![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 45 to 69 of 224. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 13:13:07
In reply to Re: does that count? » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 12:48:56
alex, have you heard of the famous study, "Pigmalian in the Classroom?"
http://members.aol.com/svennord/ed/labeling.htm
Essentially the group of students labeled (deceptively) as gifted at the end of the year out-performed the control group of students similarly constituted because of teachers' expectations. It would seem that this phenomenom would apply here. Posters labeled as problematic are more likely to act out somehow because of the force of their perceived label. This in turn is reinforced by the administrator's perception of the "problem poster" who would receive firm controls because of his/her label. The teachers in the study, BTW, were completely oblivious of their biased perception of the mislabeled students.Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 13:28:56
In reply to Re: does that count? » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 13:13:07
yeah. i had heard of that one.
how about a list of those who should be careful, then. just off the top of your head dr bob??
Posted by gardenergirl on February 20, 2005, at 14:07:44
In reply to Re: does that count?, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 13:28:56
Oooh, like checkmarks next to your name on the chalkboard. flashback flashback flashback!
gg
Posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 14:43:48
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:57:52
and consideration for good behaviour? If it is like a "three strikes" concept, then I agree that people need to be more fully aware of what the rules are.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 18:33:39
In reply to What about redemption rehabilitation. . ., posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 14:43:48
Posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 20:18:08
In reply to Re: gold stars for good posts??? :-) (nm) » TamaraJ, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 18:33:39
before I hit "submit". It sounds kind of stupid now that I see it again. Oh well. I was thinking more along the lines not penalizing posters who are not habitual offenders (ew, how law enforcement of me). If someone gets a PBC once in a year or even twice in a year, and apologizes and/or acknowledges the error of their ways (as most do I think), then is it really a true pattern of uncivil behaviour? Geez, we all feel bad enough when we get a PBC (I know I do). Hmmm, no gold stars for this one I suspect!
Tamara
Posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 20:35:41
In reply to Re: does that count? » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 13:13:07
Seemed relevant at the time. Sometimes I feel like there's a uncivil label pinned to my back. So if I'm going to be blocked for something I never intended to be uncivil, what the f*ck, I might as well just speak my mind.
Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 21:05:31
In reply to LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 20:18:08
> before I hit "submit".
Oh no, I saw the sense in your post. I was just being slightly tongue in cheek. Trying to be funny or mildly amusing or something...
>If someone gets a PBC once in a year or even twice in a year, and apologizes and/or acknowledges the error of their ways (as most do I think), then is it really a true pattern of uncivil behaviour?
I hear you and I guess I agree, though I also think there could be exceptions. For example I have been warned (PBC'd) about posting to posters who have requested me not to post to them. This seems simple enough. I fully understand that I shouldn't have done that and I fully expect I'll get blocked should I do it again. Whether it happens today, tomorrow, or in two years I still expect I'd get a blocking.
Same for swearing with the civility checker off.
Those issues seem fairly cut and dried (to me anyway). But if you get maybe 2 or 4 PBC's in a year for getting slightly carried away then I would hope that they are not stored up. If they are then I would like to know if there may be a magic number.
And what it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 21:06:59
In reply to Re: does that count?, posted by Toph on February 20, 2005, at 20:35:41
> Seemed relevant at the time. Sometimes I feel like there's a uncivil label pinned to my back. So if I'm going to be blocked for something I never intended to be uncivil, what the f*ck, I might as well just speak my mind.
Oh Toph, I don't think you do all that badly really. Are there any you don't understand? How about asking (nicely) where you went wrong so you may be able to avoid them in the future??? You can speak your mind and still be civil (mostly) ya know.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2005, at 2:13:55
In reply to LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 20, 2005, at 20:18:08
> i forget all the pbc's and pbs' i have had.
They're all archived...
> sometimes we don't really understand why people got blocked.
Then ask?
> how about a list of those who should be careful, then.
>
> alexandra_kEveryone should be careful. Especially when things get heated.
