![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 127 to 151 of 224. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 6, 2005, at 14:41:03
In reply to Re: why? » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 6, 2005, at 9:35:35
I guess I posted something once about people not returning if they got a very long block. I can understand why it might be nice to push out 'trolls' for a while. Give them some time to maybe change their posting style or something. But when someone is mostly supportive and / or informative then it is a shame that they get blocked for such long periods of time.
I wonder what the longest block length is that someone has properly returned from...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 6, 2005, at 14:43:26
In reply to Re: why? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 6, 2005, at 14:41:03
Also, my understanding (though I might need to be corrected here) is that once upon a time in Babble history people started running riot.
Strict civility rules were introduced to bring people back under control...
And that worked out well.
I just wonder whether they need to be so very strict to be effective. Whether we lose people because of them. I think Dr Bob said something once before about it being sad when that happens. I guess I am just wondering whether it could be prevented.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 9, 2005, at 1:03:41
In reply to Re: the latter (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2005, at 19:06:43
Do you want to tell us why you don't want to tell us why?
Are you afraid we might make you change your mind?
Posted by alexandra_k on March 9, 2005, at 21:49:36
In reply to Re: hmm. » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on March 9, 2005, at 1:03:41
Well... Not give up exactly. Make a strategic retreat...
No doubt this will come up again at some point...
Posted by gardenergirl on March 9, 2005, at 22:40:39
In reply to Re: its okay I give up..., posted by alexandra_k on March 9, 2005, at 21:49:36
It always does.
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 9, 2005, at 23:11:43
In reply to Re: its okay I give up..., posted by gardenergirl on March 9, 2005, at 22:40:39
> Do you want to tell us why you don't want to tell us why?
>
> alexandra_k> The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...
>
> ggIt's not that I don't want to tell you why, it's that this wheel has gone round before...
> > > is the blocking system difficult to change?
> > > or is it your mind that is difficult to change?
> >
> > the latterBecause this is an equilibrium we've reached and to upset it there should to be a compelling reason?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on March 9, 2005, at 23:14:04
In reply to Re: its okay I give up..., posted by gardenergirl on March 9, 2005, at 22:40:39
Posted by alexandra_k on March 9, 2005, at 23:24:15
In reply to Re: round and round, posted by Dr. Bob on March 9, 2005, at 23:11:43
> It's not that I don't want to tell you why, it's that this wheel has gone round before...
There now, that wasn't so hard :-)
I didn't know that.> Because this is an equilibrium we've reached and to upset it there should to be a compelling reason?
Is it inevitable that the equilibrium would be upset were the length of blocks or the 2x and 3x system changed?
It might turn out to be a better system...
I guess this is my main reason:
> When someone is mostly supportive and / or informative then it is a shame that they get blocked for such long periods of time.
>I wonder what the longest block length is that someone has properly returned from...
The point being that
Some people don't come back.Is it worth changing the system to retain them?
IMO yes.
But I have been reading about slime moulds. Hope I don't offend anyone but Babble is starting to look like a slime mould to me :-)
I'll explain later over on Books.
Posted by Dinah on March 9, 2005, at 23:35:49
In reply to Re: round and round » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on March 9, 2005, at 23:24:15
I suspect Dr. Bob has decided to stop being a tease when he has no intention of putting out change. I actually appreciate that. It's very frustrating to think you have a chance of getting somewhere with him, when in truth you don't.
Maybe he's figured out how much it hurts posters and has decided to be more upfront about it.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 10, 2005, at 1:43:50
In reply to Re: round and round » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 9, 2005, at 23:35:49
> I suspect Dr. Bob has decided to stop being a tease when he has no intention of putting out change. I actually appreciate that. It's very frustrating to think you have a chance of getting somewhere with him, when in truth you don't.
But it is nice to know the reasons why people have made up their mind the way they have. Sometimes hearing other peoples reasons can result in our changing our mind to agree with them. Even if we don't change our mind it can be helpful to understand why they made their mind up the way they did.
To me anyway.
Sometimes changing peoples minds is one issue.
And understanding why they are so resolved is another.
Even if we continue to disagree.
I personally find that better than nothing.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 10, 2005, at 3:03:33
In reply to Re: round and round » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 10, 2005, at 1:43:50
But I guess it must be a pain in the *ss to deal with the same issues over and over with different people over time...
Posted by Susan47 on March 10, 2005, at 11:18:31
In reply to Re: round and round » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 9, 2005, at 23:35:49
Dinah, I find this post of yours to be powerful in its expression because (I know this probably most likely ISN'T what you meant to say, at ALL) my interpretation of teasing is that it's a form of manipulation.
And for DB to be teasing posters into giving him feedback when he's not seriously considering it, is unacceptable.
Posted by Toph on March 10, 2005, at 11:35:18
In reply to Re: round and round » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 9, 2005, at 23:35:49
> ...It's very frustrating to think you have a chance of getting somewhere with him, when in truth you don't.
>
In the time I've been here I've noticed that he has been responsive to some administrative changes. I'm not sure of how to exactly classify them, but expansion seems to be one. When someone convinces him of the value of adding a new board, for example, or developing exclusive communities, his eyes light up. Regarding control issues, when someone suggests adding a 3-post limit, he moves to the edge of his seat. But if someone poses a administative reduction such as a more individualized, empathic or democratic approach to discipline, well, it's like pissin' in the wind.Maybe as a veteran babbler you see different patterns.
