![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 141 to 165 of 224. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 18:09:37
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion?, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 13, 2005, at 16:17:32
> 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.
How about a +1 and +2 system instead of X2 and X3? See, for example:
http://dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/465833.html
That way it takes longer to get to very long blocks.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 18:15:31
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion?, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 13, 2005, at 16:17:32
> There have been a few cases where I think it's actually not nearly long enough.
Remember, though that if they get blocked again then they get blocked for the same length of time.
So if there is someone who repeatedly posts 'grossly offensive' posts they can only get a maximum of, say 12 of them out per year if the maximum block length is one month, or 6 if the maximum block length is two months.
Though I don't see why anybody would bother...
And people might learn better.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 13, 2005, at 20:37:39
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 18:15:31
> > There have been a few cases where I think it's actually not nearly long enough.
>
> Remember, though that if they get blocked again then they get blocked for the same length of time.
>
> So if there is someone who repeatedly posts 'grossly offensive' posts they can only get a maximum of, say 12 of them out per year if the maximum block length is one month, or 6 if the maximum block length is two months.
>
> Though I don't see why anybody would bother...
>
> And people might learn better.
>
Yes, I'm well aware of that, I've been here for a while : )I still feel the same way, some people don't want to learn, some simply want to provoke.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2005, at 22:35:01
In reply to Re: Is it worth changing, posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2005, at 2:45:58
> > 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_kI wanted to think long and hard before I expressed my opinion on this issue.
> IMO, 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?Given the upset that has arisen amongst Babblers in general when lengthy or marginal blocks have been given out, I have to answer affirmatively to your latter question. Most definitely, all Babblehood is affected by lengthy blocks.
There may well be individuals that fall into a category of being mostly unsupportive, or who fail to make much effort at civility. For those posters, recurrent blocks would end up being virtually indistinguishable from one massive block. If it's not worth their trouble to modify behaviour under the punitive regime now in place, I can't see those 52 week blocks being any sort of deterrent, in any case.
No, the ones most likely to respond to the fist in a velvet glove are the majority of people who get blocked. Those whose passion got the better of them. Those who were triggered by subconscious reactions. Those who are trying to work through issues, and learn how to do things better. Those caring enough to try to be more civil, in fact. To learn from mistakes.
Believe me, a block of eight weeks is not insubstantial. I resigned from Babble over a six week block. It is the exponential increase in block duration that is most hurtful to the intent of the disciplinary act itself. Is not the intent to provide motive for change? But if the punishment increases at a rate that exceeds the capacity for change, what happens to the desire to change? It is crushed.
> The question could also be turned around, is it worth it to those posters to change how they post in order to be retained?
One must never take away dignity or respect or compassion while trying to invoke discipline. I fear the doubling and tripling block system fails in all three realms.
> > 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.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> It's nice to be appreciated, but there's a difference between needing a compelling reason to change and just not intending to...
>
> BobWhen I saw people getting multi-week blocks for uttering an exuberant self-congratulatory "I kicked *ss!", I was heart-broken. Now we have an automatic asterisk system. The "crime" has not been redefined, it has been accomodated. It has been accomodated by offering a default setting that precludes blocking arising from a simple failure of self-censoring or inattention.
The motive force for changing that aspect of Babbledom was the general sense that the magnitude of the punishment was not in accord with the violation.
It is my sense that blocks in excess of eight weeks duration are not in accord with any system of justice that I can accomodate.
I truly hope the maximums are substantially reduced, along with the rate of escalation towards those maximums. Progressive discipline will not be lost if the rate of escalation is reduced. Recurrent maximum blocks will have virtually identical effects as the sanctions now in place. It is the middle ground cases that will most benefit. Those most amenable to efforts to modify behaviour. Those are the posters who disappear under the current regime. Those needlessly lost to us. And I may be the next to go.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2005, at 22:57:14
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 15:40:43
> 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?
>
> ggOh, that's very sexy. Asymptote. Geek-girl sexy. ;-)
Lar
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 13, 2005, at 23:33:28
In reply to Re: Is it worth changing? Yes » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2005, at 22:35:01
Those are good points. I guess I agree, but I wish for the two or 3 people (i've seen since I've been here) who are simply being *ssh*les is that they could be banned altogether.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 0:00:12
In reply to Re: Is it worth changing? Yes » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 13, 2005, at 23:33:28
> Those are good points. I guess I agree, but I wish for the two or 3 people (i've seen since I've been here) who are simply being *ssh*les is that they could be banned altogether.