--
> If it is like a "three strikes" concept, then I agree that people need to be more fully aware of what the rules are.
The rules are right there in the FAQ...
> If someone gets a PBC once in a year or even twice in a year, and apologizes and/or acknowledges the error of their ways ... then is it really a true pattern of uncivil behaviour?
>
> TamaraTheir pattern of behavior is important, but so is the context...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 10:30:47
In reply to Re: does that count?, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2005, at 23:41:53
The pbc you linked to had bobby saying things that were "accusatory"
But here he got blocked for saying 'please don't kill me :)" with a !smiley! on the end.
They don't seem like the same context, either.
Not meaning to be argumentative, just fair.
Posted by TamaraJ on February 21, 2005, at 11:23:15
In reply to Re: LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » TamaraJ, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 21:05:31
> I hear you and I guess I agree, though I also think there could be exceptions. For example I have been warned (PBC'd) about posting to posters who have requested me not to post to them. This seems simple enough. I fully understand that I shouldn't have done that and I fully expect I'll get blocked should I do it again. Whether it happens today, tomorrow, or in two years I still expect I'd get a blocking.
-- Yes, I understand that. Where we run into difficulties with that scenario, IMO, is that it is human nature and instinctual to want/need to attempt to clear up any misunderstanding and/or apologize. It's not really a questin of who has the last word really or one trying to beleaguer the point. I think a subsequent post after a "Do not post to me" post, in most cases, is done in good faith and without malice. That, I think, needs to be taken into consideration. Of course, as I have seen done in some situations, the person could always post back to themselves to try to clear up the misunderstanding and extend an olive branch. Anyway, I guess I think, in some situations, all the evidence needs to be weighed, including a person's recognition of having crossed a line and their attempt to make amends.
> Same for swearing with the civility checker off.
-- But then, as you have pointed out in the past, some offensive words do not get picked up. I saw the word b*stard (with the "a" still in it) used in a post recently. There was no PCB. It's not offensive to me, but I was surprised that it did not get picked up by the checker (particularly when b*imbo does).
Oh well. Questions of civility and good social graces will always be a subject for debate (and even uncivil discourse at times I imagine).
Tamara
Posted by gardenergirl on February 21, 2005, at 13:18:04
In reply to Re: LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 21, 2005, at 11:23:15
Did you know p*m p*ms, as in the things that cheerleaders shake, (no, the other things) ;-)got asterisked???? What????
Now that's odd.
gg
Posted by TamaraJ on February 21, 2005, at 13:27:12
In reply to Speaking of the asterisk thingy., posted by gardenergirl on February 21, 2005, at 13:18:04
Very odd! Maybe it's considered lewd and sexist by some. You know, like ta tas, etc. Are we moving beyond politically correct or what?
> Did you know p*m p*ms, as in the things that cheerleaders shake, (no, the other things) ;-)got asterisked???? What????
>
> Now that's odd.
>
> gg
Posted by 10derHeart on February 21, 2005, at 14:07:56
In reply to Re: Speaking of the asterisk thingy. » gardenergirl, posted by TamaraJ on February 21, 2005, at 13:27:12
We must be. Very, very odd. In my world, p*ms p*ms really always just were the cheerleader-type p*ms p*ms. However,...
...guess I'll have to be careful if I should wish to post about jugs of water, or cans of soup, or boulders that fall on roads in So California or....well, you get the picture...goodness!!
Posted by TamaraJ on February 21, 2005, at 14:15:59
In reply to Re: Speaking of the asterisk thingy. » TamaraJ, posted by 10derHeart on February 21, 2005, at 14:07:56
> We must be. Very, very odd. In my world, p*ms p*ms really always just were the cheerleader-type p*ms p*ms. However,...
>
> ...guess I'll have to be careful if I should wish to post about jugs of water, or cans of soup, or boulders that fall on roads in So California or....well, you get the picture...goodness!!
