![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 21, 2009, at 17:40:58
In reply to Re: a recent sequence..., posted by Sigismund on January 21, 2009, at 16:30:06
>
> I am sorry to see it come to this.So am I.
pc
Posted by Annierose on January 21, 2009, at 18:41:19
In reply to Blocked for four weeks » twinleaf, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 21, 2009, at 14:08:23
I agree. I do not understand it myself.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 21, 2009, at 18:45:21
In reply to a recent sequence..., posted by twinleaf on January 21, 2009, at 13:52:30
Twinleaf,
I know you can't respond just now, and I regret that it the situation. I want to clarify some things you wrote about.
> December 23 10Derheart: (giving me a two week block): "please do not post anything that could lead others to feel accused (for example, of causing pain)."
That quote is not mine. It is Dr. Bob's, from December 22nd, from this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870212.html
...asking you and others to follow the civility guidelines. I only mentioned it again, *and quoted Dr. Bob* in my post because I felt you had misunderstood him and I was trying to clarify.
> While not specified,
I couldn't have specified anything about that phrase as I did not write it. However, I do always specify the uncivil portions of a post by 'snipping' them out and placing them first, as do the other deputies and Dr. Bob.
See the actual blocking post from December 23rd:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870405.html
>I am assuming she is referring to the possibility that the deputies might feel accused by me of causing pain to posters.
No. *He* (Dr. Bob) was referring to a phrase you wrote - "a poster had caused further pain in a private email" which was deemed uncivil as it could cause whomever you meant to feel accused of causing pain to another poster - nothing to do with deputies.
>To be suddenly warned not to speak about blocks causing pain because the deputies might feel hurt was a shock,
Sorry, but I can't see where this happened. I am lost as to where this was written by anyone. Dr. Bob explained his meaning in his PBC post, in this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870416.html
...and my block was given for other phrases I sited when I posted about the block.
>the poster (or deputy) who initiates a sudden change in view,
If you are referring to me, I don't understand. My view is only that posters are asked to follow civility guidelines, and if, after warnings, they do not, I will usually block them from posting for a period of time. That basic stance of how the rules of PB will be applied, as set out by Dr. Bob and followed by the deputies, hasn't changed.
>Making silent protests via the notification button is, unfortunately, totally inadequate in every regard.
Perhaps, and I can understand how it might not seem like the best method for everyone. Maybe it might depend on the objective? I recall part of the rational behind starting the notification procedure was to increase the overall supportive environment in our community, by lessening polarizing of posters ("for and against" something potentially uncivil) and (hopefully) reducing hurt and embarrassed feelings that used to arise when one poster essentially "called out" another on the boards over words they felt violated guidelines. (run-on sentence there-sorry!)
-- 10derHeart, posting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 21, 2009, at 18:53:30
In reply to Re: Blocked for four weeks, posted by Annierose on January 21, 2009, at 18:41:19
Is there a specific question? If so, feel free to ask.
We will certainly try to answer, keeping in mind the idea is *never* to make any situation worse or increase discomfort by 'talking about' a blocked poster, so to speak (not that you want that, either - of course!).
But if there's something we can clarify about why we've done what we've done, please let us know, if you want to and can see a way to express that within the guidelines.
- 10derHeart
Posted by Dinah on January 21, 2009, at 19:28:43
In reply to Re: a recent sequence..., posted by Sigismund on January 21, 2009, at 16:30:06
I am too.
Posted by Phillipa on January 21, 2009, at 20:10:48
In reply to Re: a recent sequence..., posted by Dinah on January 21, 2009, at 19:28:43
I didn't know Twinleaf for blocked. Phillipa. Not still anyway.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2009, at 22:24:06
In reply to a recent sequence..., posted by twinleaf on January 21, 2009, at 13:52:30
> ...(all the more shocking because it was made by a mental health professional). ...There can be a degree of hurt in posted comments which simply cannot be rectified or atoned for in notifications.
> December [22] Gardenergirl: (to me) "perhaps you might benefit from doing work on cognitive distortion."
Twinleaf, I apologize to you for that comment. Though I truly didn't intend for it to be hurtful, I can see how it was, and I regret causing you pain. Looking at it now, I can see that it came from a frustrated place in me and seems more likely to be about trying to alleviate my own frustration versus anyone else's feelings.
