![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 59. Go back in thread:
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."
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 17:30:59
In reply to Re: inadvertantly using words » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 17:22:40
>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.
I agree 100%.
I just worry that there might not be a simple answer. Unless we have more input for the length of the blocks. But even that could be hard to figure out how to implement.> 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.
Thats fine but I suppose a consequence may be that you 'inadvertantly' f*ck up some time. What length of time do ya think that would warrant?
Posted by TofuEmmy on January 22, 2005, at 17:39:01
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy, posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 1:06:20
"What if everyone voted on the length of the block and we just blocked em for the average length of time? "
Just blocked em? EM? moi? no mater who offends, Bob will block me? Jeepers, that doesn't seem fair. But, well, if it will keep everyone happy....OK. :-(
em
Posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:39:53
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » alexandra_k, posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 17:12:28
All the more power to you guys if you can get Bob to change his policies here. This is not a new issue. Bob's arithmetical progression blocking policy has resulted in the banishment of some babblers for as long as a year for transgressions no worse than Chemist's. I was back in the archives recently looking at the posts used in a similar debate. In a post I wrote then I used an analogy which I think is still apt. It's as if the 3 strikes laws in many states made no attempt to distinguish between jaywalking and murder.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 17:43:44
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » alexandra_k, posted by TofuEmmy on January 22, 2005, at 17:39:01
I guess there are two issues.
1) Whether people should be warned or blocked.
2) If a blocking is in order, how long should it be?There seem to be both mechanistic and subjective elements involved in both decisions. Up until now Bob's subjectivity was what was relevant. Maybe we want more say?
> Just blocked em? EM? moi? no mater who offends, Bob will block me? Jeepers, that doesn't seem fair. But, well, if it will keep everyone happy....OK. :-(
I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Can you clarify?
Posted by gardenergirl on January 22, 2005, at 17:52:48
In reply to Re: Blocking Policy » alexandra_k, posted by Atticus on January 22, 2005, at 17:12:28
> 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.
I absolutely agree. And didn't the Supreme Court just throw out mandatory sentencing? They think judges should be allowed to use mitigating circumstances in deciding on sentences.
Surely there are enough here on Babble, Dr. Bob included, I would hope, who can feel confident that common sense can play a role in deciding on sanctions? Personally, I would never have gone beyond a PBC in this given situation unless the poster's continued with the tone of their posts.
gg
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2005, at 17:58:53
In reply to Re: please be civil » Broken, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 4:11:48
DR Bob would this not fall more under the please be sensitive as opposed to pbc? I see no real distinction between that and a recent PB*S* that was in a thread to me. Can you please explain the difference...if one feels as you state...
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down" would they not fall in the same area? I am not being a sarcastic here I am just very unclear and as Broken is new to the board it seems a PBC ..well please think about it...NOT that I wish the poster/s who only got a PBS in my case to get a PBC we are cool I just do not see any difference..I looked in the FAQ and ??? am lost ..Thank you for your time on this> > 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 alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 18:26:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2005, at 17:58:53
Um. Could someone give me a link to where this all happened...
(Probably should have a look)
:-)
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2005, at 18:30:18
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 18:26:55
> Um. Could someone give me a link to where this all happened...
>
> (Probably should have a look)
>
> :-)What happend? I will babblemail it but I am talking on a well hahaha come on you know ..and above
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.