different names, often saying things about me that I would prefer not be said, and once posed as me "Dianah" and talked about eating Harry's body parts and hinted at an extremely improper relationship between me and both Harry and Dr. Bob. I have no idea who said poster was, but I was extremely distressed by it, since it was right after I found out Harry was dying.
That's about as civilly as I can put it, and Dr. Bob, I'll take the PBC gladly if you think I deserve it.
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 23:37:04
In reply to Re: Allow me to elaborate - Karen, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 23:00:52
I do not in any way believe that said poster was anyone posting now or anytime in the recent past, because said poster is still serving block time and thus could not be any current or recent poster. Moreover, I am not privy to said poster's identity because Dr. Bob did not choose to share it with anyone.
And if that doesn't cover it, could people just give me the benefit of the doubt please?
Posted by Karen_kay on January 12, 2004, at 0:12:09
In reply to Re: Yet another clarification, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 23:37:04
Yes, I read about that on the old admin posts. And I read the support you got from various posters as well. That was very sweet! :)
Is there a way for a blocked poster to come back under a different name? Is there a way for Dr. Bob to tell if the blocked poster is posting under a different name? Is there a way to prevent this from happening in the future?
I've also noticed though that this isn't the first occassion, and probably not the last, that this has happened. Is there a way to prevent it from happening? Obviously certain posters have trademark charcteristics, ie: writing styles and grammar, wit and sarcasm, ect. If there isn't a way to officially point out blocked posters who return under different names, won't those characteristics soon give them away? And if "you" really believe that posters is said offender can't you just email Dr. Bob with your suspicion and go from there. Obviously he really can't do anything about it without proof, but you can choose to not have contact with said offender.Another thing, since history does have a way of repeating itself, if said offender does return, it soon won't be long before the person gets blocked again, right? I mean unless that poster has truly changed then they are bound to be blocked once again. And if they have changed and are going to follow the civility code, then that's a good thing. I mean the purpose of this site is to support and if that's why we are here then everyone is welcome.
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2004, at 1:00:48
In reply to Re: Yet another clarification » Dinah, posted by Karen_kay on January 12, 2004, at 0:12:09
Yes, the support was very sweet, both on and off board. And I appreciated all of it.
But I fear you are far kinder than I am. I'm not a nice enough person to lobby for his/her block to be reduced to three months.
Dr. Bob does have some ability to tell when people are posting under a new name. I don't know the specifics and I don't know that he wants us to know the specifics. :)
Posted by Phil on January 12, 2004, at 2:35:11
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on January 8, 2004, at 19:08:31
Do you feel accused or put down, Dr Bob? Dr Bob a 24 week block on a mental illness board, especially when you should have known where ZH was coming from. You know she's been suicidal, right? What's right under her bitterness, Dr Bob? She is hurting, huh? You bet your ass.
She's holding on to anything so the hurricane in her mind won't blow her away.You have not earned her respect. She showed you examples of why and proved that you were unfair. Not being able to give others authority here gives you full lack of control. You don't have time to run this board and you tend to sluff it off when someone asks, "Why did you do that?"
When people with mental illness get blown off or mistreated, we see it clearer than non-depressed people. You're on our frequency now and we know the the lay of the land.
This site should be run by a good psychologist and the staff of his or her choice. They should be aware of where people are mentally as much as possible. They should treat a mild attack on the moderator as justified, especially when it is.
You aren't running a transmission repair site, you deal with people's minds. You give us the venue but there's a catch, you are just walking a beat here. Besides, if you give advice, you could be sued, perhaps.
I think the blocks should go for 2 weeks max. If someone is going to change their attitude, two weeks is enough, everyone will know.
Blocking someone, in the midst of their disease..a very low point in their life for 6 months is irresponsible. Email them, work it out.
You aren't running a lab now. This board is more than a good opportunity to learn programming and BB communication. Matter of fact, you are probably well known as a result of this board, no?
Well, make it a positive reinforcement board, offer support, compliment people.
All one has to do is look at the admin board to see this site has major continuing issues with your policies, your Imperialistic operating style, and your abrupt half answers.
You should email ZH and ask her back, this board needs her spunk and honesty. It's refreshingly real.
