![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 26. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 13:51:52
In reply to And for that I cry..., posted by zenhussy on June 24, 2004, at 22:06:30
> I am sad that the archives are swiss cheesed and much of my posting history no longer remains.
How do you mean, swiss cheesed? Google isn't perfect, but there shouldn't be many posts missing...
Bob
Posted by zenhussy on June 25, 2004, at 14:15:20
In reply to Re: archives are swiss cheesed, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 13:51:52
> > I am sad that the archives are swiss cheesed and much of my posting history no longer remains.
>
> How do you mean, swiss cheesed? Google isn't perfect, but there shouldn't be many posts missing...
> BobBob,
You know I can't comment on such matters within your everchanging laws of civility.
Suffice it to say that the removal of the 2001 board was grossly inappropriate. Also, there are many babblers who have posts (spanning the entire history of babbledom and ranging in topic) saved to document format and when they go to click on the URL saved in that specific document/post they get "sorry can't find post #####' or whatever that error message is here on your site.
You can't say there aren't missing posts when many KNOW there are. Furthermore I am insulted by your suggestion of Google's search ability being less than perfect as the reason for my swiss cheese comment above.
I have done my best to follow your civility guidelines here and would appreciate if for once you would give me a please rephrase that instead of showing me the door for 48-52 weeks.
Thank you.
zh
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 17:29:49
In reply to Re: archives are swiss cheesed » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on June 25, 2004, at 14:15:20
> the removal of the 2001 board was grossly inappropriate.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
or post a follow-up here.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by karen_kay on June 25, 2004, at 18:08:04
In reply to Re: archives are swiss cheesed » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on June 25, 2004, at 14:15:20
Posted by mair on June 25, 2004, at 18:21:13
In reply to zen dear, be careful. we love and need you here! (nm) » zenhussy, posted by karen_kay on June 25, 2004, at 18:08:04
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 25, 2004, at 18:47:47
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 17:29:49
I see why we can't put down other Babblers, but what's wrong with being critical of administration procedures? It's not a personal attack against you Dr. Bob. Zen is simply being critical of an administrative decision. Is that not allowed either?
Emmy
Posted by gabbix2 on June 25, 2004, at 19:23:10
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on June 25, 2004, at 18:47:47
It is allowed by some, but not by Zen.
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 25, 2004, at 19:48:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » TofuEmmy, posted by gabbix2 on June 25, 2004, at 19:23:10
It does seem that way. :-( At least 50% of this board is criticism of administrative decisions, but those folks are not told to be civil.
Dr. Bob - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I *always* give second chances. Want to use it for a "take back"?
Em
Posted by gardenergirl on June 25, 2004, at 21:50:57
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » gabbix2, posted by TofuEmmy on June 25, 2004, at 19:48:34
Posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 0:43:23
In reply to Re: archives are swiss cheesed » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on June 25, 2004, at 14:15:20
> ...showing me the door for 48-52 weeks... >
<<<<<< I feel it's a bone-chilling concept all around, that things can be handled that way... That should be the message board equivalent of a remedy only used when something was so serious, the death penalty was the other considered option... When I remember that this practice lies beneath, it reduces faith or attempts at faith in the other lesser things I may not agree with but try to see in the best light possible... Kind of like trying to believe in a cause, then losing your motivation to persevere in standing behind any of it because some of its darker principles are extreme enough to negate the rest (or at least make you question them too).
I do wish the specter of blocks of that length in cases like this and many others would be obliterated. I think a max *far* below that would be equally effective in "teaching lessons" or punishing... Period; *AND* possibly more so, as there wouldn't be so much time for anger and resentment over the block formula alone to build on the part of that person (and others) by their return. I don't see how those components of punishment can ever be constructive.
If it's to be compared to how we do need sentences of increasing length in our judicial systems, then shouldn't we be using a relative scale of numbers and multiples, to acknowledge that this is a message board and these aren't "crimes" in the same sense? (If this math is thought to already *be* appropriately relative, then I'm just speechless...)