I can think of maybe one or two posters who I feel that way about at times. But I figure that they are lessons for me in tolerance. Also, maybe they will change over time. Unlikely to be sure, but possible.
Whereas if they never come back then I guess we will never know. I don't like the idea of giving up on anybody.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 14, 2005, at 0:27:12
In reply to Re: Is it worth changing? Yes » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 0:00:12
I think if you knew of the posts I am thinking of, you would feel the same. They are one's that Bob actually deleted though. And I won't make reference to them here. I too am tolerant and forgiving, there was no lesson in these posts. None.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 14, 2005, at 0:47:11
In reply to Re: Is it worth changing? Yes » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 14, 2005, at 0:27:12
Sorry, I should have said that I couldn't imagine anyone finding a worthwhile lesson in these posts.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 1:19:41
In reply to Re: Is it worth changing? Yes » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 14, 2005, at 0:27:12
> I think if you knew of the posts I am thinking of, you would feel the same. They are one's that Bob actually deleted though. And I won't make reference to them here. I too am tolerant and forgiving, there was no lesson in these posts. None.
Perhaps there could be a different system for posts that are deemed to be so very grossly offensive that they are deleted. I mean, it is not like that happens very often...
Posted by Dinah on March 14, 2005, at 9:18:32
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 18:15:31
The thing that's getting overlooked here is the administrative side. Dr. Bob is often off board for days at a time. Yes, there are deputies, but...
At any rate, if posters are to be only blocked for brief periods of time, then come back for brief periods of time before being blocked again, there are going to be problems and innocents (in the sense that they are responding to rather than intitiating uncivil posts) getting admin actions and all the accompanying disturbance that comes when there's a dustup on board.
There is no way on god's green earth that twelve one month blocks are equivilant to one twelve month block administratively or in terms of how it affects the board, the posters, etc.
If Dr. Bob were viewing every post before it got posted, then yes, maybe. Otherwise it's just NOT equivilant.
Posted by Dinah on March 14, 2005, at 9:44:08
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 14, 2005, at 9:18:32
Actually, I guess what I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with the machinery being in place. I think it's perfectly reasonable to lobby Dr. Bob for judicious use and mercy.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 14, 2005, at 10:51:20
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 14, 2005, at 9:18:32
> The thing that's getting overlooked here is the administrative side. Dr. Bob is often off board for days at a time. Yes, there are deputies, but...
>
> At any rate, if posters are to be only blocked for brief periods of time, then come back for brief periods of time before being blocked again, there are going to be problems and innocents (in the sense that they are responding to rather than intitiating uncivil posts) getting admin actions and all the accompanying disturbance that comes when there's a dustup on board.
>
> There is no way on god's green earth that twelve one month blocks are equivilant to one twelve month block administratively or in terms of how it affects the board, the posters, etc.
>
> If Dr. Bob were viewing every post before it got posted, then yes, maybe. Otherwise it's just NOT equivilant.It is not equivalent because of administrative failings, rather than of merit.
I quickly realized that my proposal would require an enhancement of administrative action; more work for Dr. Bob, without doubt. However, if that is his reason for maintaining the status quo, I cannot accept that. His expediency does not supercede justice.
In analogy, locks only keep honest men out. There is no administrative process that will preclude posts which are intentionally uncivil. We all know that a determined poster will find a way to post.
I do not wish to be lumped in with that group, should I again fall afoul of the rules. I am not like that, but the punitive measures in place today do not make such a distinction. One more block, and I'm gone forever.
Lar
P.S. I still do not agree with the merits of two of my prior blockings.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:43:06
In reply to Re: anybody else have an opinion? » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 14, 2005, at 9:18:32
> At any rate, if posters are to be only blocked for brief periods of time, then come back for brief periods of time before being blocked again, there are going to be problems and innocents (in the sense that they are responding to rather than intitiating uncivil posts) getting admin actions and all the accompanying disturbance that comes when there's a dustup on board.
I realise that it won't be equivalent. I guess it is a matter of a trade-off between some mostly supportive posters leaving the boards because of the length of their blocks and posters putting up with a bit more incivility on the boards.
To weigh up which is more important to us...
I guess there might be a bit more work for moderators...
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.