Even cops have bosses that have to answer to voters come election time. This site may be able to use some independent organization to review it's policies.
I vote for time to end the dictatorship. Get a governing board of 6 or so Babblers who can challenge you and win sometimes. Democracy is coming..to the USA(L. Cohen)Nothing personal Dr Bob, today was business.
> > That's the biggest load of bs to ever come out of your mouth Dr. Bob. I cannot believe you enforce your rules so willy nilly.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 12 weeks; this time I'm making it for 24.
>
> Bob
Posted by fayeroe on January 12, 2004, at 5:56:56
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Phil on January 12, 2004, at 2:35:11
> Do you feel accused or put down, Dr Bob? Dr Bob a 24 week block on a mental illness board, especially when you should have known where ZH was coming from. You know she's been suicidal, right? What's right under her bitterness, Dr Bob? She is hurting, huh? You bet your ass.
> She's holding on to anything so the hurricane in her mind won't blow her away.~You mention the hurricane in ZH's mind. That is a very good way of describing what is going on with so many people here. I don't think that Bob is very concerned with what goes on outside his site. That is what causes so many problems here.~
>
> You have not earned her respect. She showed you examples of why and proved that you were unfair. Not being able to give others authority here gives you full lack of control. You don't have time to run this board and you tend to sluff it off when someone asks, "Why did you do that?"~Anyone who can't delegate authority is threatened by losing whatever power they have or don't have........Bob is the perfect example of that.AND he can't answer "why did you do that?".
When you aren't truly connected with the people that you "serve", true rationale goes out the window when dealing with them. Self becomes the issue.~
> When people with mental illness get blown off or mistreated, we see it clearer than non-depressed people. You're on our frequency now and we know the the lay of the land.~I can't imagine anyone saying anything more true to Bob. A lot of people have known the lay of the land here for a very long time. And they know it at the University. Just ask around.~
> This site should be run by a good psychologist and the staff of his or her choice. They should be aware of where people are mentally as much as possible. They should treat a mild attack on the moderator as justified, especially when it is.~You aren't allowed to tell the emperor that he has no clothes...that's the problem~
> You aren't running a transmission repair site, you deal with people's minds. You give us the venue but there's a catch, you are just walking a beat here. Besides, if you give advice, you could be sued, perhaps.
> I think the blocks should go for 2 weeks max. If someone is going to change their attitude, two weeks is enough, everyone will know.> Blocking someone, in the midst of their disease..a very low point in their life for 6 months is irresponsible. Email them, work it out.
~Letting anyone hang in the wind for 6 months when they are mentally ill is more than irresponsible. It is pathetic.~
> You aren't running a lab now. This board is more than a good opportunity to learn programming and BB communication. Matter of fact, you are probably well known as a result of this board, no?~Remember why this board was created. For Bob's work.~
> Well, make it a positive reinforcement board, offer support, compliment people.
> All one has to do is look at the admin board to see this site has major continuing issues with your policies, your Imperialistic operating style, and your abrupt half answers.~Bob has run off more good people than I would have believed possible in the time I've been coming here. His way of dealing with others causes much distress among a lot of posters.Actually, it is also a way of not dealing with others that is irksome. You don't learn a lot of social skills in medical school~
> You should email ZH and ask her back, this board needs her spunk and honesty. It's refreshingly real.
~So true~
> Even cops have bosses that have to answer to voters come election time. This site may be able to use some independent organization to review it's policies.
> I vote for time to end the dictatorship. Get a governing board of 6 or so Babblers who can challenge you and win sometimes. Democracy is coming..to the USA(L. Cohen)~Glad you fell back on Leonard.~~~~~~~~
>
> Nothing personal Dr Bob, today was business.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > That's the biggest load of bs to ever come out of your mouth Dr. Bob. I cannot believe you enforce your rules so willy nilly.
> >
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 12 weeks; this time I'm making it for 24.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
Posted by fallsfall on January 12, 2004, at 9:02:12
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by fayeroe on January 12, 2004, at 5:56:56
I haven't asked Zenhussy (maybe I should), but I think that she was expecting to be blocked. I think that she felt that she had a point that she really wanted to make, and that making that point would require a sacrifice on her part. I think she made her decision knowing what the outcome was likely to be.
