![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 59. Go back in thread:
Posted by Tabitha on January 21, 2005, at 10:22:15
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks, posted by TofuEmmy on January 21, 2005, at 7:00:14
I get the impression people are arguing that Dr. Bob should relax the civility standards for a poster who's particularly valuable. That seems like a scary policy to me.
In the block, Dr Bob sited statements describing M's posts as "annoying" and "litter". Don't we all know by now that you can't say things like that here?
Posted by TofuEmmy on January 21, 2005, at 12:00:28
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks, posted by Tabitha on January 21, 2005, at 10:22:15
Egads, I said nothing about Chemist being valuable. Personally, I find him a big pain in the.... insert PBCable comment there. :-) I just don't think in this instance his temper was particularly out of line. Nor does the person he was posting to (participles be danged...or dangled).
It IS an interesting topic tho - that of offering leniency to certain posters. There are people here who sometimes have given 100's of hours of their times (Chemist, Dinah and Larry come to mind) for free, offering us answers to their questions or admin support. I guess I do think they deserve a little something for their assistance here. I see the problem clearly tho - who would and wouldn't "deserve" such leniency. And I know Bob would not be able to officially sanction such a policy. Although it does seem like there oughta be a way to thank those who give so much to this site.
emmy
Posted by AuntieMel on January 21, 2005, at 13:54:17
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks, posted by Tabitha on January 21, 2005, at 10:22:15
I am only saying that these "words" should be put into the context of the entire exchange, not just picked out alone.
I read the whole thread and came up with the impression that, while using 'tough' words, chemist was just trying to get through to him. To help him.
I would hope that if I need a reality check that someone here would give straight it to me instead of worrying about the precise language.
Disclaimer: My comment in no way is to imply that anyone here, their relatives, pets, employers, employees or the garbage man are in need of a reality check.
Posted by jujube on January 21, 2005, at 13:55:23
In reply to Re: please be civil » phillipa » jujube, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2005, at 1:22:54
I'm sorry. It was not my intention to be uncivil, unkind or mean. Mea culpa.
Posted by Glydin on January 21, 2005, at 14:32:27
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks, posted by Tabitha on January 21, 2005, at 10:22:15
> I get the impression people are arguing that Dr. Bob should relax the civility standards for a poster who's particularly valuable. That seems like a scary policy to me.
>
> In the block, Dr Bob sited statements describing M's posts as "annoying" and "litter". Don't we all know by now that you can't say things like that here?
>I agree with you and I did not think the post for which this block was given was supportive. Maybe that was it's intention, but I didn't find that true.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 14:56:23
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy, posted by ace on January 20, 2005, at 19:13:28
> Dr Bob,
> In respect, I think the issue of blocking must be modified. Ofcourse this is your site and we all know that. However, I believe a man of Chemist's credentials transcends the need to block him for 8 weeks. Although he did seem somewhat irate, we are all at some time.
I really like Chemist, it's hard for me to be objective, and though perhaps his intent was to be parental I'm sure he was aware though that using words like 'litter and annoying' were going to get him into hot water.
The idea of relaxing the rules for people with good credentials is so repugnant to me there aren't even words for it. That's the attitude that allows Doctors or CEO's with lots of credentials to get away with tyrannizing people and basically acting like spoiled brats. We can't change that but we can at least not allow it here.
A disproportianate amount of those with a mental illness already live by a second set of rules, and have had to humble themselves while being treated by our credentialed psychiatrists, I can't believe that sort of thinking is being suggested as being appropriate here.
Posted by Broken on January 21, 2005, at 15:26:06
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » ace, posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 14:56:23
Although I am new here, I did happen to follow several posts that included both Chemist and Matt.
While Chemist is obviously knowledgeable, and perhaps has some credentials I am unaware of because of my relatively new status here, I can hardly see that those two things should provide anyone with a separate set of rules. To be quite honest, not only did I find the behavior itself arrogant and insulting, the mere thought of a subset of rules based on your popularity or credentials defies description based on what this site is supposedly used for.
Perhaps it would be advantageous to everyone if Dr. Bob himself were the one that commented on someone else’s subject and number of posts. If not advantageous, then at the very least, less risky in the being blocked or banned department.
Just a newb's 2c
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 17:37:06
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy, posted by Broken on January 21, 2005, at 15:26:06
Your 2 cents is worth a lot more like 2 million dollars. I like Chemist a LOT I have read many of his helpful posts...he is a bright and helpful man...but 2 set of rules seems elitist.
