![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 40 to 64 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 9:35:34
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:01
Actually, I talked to my therapist about it, but I'm not sure how to word his response.
I might run that by you in email too.
But yeah, if you think Kali Munro would come by, that would be great. But it's a bit difficult civility-wise I grant you. People would have to be pretty careful.
Posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 10:47:35
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:01
> Or John Grohol? I think he has a different toolkit...
>
> BobNow that would be really interesting! I'd love to see it. Maybe it would help 'bury the hatchet' between the two communities as well as offering new ideas.
Posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:23:55
In reply to Re: John Grohol as guest expert, posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 10:47:35
> Re: John Grohol as guest expert
> Maybe it would help 'bury the hatchet' between the two communities […]Can you explain this a little? I know that Grohol, a psychologist, criticized several of Dr Bob's actions related to Babble. And I think that Bob left the ISMHO (which Bob co-founded) around that time — but I'm not sure of the connection.
Tabitha, I'd be grateful to understand a little more. What “two communities” do you mean? Thanks.
Posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:43:50
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by James K on January 8, 2006, at 18:10:21
James K had a good idea
> The repeated posting seemed uncivil to me, and I wonder if this could have been addressed off-site
What if deputy administrators could administer a back-channel (Babble-mail) warning and a private MINI-BLOCK for just a few hours, right when the situation was heating up?
The private warning could be, "This thread seems to be heating up. Perhaps everyone could benefit by taking a breather for a short time."
Also, the DA could privately block the two parties for, say, 8 hours, with no public humiliation.
If it were technically possible (I know Bob likes to write code <wink>), maybe that thread could also be frozen to everyone else for several hours, also?
But even if we just had mini-blocks as preventive measures, that would be something deputy administrators could easily do. The blocked people might resent it ("We didn't do anything wrong!"), but there'd be a lot less controversy than letting things escalate to where serious violations and blocks occur.
Just one more idea.
Posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 11:44:57
In reply to Grohol’s “hatchet”? » Tabitha, posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:23:55
I didn't mean to say any particular person was holding a 'hatchet'.
Dr. Grohol runs the PsychCentral boards, which cover some similar topics as Babble, but have some different admin policies and methods. There's been some discussion of the differences, which has at times felt like a bit of rivalry to me. But some folks are quite comfortable in both groups.
Posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:48:03
In reply to Re: “hatchet”? » pseudoname, posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 11:44:57
Posted by thuso on January 10, 2006, at 17:39:31
In reply to Oh. Thanks. (nm) » Tabitha, posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:48:03
Wow! It's been really hard keeping my mouth shut in all of this because I have very few nice things to say about the situation. Be that as it may, after reading some of the posts in Admin about the block and how "unfair" it is...I have an idea that I like.
Right now the blocking structure is very straight forward with not much flexibility. A lot of people seem to think that the 6 weeks was way too long for what Larry said. Has this site ever tried block lengths based on category of offenses? For example, not using and * would fall under Category A and being uncivil through a quote falls under Category B. Any offense that is listed under Category A would start off with a 1 week block (as usual), but if the poster later is uncivil with something in Category B they would again get a 1 week block because it is their first offense in a different category. The blocks would double (as usual) as a person continued to be uncivil within the same category. That way it allows someone to make a mistake without getting a huge block for doing something that isn't normally like them. It also allows you to have a category for more extreme offenses that can start with a 6 week block instead of a 1 week block.
I think a lot of incivility that happens on these boards can easily be categorized. This is also just another way to continue the idea of PBCs and blocks while allowing a poster room to make a mistake here and there.
After much google searching, I finally found a thread mentioning at least something similar. Phew! Unfortunately, it was never really discussed...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050116/msgs/445511.html
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 17:46:39
In reply to back-channel warnings and mini-blocks, posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:43:50
Dr. Bob has long been in favor of anything official also being public, and I have to say I agree.
Which doesn't mean that anyone, including fellow posters, can't babblemail or email a poster if they think they're coming close to the line and want to give a friendly heads up.
Posted by Phillipa on January 10, 2006, at 17:50:29
In reply to Re: “hatchet”? » pseudoname, posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 11:44:57
I've heard of psych central before. But I thought it was no longer operating as I goodled it and it said page unavailable. Just curious. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 18:04:07
In reply to Re: back-channel warnings and mini-blocks » pseudoname, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 17:46:39
> Dr. Bob has long been in favor of anything official also being public
That certainly makes sense.