If I had the opportunity for a mulligan, I might instead merely post a list of common cognitive biases/distortions and possibly how to challenge them, as in the material on these two pages: http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9747&cn=353 and
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9748&cn=353
That approach leaves it up to you and/or anyone else reading to think it relevant or not and to do with that information what they will.As to your statement about a post coming from a "mental health professional", my very first thought was that it isn't relevant. Then I realized that any label one applies to another can come with a set of expectations and/or assumptions about behavior and intentions related to the label. How much one believes in those expectations/assumptions can vary certainly, so perhaps it could be relevant, at least in as far as feeling shocked by a message. On the other hand, I think that a mental health professional might be more more likely to be familiar with the construct of congntive biases/distortions and thus might be more likely to bring it up as a hypothesis than someone who has not been exposed to the construct. At any rate, all of that seems secondary, at least to me, to whether or not the label/assumption is even accurate, which is personal information I no longer disclose on this site.
Regards,
gg
Posted by fayeroe on January 22, 2009, at 8:44:14
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » twinleaf, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 21, 2009, at 18:45:21
**Twinleaf,
I know you can't respond just now, and I regret that it the situation. I want to clarify some things you wrote about.
> December 23 10Derheart: (giving me a two week block): "please do not post anything that could lead others to feel accused (for example, of causing pain)."
That quote is not mine. It is Dr. Bob's, from December 22nd, from this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870212.html
...asking you and others to follow the civility guidelines. I only mentioned it again, *and quoted Dr. Bob* in my post because I felt you had misunderstood him and I was trying to clarify.**
It is hard for me to understand what someone else is feeling. I appreciate an effort to clarify for Twinleaf but I would hate for someone thinking that they understand how someone who is hurt is "feeling". Personally, I don't think it is possible.
I also pose the question about the statement that GG apologized for. I believe that it deserved attention from a deputy. Apology or not, in my opinion, it was unnecessary.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 22, 2009, at 10:12:50
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by fayeroe on January 22, 2009, at 8:44:14
> I also pose the question about the statement that GG apologized for. I believe that it deserved attention from a deputy.
Please don't jump to conclusions. If you read the thread in question, you will see that attention was given.
> Apology or not, in my opinion, it was unnecessary.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, for example of posting something unnecessary. If you believe a post is in violation of site guidelines, please notify administration.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by fayeroe on January 22, 2009, at 10:52:32
In reply to Please be civil » fayeroe, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 22, 2009, at 10:12:50
Posted by 10derHeart on January 22, 2009, at 12:37:45
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by fayeroe on January 22, 2009, at 8:44:14
Okay.
Maybe I should have written I "thought" Twinleaf had misunderstood Dr. Bob's PBC post? I can accept that.
It's hard for me to know, and sometimes to even notice, whether I've used the verbs 'think,' or 'feel' when I write. Sorry if one or the other implies something other than what I intended. I never had it in my mind that I knew how she was feeling, actually."I felt" was just an expression, a tool to get the sentence written, if you will, but I see it can mean more to a reader.
Posted by fayeroe on January 22, 2009, at 16:03:12
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » fayeroe, posted by 10derHeart on January 22, 2009, at 12:37:45
Posted by wittgensteinz on January 22, 2009, at 19:08:05
In reply to a recent sequence..., posted by twinleaf on January 21, 2009, at 13:52:30
I don't get it - where was the warning? It looks like Twinleaf returned, made a single post and immediately was blocked again for 4 weeks without even a caution. Was this really the best thing to have been done?
Until now, I hadn't realised Twinleaf had been blocked the last couple of weeks. I rarely visit the admin board.
Twinleaf, I don't know if you will read this but I want you to know I've really missed you the past couple of weeks. I was wondering whether you had left babble and hoped very much not. I always read your contributions with interest, and especially appreciate the insights you share about your therapy. To me you seem to be one of the most level-headed and consciencious posters of us all. I just don't see how this block and its length are justified and I'm very sorry. I really hope you will find it possible, safe and beneficial to come back again after all of this has blown over.
Witti
Posted by stellabystarlight on January 22, 2009, at 22:21:37
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » twinleaf, posted by wittgensteinz on January 22, 2009, at 19:08:05
Twinleaf,
I am very, very sorry about everything. It's surreal, and I feel hopeless about not being able to help you in any real way.
Like Witti, I have also missed seeing your posts here...you are valuable and irreplaceable.
I feel so sad to see you go through this. I care about what you must be going through, Twinleaf.