That funny! And, what about that old expression (British?) "keep your p*cker up"? (which actually means, keep your chin up or something like that). The first time I heard someone use it, I thought "What the h*ll . . . "
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 21:13:32
In reply to Re: context is important, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2005, at 2:13:55
>Everyone should be careful. Especially when things get heated.
Fair enough.
I don't personally have a problem with anything that I have observed with respect to warnings and blockings since I have been here (though I don't follow everything). I can't exactly predict them that well - but when they do happen I think I understand them.
Though I might be the exception rather than the norm on that score.
I guess all I find hard is that blocks are doubled or tripled AS A BLANKET RULE. A one month block (just as an example) is a pretty hefty block. Regardless of whether one has had one of those before. I would say that the NATURE of the offense should come into play with respect to determining the length of the block.
I still think Chemist's block was unreasonably long given the nature of his 'offense' (It wasn't all THAT bad IMO). Even if he did make a habit of it it still seems like a verrrrrrrrry long time. Why not retain the option of matching the offense to the length of punishment. Or is the idea to 'push out' people who persist regardless of what they may have to offer???
Posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 21:21:33
In reply to Re: context is important » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 21:13:32
>Or is the idea to 'push out' people who persist regardless of what they may have to offer???
I just mean that people give up after a while. When the blocks keep getting longer and they still do not understand. Or whatever. If I was sitting on a block of 3 months or longer and I couldn't see the sense in previous ones then I would go. I couldn't afford to stay emotionally involved in babble because the risk would be just too great. That has happened with people, eh? They have sort of got 'pushed out' with increasingly hefty blocks. I mean, I can understand wanting to get rid of 'trolls'. But what about the people who aren't just trolling???
> Why not retain the option of matching the offense to the length of punishment.
One month is still a long time IMO. Why not just cap it around there???
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 0:25:30
In reply to Speaking of the asterisk thingy., posted by gardenergirl on February 21, 2005, at 13:18:04
> Did you know p*m p*ms, as in the things that cheerleaders shake ... got asterisked?
That surprised me, too. Maybe ask alexandra about P*ms?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 0:45:12
In reply to Re: Speaking of the asterisk thingy., posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 0:25:30
As in: those p*mmy buggers over there who put themselves just where they want to on the maps. Those Brits over there, you know ;-)
Mirriam Webster says:
Australian & New Zealand, usually disparaging : P*MMY
Posted by Toph on February 22, 2005, at 0:51:43
In reply to Re: P*ms, posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 0:45:12
> As in: those p*mmy buggers over there who put themselves just where they want to on the maps. Those Brits over there, you know ;-)
>
> Mirriam Webster says:
> Australian & New Zealand, usually disparaging : P*MMYJust testing. Sorry.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 1:38:57
In reply to Re: P*ms, posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 0:45:12
Actually I left out the most interesting bit. Now that I've got the hang of how to spell the name of the dictionary *Miriam* Webster also says:
Etymology: by shortening & alter. from pomegranate, alteration of Jimmy Grant, rhyming slang for immigrant
Australian & New Zealand, usually disparaging : BRITON; especially : an English immigrant
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97586
Dunno if it is true or not...
Maybe it is more of an Aussie thing...
http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/16409
Yes, I suppose we do feel a little inferior down under...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 3:49:15
In reply to Re: Speaking of the asterisk thingy., posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2005, at 0:25:30
Posted by Dinah on February 22, 2005, at 9:37:52
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:57:52
Dr. Bob
Yes, it is true that once a person has been PBC'd or blocked for any reason whatsoever, their next violation for any reason can lead to the next administrative step.
And it is true that this was a volatile situation that you wanted put to rest.
However, you very frequently issue PBC's on a particular subject or a particular thread, without doing an automatic escalation just because someone has received a PBC or block in the past, on a different topic, or in a different situation. You did that on this thread, in fact.
I just wish you had done that for Bobby too.
Posted by Mark H. on February 22, 2005, at 15:08:19
In reply to Re: preliminary PBC » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 22, 2005, at 9:37:52
and I apologize to those who were blocked for stating their point of view.
Sincerely,
Mark H.
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.