![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on June 13, 2006, at 21:20:09
In reply to well folks, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2006, at 22:36:48
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2006, at 2:17:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 8 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 2:33:19
> previous block: 4 weeks
> period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
>
> If we take 2 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 4 - 0 = 4 weeks. And if we double that, that's 8 weeks.Thanks for your further work off-board to rephrase the statement that led to that previous block. I think you succeeded, I've discussed this with the deputies, and I'd like to "cancel" that block. Recalculating this block:
previous block: 2 weeks
period of time since previous block: 7 weeksIf we take 7 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 2 - 0 = 2 weeks. And if we double that, that's 4 weeks.
Which has already elapsed, so welcome back. :-)
Bob
Posted by Estella on July 29, 2006, at 0:05:05
In reply to Re: unblocked » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2006, at 2:17:48
For the record:
I did rephrase but I didn't and still don't understand what was wrong with what I was blocked for.
So...
I wasn't going to accept the reduction because it seems the reason for the reduction is that I rephrased.
But I still don't understand so I don't see why I should get a reduction for rephrasing something that I don't see anything wrong with.
I shouldn't have posted. I'm sorry.
I hereby give myself... 16 weeks... I think that is where I'm at now 2X8 for being weak and posting when I wasn't going to.
Posted by Estella on July 29, 2006, at 11:15:32
In reply to Re: unblocked, posted by Estella on July 29, 2006, at 0:05:05
ack.
see what happens when i post...
i don't like person i've become on boards. trauma focused. hurting.
sure i get that in my daily life...
but how much is the answer to indulge it and embrace it and how much is the answer to participate in the real world.
i'm addicted to the internet. more in particular to posting boards. even more in particular to here. i took an online test... surprise i'm only just within the range of 'may have a problem'. given that it was self report and i was brutally honest... i'm a little surprised i scored so low. but then i realised i don't need to take a test to see. just my worrying enough to find the test somewhat amusing (and worth taking)... well my answer is in there really.
i don't like the person i've become.
i guess it is hard. when does punishment become abuse? depends on how it affects the individual. when is a block abuse? depends on how it affects the individual. how to standardise that? you can't, basically. a one week block for one might not matter very much if they don't post weekly. a one week block for someone who posts a few posts every single day, on the other hand. a person who doesn't really have IRL supports partly because that person avoids them in order to spend time with people online...
i need to move on.
there are great people here...
but i need to do some goddamn work. i don't need to fall into a depression and crying jags 'cause i've been blocked... i don't need to be spending weeks of my time trying to figure why i've been blocked. i need to do some goddamn work and i need to make the most of IRL opportunities. do some mindfulness meditation, stop smoking, exchange coke for water, f*ck... i can't belive how much i've used this place (and others when this was unavailable) because... i'm afraid of IRL.
but hiding from it...
isn't helping me long term.
going round and round these f*cking circles...
know what?
i don't care anymore.
shame i can't block myself...
i don't want to be here
and posting in a moment of weakness...
only means i've got another thing to beat myself up over.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2006, at 14:23:57
In reply to Re: unblocked, posted by Estella on July 29, 2006, at 0:05:05
> I did rephrase but I didn't and still don't understand what was wrong with what I was blocked for.
Here's one way to look at it:
> i think the world would be a better place without x
isn't explicit about whom it would be better for. Would it be better for everyone? What's problematic about that phrasing is that it's agent-independent. OTOH:
> i think my goals would be better served if there weren't established religion
does explicitly specify an agent, yourself. Which, BTW, makes it an I-statement. So there's clearly no implication that it would be better for others. Does that help?
Bob
Posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 8:26:07
In reply to Re: still don't understand, posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2006, at 14:23:57
yes that helps a lot.
though...
aren't we allowed to discuss what we think would make the world (in general) a better place?
i thought... that was what you wanted us to do on the politics board...
Posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 18:29:57
In reply to Re: okay. » Dr. Bob, posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 8:26:07
and of course the relevant stated goals were
-pacifism (in the sense of nobody dying in wars either civilians or military)
-deliberative democracy (in the sense that private reasons can't provide reasons for others the way that public reasons can and hence public reasons can't really have a place in the deliberative arena)
what i really wanted to do was to discuss whether that is right or not (ie that if those are your goals then you would be right to think that the world would be a better place without x).
i am having trouble with what we are supposed to be doing on politics...
but i guess i should think of it as a dumping ground to tidy up social... or something...
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 13:40:52
In reply to Re: okay. » Dr. Bob, posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 8:26:07
> aren't we allowed to discuss what we think would make the world (in general) a better place?
Yes, but remember, the primary goal of this site is support. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what you think could be improved rather than what you think the problems are. In other words, it's more supportive to say the world would be better with y than without x.
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on July 31, 2006, at 14:52:42
In reply to Re: what would make the world a better place, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 13:40:52
Thank you for your work on this. I think because of you we have a very sensible rule change.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 31, 2006, at 16:12:57
In reply to Re: Estella made this site a better place, posted by AuntieMel on July 31, 2006, at 14:52:42
Yes, it's nice to see Estella posting again.
:)
Posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 19:36:22
In reply to Re: what would make the world a better place, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 13:40:52
> > aren't we allowed to discuss what we think would make the world (in general) a better place?
> Yes, but remember, the primary goal of this site is support. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what you think could be improved rather than what you think the problems are. In other words, it's more supportive to say the world would be better with y than without x.
Right. And that is why I unpacked 'I think the world would be better without x' like this:
>is it uncivil to say so?
>i don't really see how...
>if people disagree i am up for a discussion (i think that would be interesting which is why i said what i did)>i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
>i believe the world would be a better place if people appreciated that morality and values are seperable from established religion in the sense that you can have either one without the other and having one doesn't make it more probable that you will have the other.
>i believe the world would be a better place if people appreciated that there are other reasons for acting morally in accordance with values than 'god will reward us in the next life' or 'god will punish us in the next life' or 'because god said we should / shouldn't'.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060417/msgs/646430.html
But seems that wasn't okay since you cited:
> i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
In favour of blocking me.
10.5 weeks.
I tried to rephrase and I ended up not being able to post for 10.5 weeks.
Sorry but, I don't think I'll ever see that as fair.
And... I still don't understand. Maybe I see something of why you think you blocked me. But I really don't think I'll ever accept that as a good or fair reason.
Posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 19:39:09
In reply to Re: Estella made this site a better place, posted by AuntieMel on July 31, 2006, at 14:52:42
Hey. Thanks. To the best of my knowledge we don't have a rule change we have Bob making an exception to the rule. Hence... Someone or other will probably say something about unfairness at some point in the near future...
I tried to rephrase on the boards and was blocked for my efforts. Sometimes hard work... Well... Doesn't really matter.
Nice to hear from you. Thanks for posting ((((Auntiemel))))
Posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 19:39:43
In reply to Re: Estella made this site a better place, posted by gardenergirl on July 31, 2006, at 16:12:57
Posted by AuntieMel on August 1, 2006, at 8:57:28
In reply to Re: Rule change / Exception to rule » AuntieMel, posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 19:39:09
Au Contraire, methinks....
To quote:
> Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to put down the beliefs of others, could you link to something different?
Sorry, but since you haven't, I'm going to block you from posting. You're still free to email me, though, and if you rephrase by email
before your block is up, I'll unblock you.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/671663.html
Posted by Estella on August 1, 2006, at 9:23:51
In reply to Re: Rule change / Exception to rule » Estella, posted by AuntieMel on August 1, 2006, at 8:57:28
> Au Contraire, methinks....
:-O
:-)
Posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 20:05:49
In reply to Re: unblocked » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2006, at 2:17:48
> > previous block: 4 weeks
> > period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
> >
> > If we take 2 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 4 - 0 = 4 weeks. And if we double that, that's 8 weeks.
