![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 104 to 128 of 224. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 25, 2005, at 15:42:45
In reply to For: Mair, Dinah, Alexandra, jyl, gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on February 25, 2005, at 10:31:59
While Dr. Bob's current system isn't perfect, I think I prefer a human administrator doing his best and making judgement calls to an elaborate system of automation which would just leave a lot of points to argue with him about.
But that's just me.
I do like the way he's giving more "Please rephrases" and working with people when they fall short. And I like that he doesn't automatically double or triple sentences the way he did for a while there.
I actually think he's gotten so lenient that my eyebrows have raised in more than a few situations, and I've been glad they weren't escalating and I didn't have to step in because I'd have been stricter.
So thank Bob. :)
Posted by alexandra_k on February 25, 2005, at 16:23:34
In reply to Re: New blocking system???? » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 25, 2005, at 15:34:57
I think that is a good point. It is something that we can do already, however, so long as we get to it BEFORE he gets to the boards. If you have said something uncivil to another poster then an apology to them would probably go down well.
> I think one thing that needs to be given some consideration is giving people a chance to rephrase, retract or repent (the opportunity to come into compliance with the civility rules) before being handed a block. Maybe I am just being naive.
Posted by TamaraJ on February 25, 2005, at 16:31:46
In reply to Re: New blocking system???? » TamaraJ, posted by alexandra_k on February 25, 2005, at 16:23:34
And, perhaps to keep in mind is that we should not be afraid or shy to "police" ourselves. I see it done often where a poster or two will pass on a civility warning to another poster, who in turn has the opportunity to take corrective action before Dr. Bob has to intervene.
> I think that is a good point. It is something that we can do already, however, so long as we get to it BEFORE he gets to the boards. If you have said something uncivil to another poster then an apology to them would probably go down well.
>
> > I think one thing that needs to be given some consideration is giving people a chance to rephrase, retract or repent (the opportunity to come into compliance with the civility rules) before being handed a block. Maybe I am just being naive.
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on February 25, 2005, at 16:35:01
In reply to Re: For: Mair, Dinah, Alexandra, jyl, gardenergirl » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on February 25, 2005, at 15:42:45
>I don't think a year is excessive at all. I was a bit disapproving when Dr. Bob put in the cap of a year.
I guess it depends. I mean if someone persistently came here and posted things that many people considered *grossly offensive* then it may well not be long enough to inspire a change of heart in them. But my concern is for people who aren't at all *grossly offensive*. I don't know.
>I do think that it shouldn't automatically double or triple without judgement on Dr. Bob's part, leaving minor violations to lead to inordinately long blocks.
Yes. That is what gets me the most. That is the thing I would like changed. Thats where I thought that the length of the block could be capped at maybe one month. For the posters who offer a lot of helpful and / or supportive posts but may also have *short fuses* or whatever.
>But Dr. Bob's generally been pretty good lately about using judgement and mercy. He's definitely learning and growing as an administrator.
Sure, and I don't want to take that away from him. Just thinking about imporvements... But the length of blocks IMO gets a bit excessive. And it frightens away posters who have a lot to offer. Some people leave because of it and don't come back. I guess it could be seen as a downside to the system - but maybe the system could be improved so that that doesn't happen. Or so that doesn't happen for as many people.
> While Dr. Bob's current system isn't perfect, I think I prefer a human administrator doing his best and making judgement calls to an elaborate system of automation which would just leave a lot of points to argue with him about.
Agreed.
> I do like the way he's giving more "Please rephrases" and working with people when they fall short. And I like that he doesn't automatically double or triple sentences the way he did for a while there.Yup.
> I actually think he's gotten so lenient that my eyebrows have raised in more than a few situations, and I've been glad they weren't escalating and I didn't have to step in because I'd have been stricter.But they worked out okay???
> So thank Bob. :)yeah, thanks.
Don't get me wrong, I think he does a pretty good job. Just looking at a way to offer improvements (IMO)
Posted by alexandra_k on February 25, 2005, at 16:39:41
In reply to Re: New blocking system???? » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 25, 2005, at 16:31:46
Yes. I really appreciate it when people Babblemail me or post something on the boards to let me know to be careful. Or that I have stepped out of line. It gives me a chance to apologise and try to deescalate the situation before Dr Bob hits the boards and people get warnings or blockings or whatever. I also try to do this for other people. Babblemail them usually telling them that IMO they should be careful..
But yeah. If we did that more ourselves then there may well be less warnings and blockings required.
> And, perhaps to keep in mind is that we should not be afraid or shy to "police" ourselves. I see it done often where a poster or two will pass on a civility warning to another poster, who in turn has the opportunity to take corrective action before Dr. Bob has to intervene.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2005, at 17:08:07
In reply to Re: Isn't a year a bit excessive????? » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 24, 2005, at 14:26:29
> I still think one or maybe two months is a hell of a long time.
>
> > > How about capping the length of blocks?
> > >
> > > alexandra_k
> >
> > They *are* capped now, at 52 weeks.I think that blocks in excess of 4 to 8 weeks are cruel and unusual punishment, excessively punitive, and without merit.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on February 25, 2005, at 17:32:22
In reply to Re: Isn't a year a bit excessive????? » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2005, at 17:08:07
Not administrative, I know.
Posted by henrietta on February 25, 2005, at 19:23:17
In reply to Re: Isn't a year a bit excessive????? » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2005, at 17:08:07
Agree with Larry Hoover .