How about still having mini-blocks -- publicly-noted -- for a couple hours to let a situation cool down? There would have to be specific criteria...
Bob isn't online enough to monitor situations like escalating exchanges, but Deputies are likely to see them while they're not yet bigtime violations.
I think Deputies would be willing to mini-block someone for a few hours, especially if it could help keep the angry Babbler from saying something they'd have to be major-blocked for.
It could've avoided a lot of hard feelings in the recent situation.
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 18:09:57
In reply to mini-blocks » Dinah, posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 18:04:07
Chuckle.
Well, *I* wouldn't mind. But I suspect those who were mini-blocked would mind quite a bit. :) I mean, if they've done something blockworthy, they'll be blocked. And if they haven't they're not likely to appreciate being mini-blocked.
I do try to give general warnings when I see things heating up. I'm not sure how much good they do.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 22:56:19
In reply to What about throwing around this idea?, posted by thuso on January 10, 2006, at 17:39:31
> Right now the blocking structure is very straight forward with not much flexibility.
Well, there's some flexibility. Enough for me to block some people for too long and others for not long enough...
> Has this site ever tried block lengths based on category of offenses?
There already are two categories of a sort: general and uncivil toward a particular individual or group:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> I think a lot of incivility that happens on these boards can easily be categorized.
Would someone like to propose a system?
Bob
Posted by Tabitha on January 11, 2006, at 0:53:35
In reply to Re: “hatchet”? » Tabitha, posted by Phillipa on January 10, 2006, at 17:50:29
It's still there. I get there by googling Grohol then clicking the online forum link.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 2:00:13
In reply to Re: John Grohol as guest expert, posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 10:47:35
> > Or John Grohol? I think he has a different toolkit...
>
> Now that would be really interesting! I'd love to see it.So that's one vote for Kali and one for John?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2006, at 9:19:42
In reply to Re: guest expert, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 2:00:13
I gotta admit that having Dr. Grohol would be interesting from an historical perspective, and it would be really cool of you.
But I think I understand his concepts relating to board administration and interaction, so I'm not sure it would be educational to *me*, though of course not everyone is familiar with him.
I think having Kali Munro again might be useful, but I'm wondering why you don't want to make alternate suggestions yourself?
Posted by pseudoname on January 12, 2006, at 10:07:17
In reply to Re: guest expert » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 12, 2006, at 9:19:42
> So that's one vote for Kali and one for John?
Could someone please explain (again) who Kali Munro is? I was probably on hiatus when she was last here.
I think the thread has explained who John Grohol is and how to find out more.
Thanks.
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2006, at 12:27:58
In reply to Who is Kali? » Dinah, posted by pseudoname on January 12, 2006, at 10:07:17
I'm not quite sure. :)
But she's been a guest expert on Admin before, so a Babble google search on her should come up with her previous posts.
Posted by Tabitha on January 12, 2006, at 12:28:58
In reply to Who is Kali? » Dinah, posted by pseudoname on January 12, 2006, at 10:07:17
Kali Munro is an online communication expert. I don't think she moderates forums herself. She was here before as guest expert once (or twice?).
If you just google Kali Munro you'll get her site plus links to when she was here:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHA,TSHA:2004-49,TSHA:en&q=kali+munro
Posted by Tabitha on January 12, 2006, at 12:30:49
In reply to Re: Who is Kali? » pseudoname, posted by Dinah on January 12, 2006, at 12:27:58
we cross-posted
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 22:52:31
In reply to Why not start now? » Dr. Bob, posted by wildcard on January 10, 2006, at 8:42:06
> Change is slow but you have to start somewhere right? I think the community has cast a vote
I think the community has shown a lot of support for Larry. Do you think it would be better if the lengths of blocks were voted on?
> 6 weeks (Dr.Bob, that's really extreme~did you read the entire thread?)
I did read the entire thread. I guess "extreme" is relative. :-)
Bob
Posted by muffled on January 12, 2006, at 22:58:15
In reply to Re: Why not start now?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 22:52:31
I did read the entire thread. I guess "extreme" is relative. :-)
Bob
*** Stubborn as a frikken mule someone is.
Posted by wildcard on January 12, 2006, at 22:59:34
In reply to Re: Why not start now?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 22:52:31
So any chance on lessening the block re: Larry if you feel extreme is relative?? That would definitely start the process of change....