>
> Thanks for your further work off-board to rephrase the statement that led to that previous block. I think you succeeded, I've discussed this with the deputies, and I'd like to "cancel" that block. Recalculating this block:
>
> previous block: 2 weeks
> period of time since previous block: 7 weeks
>
> If we take 7 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 2 - 0 = 2 weeks. And if we double that, that's 4 weeks.
>
> Which has already elapsed, so welcome back. :-)
>
> BobSo she served 3 weeks of a block you cancelled plus 45 days -28 day sentence= 17 days over the revised sentence? Is that correct? This would be a total of over 5 weeks unjustly blocked wouldn't it?
I suggest that since it was your mistake you deduct it from your new "sentence" before tripling it. At the very least you should deduct it from your new 12 week sentence shouldn't you?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 18, 2006, at 2:48:18
In reply to Re:Credit for time served?? » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 20:05:49
> So she served ... 45 days -28 day sentence= 17 days over the revised sentence?
>
> At the very least you should deduct it from your new 12 week sentence shouldn't you?OK, rounded, that's 2 weeks, I'll deduct that from her current block. Which initially was 9 weeks, but later was extended to 36 weeks, so that makes it 34 weeks.
Bob
Posted by zazenducky on November 18, 2006, at 13:59:24
In reply to Re:Credit for time served??, posted by Dr. Bob on November 18, 2006, at 2:48:18
...So she served 3 weeks of a block you cancelled plus 45 days -28 day sentence= 17 days over the revised sentence? Is that correct? This would be a total of over 5 weeks unjustly blocked wouldn't it?
I suggest that since it was your mistake you deduct it from your new "sentence" before tripling it. At the very least you should deduct it from your new 12 week sentence shouldn't you?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/697098.html
> > So she served ... 45 days -28 day sentence= 17 days over the revised sentence?
> >
> > At the very least you should deduct it from your new 12 week sentence shouldn't you?
>
> OK, rounded, that's 2 weeks, I'll deduct that from her current block. Which initially was 9 weeks, but later was extended to 36 weeks, so that makes it 34 weeks.
>
> Bob
Dr Bob you omitted the 3 weeks served for a block that was rescinded which added to the two weeks is five weeks. Additionally this mistake occurred before you began whatever process led you to 36 weeks. It is reasonable to deduct the five weeks at the beginning. This would be nine weeks minus five weeks all ready served which is four weeks.For unknown reasons you multiplied by 4. This would be recalculated as 4 x 4 =16 weeks.
Posted by muffled on November 24, 2006, at 23:42:06
In reply to Re:Credit for time served??, posted by Dr. Bob on November 18, 2006, at 2:48:18
I missed something.
How the hell did Alexs block get to 36 weeks????
I only knew bout the 9 weeks or whatever.
What the f*ck happened?
This is b*llshit.
There should be a cap.
I am SO f*cking mad at this CRAP.
WTF does Bob NOT get about isolating and turning your back on someone. That is SUCH SH*T.
Mental health. Ya its like Gov't mental health here. If you sick they lock you up, then drug you up, to shut you the f*ck up, cuz they don't wanto deal with you.
SHUT THE F*CKING CRAZIES UP, is that what its about????????????????????????????Then you better tell me to shut the f*ck up too, cuz I crazy as a f*cking loon.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 9:42:33
In reply to HUH???? » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on November 24, 2006, at 23:42:06
> Mental health. Ya its like Gov't mental health here. If you sick they lock you up, then drug you up, to shut you the f*ck up, cuz they don't wanto deal with you.
> SHUT THE F*CKING CRAZIES UP, is that what its about????????????????????????????Then you better tell me to shut the f*ck up too, cuz I crazy as a f*cking loon.I'm sorry she's blocked, too. But the issue isn't being crazy, it's being civil.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 10:09:34
In reply to Please recheck calculation Dr Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on November 18, 2006, at 13:59:24
> Dr Bob you omitted the 3 weeks served for a block that was rescinded which added to the two weeks is five weeks.