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 26, 2005, at 10:48:01
In reply to Re: Isn't a year a bit excessive????? » Larry Hoover, posted by henrietta on February 25, 2005, at 19:23:17
what do other boards do?
PC deleats posts...I would vote for 6 weeks being the limit for blocking.
If that person can't get it together in 40 days....
well they can have another 40 days to think about it "after" getting PBC and earning another long block....
but to move to 8 weeks....I say cap it at 6 weeks.
Ja*
Posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2005, at 11:25:45
In reply to Re: New blocking system???? » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on February 25, 2005, at 16:31:46
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2005, at 12:44:26
In reply to Of course it is » alexandra_k, posted by mair on February 24, 2005, at 17:05:56
> the length of the block has everything to do with the number of times you've been blocked before, and generally nothing to do with the seriousness of the offense.
It may *primarily* have to do with that. IMO, the more times someone "offends", the more serious it is...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 26, 2005, at 15:34:49
In reply to Re: the seriousness of the offense, posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2005, at 12:44:26
> It may *primarily* have to do with that. IMO, the more times someone "offends", the more serious it is...
Sure, but more than one or two months?????
I mean currently it is capped at 12 months
But you could cap it at 4 or 6 or 8 and there is still some room to increase it for reoffending.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 17:44:23
In reply to Re: the seriousness of the offense » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 26, 2005, at 15:34:49
Posted by Dinah on March 1, 2005, at 20:01:14
In reply to Re: Don't you agree Dr Bob?? (nm), posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 17:44:23
there wouldn't be a one year cap. :)
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 20:21:28
In reply to Well, if he did... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 1, 2005, at 20:01:14
Hmm. Well maybe he is working on changing it ;-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2005, at 8:19:43
In reply to Re: the seriousness of the offense » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 26, 2005, at 15:34:49
> you could cap it at 4 or 6 or 8 and there is still some room to increase it for reoffending.
But then it wouldn't really be capped at 4 or 6 or 8...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 14:09:52
In reply to Re: cap, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2005, at 8:19:43
If it was capped at 4 then there is room to increase it for reoffending as follows:
1st block - 1 week
2nd block - 2 weeks
3rd block - 3 weeks
4th block - 4 weeks
5th block - 4 weeks (that is where the cap kicks in - see??)
and if it was six weeks then it would be different as follows:5th block - 5 weeks
6th block - 6 weeks
7th block - 6 weeks
(There the cap kicks in)And if it was an 8 week cap then
7th block - 7 weeks
8th block - 8 weeks
9th block - 8 weeks
(Cap is there at 8 weeks instead - see?)And of course you can continue to use discretion with respect to whether the next block increases or remains the same as the last one etc.
Clearer?
> > you could cap it at 4 or 6 or 8 and there is still some room to increase it for reoffending.
>
> But then it wouldn't really be capped at 4 or 6 or 8...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2005, at 22:31:38
In reply to Re: to clarify » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 14:09:52
> If it was capped at 4 then there is room to increase it for reoffending as follows...
Ah, I see what you mean, thanks. A year is definitely a long time. But as far as whether it's *too* long, maybe we should just agree to disagree?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:52:14
In reply to Re: to clarify, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2005, at 22:31:38
> Ah, I see what you mean, thanks. A year is definitely a long time. But as far as whether it's *too* long, maybe we should just agree to disagree?
Well, I don't suppose there is much I can say in response to that...
How about changing the 2X and 3X blocking system to a +1 and +2 week blocking system then???
So instead of the 2X system there is:
1st block: 1 week
2nd block: 2 weeks
3rd block: 3 weeks
etc.And instead of the 3X system there is:
1st block: 1 week
2nd block: 3 weeks
3rd block: 5 weeks
etc.That way it takes longer for people to get to the very large number of weeks blocks???
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 3, 2005, at 18:11:18
In reply to Re: to clarify, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2005, at 22:31:38
is the blocking system difficult to change?
or is it your mind that is difficult to change?"remember it's not the spoon that bends....."
quote from "The Matrix"
Ja* Narayan
Posted by alexandra_k on March 4, 2005, at 0:10:38
In reply to Dr. Bob, is it difficult to change this?, posted by Jai Narayan on March 3, 2005, at 18:11:18
You been reading about Toeplitz matrix eigenproblems Jai???
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 4, 2005, at 1:57:48
In reply to Rod is desperate for attention, posted by MCK on February 17, 2005, at 19:23:38
Thank you
I didn't really believe what you had said, when I read your post, however I have reason to now.
Thanks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2005, at 19:06:43
In reply to Dr. Bob, is it difficult to change this?, posted by Jai Narayan on March 3, 2005, at 18:11:18
Posted by alexandra_k on March 5, 2005, at 23:33:31
In reply to Re: the latter (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2005, at 19:06:43
Posted by Dinah on March 6, 2005, at 9:35:35
In reply to Re: why? (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on March 5, 2005, at 23:33:31
If you mean why is it so difficult to have a meaningful dialog with Dr. Bob where you feel understood and understand, welcome to my world.
If you mean why is he adamant on this point, I can say that having experienced both sides of administrating, I have considerable empathy for his position. Which isn't to say that I always agree with his longer blocks. I think they should only be imposed for uncivil behavior against other posters, not for nonthreatening actions toward Dr. Bob. And not for those who are trying but fall short in interpreting the civility rules.
And don't many sites ban people for life? Not only does Dr. Bob cap people's block at one year, but if they email him and present him with a reasonable reason for doing so (here we get back to issue one) he can and has lowered the time involved. He's promised to let us know in the future when he does that, though.
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.