Posted by muffled on January 12, 2006, at 22:59:53
In reply to Re: Why not start now? » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on January 12, 2006, at 22:58:15
> I did read the entire thread. I guess "extreme" is relative. :-)
>
> Bob
>
> *** Stubborn as a frikken mule someone is.So do I get blocked now? I feel bad inside.
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2006, at 23:50:30
In reply to Re: Why not start now?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 22:52:31
I've spent quite some time writing and deleting posts, Dr. Bob.
I'm not really in favor of voting for block lengths, because it isn't fair for administrating to become a popularity contest.
But...
I don't know. It's tough what you do. I certainly appreciate that you already showed flexibility in not doubling Lar's block.
But I feel like the problem may be a bit too much automation in the administrative action process. Not always, certainly. I think when the board goes up in flames, you tend to be a bit lenient in imposing blocks. And I guess you are using your judgement there. That you realize that things got out of control and people may have been swept along with the tide. But maybe you could use a bit more judgement and flexibility before the board goes up in flames as well.
You know the long term posters, Dr. Bob. And I would suspect that you know what sort of difficulties different posters manage to get into with the civility guidelines. Because there is a great deal of difference between intending to be uncivil, and not understanding the guidelines, and any number of steps in between.
I thought your idea of imposing a civility monitor instead of a block was interesting. I think it might be more reasonable if it were sort of like auto-asterisking. If during your probation period you decide not to send a post by the monitor, it would make the penalty for an uncivil post more severe. But so that not every lighthearted post needs to be run by the monitor.
If someone appears not to understand the guidelines, wouldn't a please rephrase make more sense? And maybe asking posters to help the person with that guideline?
I know I'm asking a lot of you. To exercise *more* judgement, and run the risk of *more* anger. And maybe that's not even the best thing for the community.
I just don't know.
Posted by crazy teresa on January 13, 2006, at 11:27:33
In reply to Re: Why not start now?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 22:52:31
>I think the community has shown a lot of support for Larry.
Because he was treated unfaily. Because he's a truly compassionate, supportive, loving person who shows others genuine concern, even when the rest of us have run out of patience.
Because you know you could turn this site over to him to run, pay him to do it, and it would be a GOOD thing.
When a poster is blocked and the resulting block is obviously in violation of the rules, no one really bothers to show up on Admin. to bitch about it.
It's when you subjectively hand out blocks, inconsistently determining their lengths (seemingly shorter lengths of time for those who are very practiced in kissing your *ss just the way you like it to be kissed, and longer lengths for those who don't see 'civility' and *ss-kissing as mutually exclusive), that most of us have the problem stomaching what you've done.
I've been blocked both ways. One time resulted in an outpouring of posts on Admin.; the other, there was silence on Admin., because I did deserve the block and it was very obvious.
I still got hugs, etc. on social, but no one was here on Admin. trying to get the block I truly deserved shortened or reversed. Nor should they have been!
As a parent, punishment must be handed down to children in a consistent and fair manner in order for them to understand the purpose of having consequenses/punishments.
If I beat my child today for spilling a glass of milk, but merely ground her from handling matches for setting the neighbor's house on fire tomorrow, the child will be confused because the level of punishments are inconsistent with the behaviors needing to be addressed. Eventually the child will grow to resent the poor parenting skills and have no respect for the parent, discounting (parental) authourity completely.
We're talking basic psycholgy, here, aren't we? And I'm really pissed because 'The Doctor' doesn't care to see this. Are you one of those people who are too smart to have any common sense? Or is all of this just a big experiment for your students to make observations and practice diagnosis? Fodder for a chapter or two in your book-- we write it for you but don't get acknowledged or compensated?
The lack of trust I have for you regarding your motives stems from all the inconsistencies I've seen here.
For the sake of your students, I hope your classrooms are run more efficiently and fairly than babble. And if they're not, then kids, feel free to take a road trip to Springfield, so you may each bring me the bottle of Spumanti you now owe me. ;~}
>Do you think it would be better if the lengths of blocks were voted on?BIG FAT NO! If you want to be in charge, don't pass the buck. There are people who come here thinking this is a safe place for them, if no other reason than because you're a shrink, a percieved authority. Turn the place over to the babblers, and you've destroyed your perception of safeness. Might as well pull the plug.
P.S. Bobster, I would have thought your offer to me of a full scholorship would have arrived by now... ROFLPMP!!!
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.