Toph
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 10, 2005, at 16:49:02
In reply to Re: round and round, posted by Dr. Bob on March 9, 2005, at 23:11:43
oh Bobbie bob you have been here too long....
so many times around one loses perspective.I can relate.
Ja*
Posted by Dinah on March 10, 2005, at 18:30:56
In reply to Re: round and round » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on March 10, 2005, at 11:18:31
No, no. I didn't mean to say that at all. I just think that Dr. Bob encourages us to express ourselves sometimes without making clear that there is no possibility of change. I'm sure he has perfectly benevolent reasons for it. Something along the lines of very large groups and catharsis or something totally incomprehensible like that.
But maybe he now sees that it hurts to think there is hope when there is in fact none, and is thus more willing to disengage from unprofitable discussions.
Posted by Dinah on March 10, 2005, at 18:32:22
In reply to Re: round and round » Dinah, posted by Toph on March 10, 2005, at 11:35:18
I didn't mean all issues. I mean those issues where he isn't going to change his mind and he knows it. I for one am grateful. We can b*tch all we like, and it doesn't hurt because we know it won't do any good up front.
Hope hurts.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2005, at 2:45:58
In reply to Re: round and round » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 9, 2005, at 23:35:49
> > Because this is an equilibrium we've reached and to upset it there should to be a compelling reason?
>
> When someone is mostly supportive and / or informative then it is a shame that they get blocked for such long periods of time.
>
> Is it worth changing the system to retain them?
>
> IMO yes.
>
> alexandra_kIMO, it's a shame to lose any support or information, but:
Is it worth it to whom? It may be worth it to the mostly supportive = repeatedly uncivil poster, sure. Is it worth it to other posters?
The question could also be turned around, is it worth it to those posters to change how they post in order to be retained?
--
> I suspect Dr. Bob has decided to stop being a tease when he has no intention of putting out change. I actually appreciate that. It's very frustrating to think you have a chance of getting somewhere with him, when in truth you don't.
>
> DinahIt's nice to be appreciated, but there's a difference between needing a compelling reason to change and just not intending to...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on March 11, 2005, at 18:19:37
In reply to Re: Is it worth changing, posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2005, at 2:45:58
So:
1) the block lengths get very long.
And one reason why we might think it is worthwhile to reduce the length of the blocks is
2) some people leave babble because of the length of time they have been blocked for.> Is it worth it to whom? It may be worth it to the mostly supportive = repeatedly uncivil poster, sure. Is it worth it to other posters?
It is worth it to me and to the best of my knowledge I am not a 'mostly supportive = repeatedly uncivil' poster. Do other posters think it would be preferable to reduce the length of the blocks so that it is capped at one or two months instead of twelve? I would say that unblocked posters repeatedly expressing how unfair they think the block lengths are shows they think reducing the length of blocks to be worth it.
With respect to people leaving and not coming back perhaps that depends to a certain extent on just how supportive / informative other people find the blocked poster to be. Posters have certaintly protested about some posters getting such lengthy blocks.
> The question could also be turned around, is it worth it to those posters to change how they post in order to be retained?I am not sure how posters feel after being blocked for three or four or twelve months. Does it encourage people to come back and 'try harder', or does it encourage people to think 'f*ck that, f*ck Babble'? How about being blocked for one or two months? More desire to change, or less? I would say more. That length of time is enough to be taken very seriously, but not so long as to result in so many posters simply giving up on Babble.
I guess this is where people might want to consider the nature of the particular offense. There seem to be a fair few comparatively 'minor' infractions which can compound (under the present system) to blocks of up to twelve months. It is possible under the present system for someone to be blocked for twelve months for an unasterisked '*ss', for instance. Some people may leave in protest of there being such severe consequences for such a comparatively minor infraction. I agree that infractions should be compounded (up to a point) but IMO (as a poster who has never been blocked) that is too severe.Also it might be worth considering whether the poster understands what is uncivil about their posts. If they do not then I would say that they are less likely to come back and so they lose the opportunity to come to understand.
I am not advocating getting rid of the civility rules altogether. I agree there should be consequences that are severe enough so that people take them very seriously. Capping the length of the blocks at somewhere around one or two months instead of the year that it is currently may well be severe enough, however.
Posters can still be blocked for (IMO) a fairly significant period of time - but they may be more likely to return and learn better than to leave altogether.
OTOH I guess people do come and go...
The role that was filled by one comes to be filled by others...
Nobody is indespensible...
Life goes on.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 12:34:17
In reply to Re: Is it worth changing » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on March 11, 2005, at 18:19:37
Posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 13:03:21
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? (nm), posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 12:34:17
Oh, I definitely think a year is too long. But I can see that Dr. Bob is set on that.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 14:07:44
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 13:03:21
> Oh, I definitely think a year is too long.
What do you think would be a better length then?
Posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 15:40:43
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 14:07:44
Three months? I don't know. I am interested in finding out how many folks come back after posts. Is there an asymptope (sp?) where folks do not come back?
gg
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 13, 2005, at 16:17:32
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 15:40:43
Well, although often I don't agree with how it's been implemented, I don't think a year is too long. There have been a few cases where I think it's actually not nearly long enough. What I disagree with is the automatic double and triple blocking, but Dr. Bob seems to have been more considered with that lately.
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.