Sorry, I missed that question at the end before. It was only that block's effect on her next block that was rescinded.
Bob
Posted by muffled on November 26, 2006, at 11:29:13
In reply to Re: crazy as a loon, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2006, at 9:42:33
>I'm sorry she's blocked, too. But the issue isn't being crazy, it's being civil.
**Yo, sup with the B&W thinking Bob?
NOTHING is that simple. You can't just make people fit the box. Thats part of being nuts, you DON'T FIT THE BOX. I thot this website was supposed to be a safe place to get support.
Its not so safe here Bob.
Do you not recognize that blocks are very triggering for both the blockee AND for other posters.
I am working like a bastard to control myself.
I work at a drop in center, and if the clientele don't behave they get the boot for a day, or even a week. Its only for fighting, or dealing, or using inside . It has to be major, as we don't wish to exclude, we wish to show unconditional love, but with boundaries of course or its not a safe place for people to come to.
We do lots of PBC's too. But multiple PBC's, and blocked only if really bad behavior, to the point of actually getting hazardous to others or the continiuing of the center. There are alot of addictions and people with mental health probs go thru there. We don't end up with alot of resentment, because the blocks are obviously understandable.I think you block over stuff thats not such a big deal. Where repeated warnings would be better, except in REALLY overt cases.
If I were to bypass the asterisk and write f*ck, would I be blocked? If I did that, it would be because I was extreemly angry, and was trying to be 'bad', without being too bad.
At the drop in center, if people do something like cussing out a volunteer, they out for the day only usu, cuz its just words and not threats. There's such a huge difference btwn actually attempting or threatening to hurt someone, and just expressing frustration, in not perhapsd the best way, but not the worst way either.
I beleive in a cap for blocks because anything much more than a week is WAY too ostracizing to a person.
I know there are other ways to connect, but its not the same. You are still ostracized, and ashamed before all. And that after exposing some of who you really are.
Your site has many good points Bob. Thank you.
But IMO the ease and severity of blocks is an ongoing and serious problem that you need to address.
Muffled
Posted by madeline on November 26, 2006, at 12:32:48
In reply to Re: crazy as a loon » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on November 26, 2006, at 11:29:13
I was hoping for a two week cap on blocks, but you are right at one week would be better.
Go muffled!
Maddie
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2006, at 3:39:29
In reply to Re: crazy as a loon » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on November 26, 2006, at 11:29:13
> You can't just make people fit the box. Thats part of being nuts, you DON'T FIT THE BOX. I thot this website was supposed to be a safe place to get support.
I try to keep it as safe here as possible. But unfortunately some people at some times may not fit this box.
> IMO the ease and severity of blocks is an ongoing and serious problem that you need to address.
Thanks for pushing for improvement. I agree, we need to keep working on the blocking system. But while we do that, is there some way we can help posters not get blocked? That would be a great way to support them. You could see it as a dialectic, trying at the same time to expand the box and to help people fit in it.
Or, looking at it another way, maybe we should just rely less on blocking. But then what would we rely on instead?
Bob
Posted by Jost on November 27, 2006, at 10:20:55
In reply to Re: fitting the box, posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2006, at 3:39:29
you could rely on more consistent PBCs, shorter and more frequent blocks--
more specific, individualized responses when people get close to or go over line in misdemeanor ways (which most are)-- not just a formulaic phrase-- or an impersonal block
asking people to go to chat and talk through what's going on with them, before blocking them -- and only blocking them for shorter periods of time--
not having this blind system of escalating blocks--
Stop the system of doubling blocks. Doubling IMO doesn't make sense-- much shorter blocks would give everyone more incentive (and possibility) to keep Babble a consistent place where people can be involved and get support, response--even if they lose it in relatively non-threatening or containable ways
Jost
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.