> Although I am new here, I did happen to follow several posts that included both Chemist and Matt.
>
> While Chemist is obviously knowledgeable, and perhaps has some credentials I am unaware of because of my relatively new status here, I can hardly see that those two things should provide anyone with a separate set of rules. To be quite honest, not only did I find the behavior itself arrogant and insulting, the mere thought of a subset of rules based on your popularity or credentials defies description based on what this site is supposedly used for.
>
> Perhaps it would be advantageous to everyone if Dr. Bob himself were the one that commented on someone else’s subject and number of posts. If not advantageous, then at the very least, less risky in the being blocked or banned department.
>
> Just a newb's 2c
>
Posted by alexandra_k on January 21, 2005, at 20:59:59
In reply to Bob...., posted by TofuEmmy on January 21, 2005, at 8:14:13
>It IS an interesting topic tho - that of offering leniency to certain posters. There are people here who sometimes have given 100's of hours of their times (Chemist, Dinah and Larry come to mind) for free, offering us answers to their questions or admin support. I guess I do think they deserve a little something for their assistance here.
I agree.
(((((Chemist)))))
(((((Dinah)))))
(((((Larry)))))You guys are amazing with all your help and advice.
I think we should be appreciative.
If anything, though, there may be more expected of such people because they may become something of role models.I agree that sometimes tough love type strategy is the only thing that can get through.
But I still think that could and should be phrased in a civil way.
I know that that is much much much harder when you are feeling a bit annoyed. But it is a good strategy to get good at.
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:26:58
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy, posted by alexandra_k on January 21, 2005, at 20:59:59
What about the larger issue surrounding blocking here: the assessment of penalties? Simply doubling the last block strikes me as an exceptionally simplistic way to dole out penalties. People get blocked for weeks for inadvertantly using the word *ss. It's the eight-week length of this block, and the frequently oversized nature of others, given the "crime," that I think really needs to be reexamined. Dr. Bob, couldn't there be categories of violations, as with the law IRL, that draw proportionate sentencing? It seems to me that a completely unprovoked attack on someone for no apparent reason (and it's happened, recently, with the Herman Munster business) clearly merits a more severe reprimand than advice given with a shot of vinegar, which is essentially Chemist's crime. Yet Herman Munster got blocked for a week, and Chemist is blocked for eight weeks. I don't buy the "give the newbie a chance argument." It seemed to me very apparent that Herman Munster knew exactly what he was doing. It's the inconsistent seriousness of civility violations and their resultant penalties that draws so much ire in you direction, Dr. Bob. I feel it creates the impression that rather than working from a common-sense, impartial system, you're making this up as you go along. Rightly or wrongly, it creates a sense that you are being arbitrary or, at the very least, unimaginative in your rigid sentencing guidelines. How about you arrange offenses -- with our input -- into degrees of seriousness? (Ranging from a Herman Munster-like scorched-earth assault at one extreme to use of a word like *ss at the other.) Please give it some thought. Decisions like the Chemist block only serve to -- in my mind -- make you seem smaller, less authoritative, and more deserving of being challenged. Atticus
Posted by ace on January 21, 2005, at 22:31:07
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » ace, posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 14:56:23
> > Dr Bob,
> > In respect, I think the issue of blocking must be modified. Ofcourse this is your site and we all know that. However, I believe a man of Chemist's credentials transcends the need to block him for 8 weeks. Although he did seem somewhat irate, we are all at some time.
>
.
> The idea of relaxing the rules for people with good credentials is so repugnant to me there aren't even words for it.
I did not mean that at all. I just made a statement that exemplified my personal opinion that blocking people can have negative consequences. If someone does not have Chemist's credentials, so what! They still have a right to ask and help others...If someone who did NOT have Chemist's credentials answered in the same tone which Chemist got blocked for, I would have made it clear, as in the case of Chemist, I personally didn't believe the block was warranted.Ace
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 22:40:51
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » Gabbix2, posted by ace on January 21, 2005, at 22:31:07
> > > Dr Bob,
> > > In respect, I think the issue of blocking must be modified. Ofcourse this is your site and we all know that. However, I believe a man of Chemist's credentials transcends the need to block him for 8 weeks. Although he did seem somewhat irate, we are all at some time.
> >
> .
> > The idea of relaxing the rules for people with good credentials is so repugnant to me there aren't even words for it.