(Zen, this has got to be an excruciating time for you, and one where some things only feel better stated publicly. But I do hope, like many, to have you here! Maybe there should be an email list/circle for times like this -- where things could be expressed without dilution or risk -- between the party involved, Dr. Bob, and anyone wanting to add comments or follow it... Then there'd still be some satisfaction of public redress... Maybe links to those correspondences could even be posted somewhere, since we *can* post links here to things that don't meet Babble's own civility rules...)
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 26, 2004, at 7:09:46
In reply to Re: Blocks of such length..., posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 0:43:23
I can't see that Zen has *ever* done anything to excuse her long blocks. Zen is nevr nasty to other posters, she is just critical of the way PB is run.
BUT.. there was another poster, I believe still sitting out a long block, that had a very very bad effect on me. This person, lets call them X, would be blocked, return, be blocked, return.. I was being emailed off PB by X threatening me with legal action for the slightest thing I said about them ( legal action that would have resulted in me being unable to visit the US.. a country I love to visit), and generally upsetting me. If X had been allowed to return every two weeks, I would have ended up in a bad state. One, I would have had to leave PB for good, which is one thing I really don't want to have to do. Two, I think I would have done my self serious damage due to the upset this was causing me.
I think blocks for critising the system are stupid, but long blocks to protect babblers themselves are called for.
Just my two penneth!
Nikki x
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 26, 2004, at 19:20:21
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on June 25, 2004, at 18:47:47
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/360475.html
I saw that you came thru the Admin board, but you didn't anwser my question. I'm an impatient girl. I really wanted to clarify why Zen's post is different than all the other posts which have ragged on administrative decisions. I don't see a difference. Thank you.
Emmy
Posted by zenhussy on June 26, 2004, at 19:30:19
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 17:29:49
"I disagreed with it and was displeased" inre: the removal of the 2001 board and subsequent administrative choices.
zh
Posted by Shar on June 26, 2004, at 23:40:44
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 17:29:49
Is anybody in Admin hearing this? How can an administrative decision being disagreed with even come close to a personal attack on a potentially vulnerable person (in which case, a block might be appropriate, but, as we see above, does not necessarily occur)?
Things are seeming unbalanced here. That is the MOST civil way I can put it.
This is not a place to play favorites, nor to let some people get away with abusing other posters, while an administrative disagreement could result in a year-long block. And, as I have said before, I believe blocks can be WAYYY too long!
None of this probably matters anyway. Maybe a depressed person with low energy who knows an attack against another when he/she sees it should be the administrator here. Just wondering.
Shar
Posted by karen_kay on June 27, 2004, at 11:28:39
In reply to Same song, second verse, posted by Shar on June 26, 2004, at 23:40:44
you're not the only one feeling that way dear! promise!
Posted by karen_kay on June 27, 2004, at 11:35:32
In reply to agreed!!!! » Shar, posted by karen_kay on June 27, 2004, at 11:28:39
wasn't there an idea thrown around in the past about a committee of posters who could help decide if something should be deemed civil or uncivil? maybe i'm just making that up, but shouldn't that idea be thrown around at least?
i do have to say, with all honesty, that i have been seeing quit a bit of relaxing on things recently, and that's (for the most part) a good thing. now, if we could only find a way to make it a bit more impartial? (not to suggest it isn't but just so we can feel that way, in our own minds...)i wonder, does this get me a pbc? or a block (egads!).. not trying to start problems, jsut trying to find a workable solution for everyone here...
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 27, 2004, at 12:27:53
In reply to Same song, second verse, posted by Shar on June 26, 2004, at 23:40:44
but I've not quite worked out how to say ot other than "WTF??!"..