I will miss her on the board. I do (and I know others do, too) remain in contact with her through email. Hopefully we can continue to provide her with support that way.
Posted by judy1 on January 12, 2004, at 10:06:00
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by fallsfall on January 12, 2004, at 9:02:12
I got the feeling also that she felt strongly enough about her point to risk being blocked. please pass along my concern if you e-mail her, and if she would like support, would she like you to post her e-mail address?
take care, judy
Posted by gabbix2 on January 12, 2004, at 10:13:19
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » fallsfall, posted by judy1 on January 12, 2004, at 10:06:00
for saying everything I wanted to.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 12, 2004, at 10:16:07
In reply to Thank You Phil » judy1, posted by gabbix2 on January 12, 2004, at 10:13:19
Posted by shar on January 12, 2004, at 12:50:15
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board?, posted by shar on January 11, 2004, at 21:49:22
Dinah,
I did mention that INCREASING someone's block could also be an option. In the case of any poster who does something particularly heinous (like what you experienced), it isn't carved in granite that they could only get 3 months, even at the outset. If people voted for more time, they could get more time.Shar
>
> And, for a cap, I think 3 months is plenty; however, there are folks who might return after 3 months and create havoc, and then what? Maybe another poll: should this person's block be INCREASED?
>
> I'm tired and not thinking too clearly, but that's the gist of what I was thinking.
>
> Shar
Posted by shar on January 12, 2004, at 12:51:46
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Phil on January 12, 2004, at 2:35:11
Posted by Sooshi on January 12, 2004, at 20:41:09
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? Dinah, posted by shar on January 12, 2004, at 12:50:15
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:57:39
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Phil on January 12, 2004, at 2:35:11
> What's right under her bitterness, Dr Bob? She is hurting, huh? You bet your [*]ss.
I'm sorry she's hurting, but I think it would be less supportive here if everyone who was hurting just posted whatever they wanted.
> This site should be run by a good psychologist and the staff of his or her choice. They should be aware of where people are mentally as much as possible.
As far as being aware of where people are mentally, remember, I'm not acting as anyone's therapist here.
Maybe one day hiring a staff will be an option. My idea, however, was that if people were supportive -- offered positive reinforcement, complimented each other, etc. -- then constant supervision wouldn't be necessary.
> All one has to do is look at the admin board to see this site has major continuing issues with your policies, your Imperialistic operating style, and your abrupt half answers.
This isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect. But power and authority are always issues in groups, especially large groups.
> Even cops have bosses that have to answer to voters come election time.
Every day is an election day here. People are always free to post elsewhere. This site can't be all things to all people.
> Get a governing board of 6 or so Babblers who can challenge you and win sometimes.
There may in fact be some sort of board sometime...
> I vote for time to end the dictatorship.
Please don't use language that could offend others or post anything that could lead others to feel accused. And please do rephrase something if I ask you to. The last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:58:23
In reply to Re: hmm, how about my other suggestion? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 8:52:14
> Administration is ideally suited, and already does, work as a sort of appeals recommendation board. How about you use it as such and seriously review your decisions when people think you've made an error. If you think it was a close call, you could reverse your decision. If you don't, you could explain why in greater detail.
Are you suggesting that posts here be considered votes? Wouldn't that be more problematic than having an anonymous, randomly selected "jury"? I do already seriously review decisions, try to explain my reasons for them, and even consider changing them...
> Nearly everyone thinks Larry was genuinely trying to stick to the civility rules.
I appreciate trying, but dealing with intent is complicated, and even if it weren't, it could be disruptive if people tried to but didn't...
Bob
Posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 5:27:20
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:58:23
Dr Bob,
Personally I think the whole concept of blocks is wrong.
Although I do see that there are times when some posters may benefit from a forced "break" for a week or 2 at the MOST to calm down, think things over etc...so I guess there is some good arguments to be made in favour of SHORT blocks at times.