>
>
> I did not mean that at all.I guess I was confused by that first line Ace,
thanks so much for clearing that up, and I agree, an Eight week block is rarely warranted for much of anything in my opinion, but you know.. Didn't you get blocked for 4 weeks once for saying a*s? you know after something like that I guess I've learned to expect anything :) after a while I think I just
gave up..
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 1:04:47
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » alexandra_k, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:26:58
Yeah, I guess I agree that there is a larger issue of the assessment of penalties.
I am not so sure that there is a simple solution, however. It seems to me that the current process allows for both mechanistic and subjective componants. For example, the mechanistic bit would be the notion that blocks *typically* double. The subjective bit would be when people get warned as opposed to blocked or when blocks aren't doubled because of mediating factors.
To list block lengths on the basis of the nature of the infraction still leaves a lot that is subjective. How we categorise the 'offence' for example. Wouldn't we also want to allow for context and other mediating factors? Wouldn't we want the penalty to get harsher with repeated offences (which seems to be the intention behind the doubling notion)?
Maybe it would be useful to come up with some 'typical guidelines'. Maybe people want Babble to become more democratic (with respect to blocks) after all?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 1:06:20
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » Atticus, posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 1:04:47
It seems to be adding more *complication* or *rules* to the process, however...
What if everyone voted on the length of the block and we just blocked em for the average length of time?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 1:06:57
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » alexandra_k, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:26:58
Posted by Tepiaca on January 22, 2005, at 1:30:00
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » chemist, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 8:07:21
Posted by Kenny Koala on January 22, 2005, at 3:04:53
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » alexandra_k, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:26:58
> I feel it creates the impression that rather than working from a common-sense, impartial system, you're making this up as you go along. Rightly or wrongly, it creates a sense that you are being arbitrary....
>
>It does seem like a somewhat random system is in place, but I have only observed the 2x or 3x systems.
ie: the 2x system.
1st offense = 1 week
2nd offence = 2 weeks
3rd offence = 4 weeks
4th offence = 8 weeks, etc.3x system.
1st offense = 1 week
2nd offence = 3 weeks
3rd offence = 9 weeks
4th offence = 27 weeks, etc.Chemist appears to be liked because his 4th offence got him 8 weeks (2x system) while I have seen the more unsavory characters fall into the 3x system.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:58:52
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by jujube on January 21, 2005, at 13:55:23
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 4:11:48
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy, posted by Broken on January 21, 2005, at 15:26:06
> I find the behavior itself arrogant and insulting
Thanks for your input, and I'm sorry if this is confusing, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions 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
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 4:12:45
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » alexandra_k, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 22:26:58
> People get blocked for weeks for inadvertantly using the word *ss.
Not with the new automatic asterisking! Sometimes technology is the answer. :-)
Bob
Posted by broken on January 22, 2005, at 10:53:39
In reply to Re: please be civil » Broken, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 4:11:48
My apologies. I was not my intention to make anyone feel put down. My disagreement was "supposed" to be with the seperate rules idea, not personal. Obviously I need to work on my wording, no offense intended.
Posted by Fred23 on January 22, 2005, at 16:40:31
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy, posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 1:06:20
> It seems to be adding more *complication* or *rules* to the process, however...
>
> What if everyone voted on the length of the block and we just blocked em for the average length of time?What if everyone in the thread was blocked for 8 weeks?
Posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 17:12:28
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy, posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 1:06:20
I agree with you, Alex. I don't want to throw even more cr*p into the stew of rules here. But on so many occasions, as in this one with Chemist, the level of penalty assessed just seems -- on a common-sense intuitive level -- to be grossly disproportionate to the level of the offense. The injustice I perceive in this just leaves me angry and frustrated over and over again -- that's all. And I don't think -- though this is just my subjective assessment -- that this sort of thing does much for morale around here. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 17:16:45
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » Atticus, posted by Kenny Koala on January 22, 2005, at 3:04:53
Ha! Looks like I'm one of your more "unsavory characters," Kenny. I'm apparently on the 3x system. I went from a one-week block straightaway to a three-week block for criticizing Dr. Bob directly. Still, there's something to be said for being unsavory; the character Rick Blaine in "Casablanca" has plenty of unsavory characteritics, as does another role model of mine: Bugs Bunny. Ta. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 17:22:40
In reply to Re: inadvertantly using words, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 4:12:45
I turned that f*cker off, remember? As long as this kind of thing allows me the option to disable it, I'll be fine with it. Atticus, who thinks you seem to have taken the words of the famous transcendentalist poet Emerson (or was it Whitman? B*llocks, can't remember now) to heart: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
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.