Nikki x
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 27, 2004, at 12:47:30
In reply to totally » Shar, posted by NikkiT2 on June 27, 2004, at 12:27:53
Yes!! WTF!?! Was That Fair??? ;-)
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 27, 2004, at 12:53:17
In reply to Re: totally, posted by TofuEmmy on June 27, 2004, at 12:47:30
For some reason the URL was not in the original post. Took me a while to find it:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/grief/20040220/msgs/360034.html
Posted by mair on June 27, 2004, at 21:46:56
In reply to Same song, second verse, posted by Shar on June 26, 2004, at 23:40:44
The way the system of blocks has evolved leaves much too much to be desired. The whole double sentence system has all the same problems of gross inequity posed by the ridiculous "3 strikes and you're out" laws. A supposed first or second time offender who is deliberately and maliciously creating mayhem, gets a virtual free pass, while people who are wonderful sources of support and critical only of the moderator risk blocks of staggering duration. It's tough maybe in this country in particular, to abide a system that potentially penalizes so harshly criticism of a system of governance.I believe that as a general rule blocks should not be applied in instances where a poster has, in good faith, criticized the moderator, and in instances where the perceived slight is one which is the subject of very different interpretations. I don't think anyone should be bounced for a statement which only the moderator finds to be unacceptable.
Mostly I wish you would spend more time dealing aggressively with the people who very deliberately hurt other posters whether it be simply to stir things up or to grab some attention (even your attention), or simply to be mean and less time splitting hairs in an effort to keep the lid on those who are critical of your administration of the site.
It seems pretty obvious to me. There are lots of PBCs and blocks handed out here that barely generate any discussion because no one questions the legitimacy of the punishment. If a block, or the length of a block, or a refusal on the part of the moderator to intervene when others feel that they are being attacked causes emotional upheaval and leaves valued posters scurrying for the sidelines, chances are it was a questionable action to begin with. Why try to defend it as being inviolate? Why wouldn't you want to avoid the kind of upheaval that makes so many people here feeling scarred and unsafe?
You're pretty big on trying new things. Why not try out a system of governance that reserves the harshest treatment for only the most egregious (and obvious)cases? You can still introduce and promote discourse on all the shades of gray so everyone continues to think about issues of civility. You can still point out to us ways things could be stated more carefully or encourage people to be careful to avoid the unintentioned slight. Why not give it a try? You might just find that there is far less emotional upheaval and far less criticism of the administration of the site.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:46:35
In reply to My rephrase » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on June 26, 2004, at 19:30:19
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:58:13
In reply to one more thing, posted by karen_kay on June 27, 2004, at 11:35:32
> Same song, second verse
>
> SharI don't mean to be unresponsive, but maybe it's time to change the song? I'd like to try to move forward, and constructive suggestions would be great.
> wasn't there an idea thrown around in the past about a committee of posters who could help decide if something should be deemed civil or uncivil?
>
> karen_kayThere was, can someone find that old thread?
Bob
Posted by karen_kay on June 28, 2004, at 19:29:08
In reply to Re: moving forward, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:58:13
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/299201.html
how 'bout it? may i be the judge? :) (watch out emmy, if i'm elected, you're in for a very long block!)
Posted by Shar on June 28, 2004, at 23:25:04
In reply to Re: moving forward, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:58:13
> > Same song, second verse
> >
> > Shar
>
> I don't mean to be unresponsive, but maybe it's time to change the song?.......I couldn't agree more!!
>I'd like to try to move forward, and constructive suggestions would be great.
I would guess there are hundreds of 'constructive suggestions' in the archives. I am too afraid to speak my mind and suggest something that would be worded 'incorrectly' and, therefore, get me blocked.
In olden days here, suggestions and comments were ok to make. Now everything has this patina of 'civility' in which all statements [no matter their content] might result in a block, and ...obviously, that results in people like me not posting suggestions.
In response to your post about moving forward--it is a nice concept, but leaves me and (possibly, potentially, maybe, perhaps) others hearing 'ok, you wrote what you wanted, you didn't get blocked, it doesn't matter, let's move on.' As if moving on in that case is progress. It is very crazy-making, that kind of response, if one is raised with it. Which I was, so maybe that's why it resonates with me.
With all my love, as always, and trying to be as civil as is possible in this galaxy,
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2004, at 4:13:14
In reply to sure enough (civility council) » Dr. Bob, posted by karen_kay on June 28, 2004, at 19:29:08
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/299201.html
>
> how 'bout it? may i be the judge? :)But the decision then was back to the drawing board:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/299303.html
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.