And there are a few cases where posters may need to be banned for say a year...like in a faked suicide (as opposed to discussing suicide ideation)..or repeatedly abusive posts. ..in these cases, I also think the offending posts should be deleted before archiving occurs. There are some derogatory attacking posts in the archives which, IMO, are not a credit to any board to display.IMO "blocks" may be harmful to posters who make slipups at the very time they need support the most...which is probably when thy are more likely to slip up. I have spent some time considering this, and I can really see NO benefit to anyone in the blocks.(other than discussed above). "Blocks" IMO are being metered out as a "punishment" ..as if the posters were say, lower primary school age. I say this, as by upper primary school we did have a right to state our own case in defense for consideration.
The "blocks" must be at the least hurtful and embarrasssing to some posters....especially when you consider it is done on a board that is so easy to google.What is worse is that there is no right of appeal.
In a law court at least the accused is given a chance to defend him/herself.
I took this heading to mean that Admin should perhaps be considered as a place where posters can freely say what they think..and be allowed to post to argue their defense after being "blocked"..there should perhaps be somewhere where posters can state their side openly to the board if they wish...perhaps before any final decision is made.Why I am against the whole concept of blocks is that they are really impossible to meter out fairly and considerately by any human (or even group of humans)..as noone is all seeing. They are ..as I know you understand, not a "black and white" easy call to make in most cases. Also I really cannot see any benefit of them..I'm sorry but I personally don't get any benefit from seeing someone blocked ..even if that person has upset me. To own the truth, the posts I find upsetting seem to fit your civility rules quite well.
I could suggest just having some guidelines ..like no language not used on prime time TV...and moderation by editing the posts if broken. (as is done in many other forums and seems to work effectively).
Also no personal attacks on other posters whether directly to another poster OR by posting negatively ABOUT another poster by name(especially when that poster is blocked and therefore has no way of defending him/herself).
I really can't see much difference between posting directly TO a poster about something you disagree with (which, to me, should be fine unless that person has requested that you do not post to him/her..even if it causes a poster to feel "put down" as someone disagrees with them)
OR posting what you disagree with about another poster to someone else or to the board in general...except, to me, this kinda lacks manners or something.
For instance you allow someone to request they not be directly posted to..and that is fine, but a poster may still post (negative)remarks about that poster..as long as it is not directly addressed to them... which defeats the purpose in a way.
Unfortunately I can see no easy way to implement an "ignore" on this style of forum.Also I think that no "education" ..at least of the medical drug/alternative type can be really made if posters are allowed to claim personal opinions and experiences as fact or even worse to be able to say things that appear false..
If this board is not to be "dangerous" in a medical sense..there needs to be moderation of incorrect content. This may be at least parially achieved by allowing other posters to question the content and ask for supporting studies, references etc...where it does seem a poster is making statements they may be misleading. This is a form of board self moderation...and yes it may involve the original poster feeling "put down" as people are questioning what they state...but if no timely official moderation of content occurs (and it doesn't)...readers may be hurt...perhaps seriously medically if some readers were influenced by incorrect content and questioning is not allowed/discouraged/ penalised in any way.
IMO..if the poster does repeatedly make statements which someone considers misleading then there does need to be a questioning for some evidence to back up their claims..until it is either produced or the poster corrects his statements and restates them as opinion or personal experience only.Personally I'd also would have liked the ability to edit posts until "archiving" occurs, at least on the medical "babble" and alter boards. Why? as this allows incorrect statements to be modified by the original poster ...so no blatantly misleading information is displayed at least on the archived boards. I guess this would depend on just what "education" the boards are trying to achieve?
I don't expect anyone to agree, but I hope some small part of my suggestions are helpful even if in only putting forward a differing point of view.
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2004, at 6:42:12
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:58:23
> Are you suggesting that posts here be considered votes?
Nope. It's always been my belief that the final decision should be yours and yours alone. It may not be perfect but I see it as better than any alternative I can imagine. I'm sorry that it makes life difficult for you. :(
> Wouldn't that be more problematic than having an anonymous, randomly selected "jury"?
I think both would be problematic, as you can see from my previous posts.
> I do already seriously review decisions, try to explain my reasons for them, and even consider changing them...
Yes, that's what I meant. I was just suggesting that you be more open to changing them if it was a close call, not a flagrant and obvious violation. But if you already feel you do the best you can at that, then I guess that is the best you can do. I'll say no more. At least till next time - grin. I'm afraid that's the best *I* can do. :)
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.