Take good care of yourself.(((((Twinleaf))))).
Stellabystarlight
Posted by stellabystarlight on January 22, 2009, at 23:57:36
In reply to a recent sequence..., posted by twinleaf on January 21, 2009, at 13:52:30
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 23, 2009, at 0:21:14
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » twinleaf, posted by wittgensteinz on January 22, 2009, at 19:08:05
> I don't get it - where was the warning? It looks like Twinleaf returned, made a single post and immediately was blocked again for 4 weeks without even a caution.
Yes, that is essentially what happened.
>I just don't see how this block and its length are justified.
We don't always post requests to be civil (warnings) prior to blocking. It depends on the poster's history and other circumstances, e.g., experienced poster vs. a new poster, reasons for prior block, nature of incivility, time since end of last block, etc. One typical time we may choose not to post a PBC first actually is when a poster posts in violation of the guidelines immediately after a block. As for the length, it is double the length of the last one, as has been done in the past. The formula in the FAQ -
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
actually calculates 6 weeks here, but Dinah chose not to use it. Dr. Bob has given us the choice of using that tool, or not. When I don't use it, it's always because I feel the block length it suggests is too long. I'm fairly confident that goes for Dinah, too, although she may have additional reasons for not preferring the formula.
>Was this really the best thing to have been done?
I'm unsure there's any answer to that question that would be "the answer" for everyone. Babblers have many strong and differing opinions about using blocks in general, as well as about when they should be used, and for how long. In the archives and even currently, you will find many threads on the topic. As deputies, we try to follow Dr. Bob's prior practices, and be fair and just in each situation, to the best of our abilities. Dinah did follow prior practice in this case.
Dr. Bob has been alerted, and asked to review the block and its length. He, of course, can change it to whatever he wishes, including no action, if he disagrees with what we did.
> Until now, I hadn't realised Twinleaf had been blocked the last couple of weeks.
The prior block was actually over on Jan 6th.
Witti, I'm sorry your infrequent visit to Admin had been focused on this topic. As deputies we really dislike blocking, and use it only as a necessary tool, with reluctance. However, we also believe in the civility guidelines and think it's best for the community they continue to be firmly enforced. Reasonable people can definitely disagree, and often do. There are, for example, let's say - "spirited" discussions between the deputies and and Dr. Bob at times over the most appropriate rules for this site and actions to be taken in given situations.
I hope, even though you may not agree, you understand some of our considerations a bit better.
-- 10der
Posted by fayeroe on January 23, 2009, at 8:48:59
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » wittgensteinz, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 23, 2009, at 0:21:14
******We don't always post requests to be civil (warnings) prior to blocking. It depends on the poster's history and other circumstances, e.g., experienced poster vs. a new poster, reasons for prior block, nature of incivility, time since end of last block, etc. One typical time we may choose not to post a PBC first actually is when a poster posts in violation of the guidelines immediately after a block. As for the length, it is double the length of the last one, as has been done in the past. The formula in the FAQ -******
1. I've been here since 2002 and I do not understand blocks.
2. I will never understand blocks.
3. I'm usually warned before I'm blocked.
4. I feel badly when Bob says that the poster's history has to be considered....what if the poster has been so upset that the blocks were due to being out of control and/or hurting? I don't think that it is fair to consider their history.
5. I believe that it would be a better place if each incident was examined individually and then the decision was made concerning the
possibility of the block.6. Blocks can, and will, be discussed til the cows come home and everyone, skinny and fat, sings. Nothing here will change, nothing!
7. I've tilted at windmills for 7 years and all I've gotten out of it is a sore shoulder and more aggravation.
8. The deputies are doing what they've been told to do. Bob "pays the cost, to be the boss". (check out the song on Youtube by B.B.King..that is better than questioning the silly system here.
9. Don't go read Bob's formula that he uses to arrive at the duration of the blocks, unless you want a headache and more questions sliding down the canyons of your brain.
10. I don't understand blocks and I never will. Nothing will change here.
Pat
Posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 23, 2009, at 9:26:27
In reply to for posters who don't understand blocks., posted by fayeroe on January 23, 2009, at 8:48:59
ditto
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 23, 2009, at 10:09:53
In reply to for posters who don't understand blocks., posted by fayeroe on January 23, 2009, at 8:48:59
Me three
Posted by SLS on January 23, 2009, at 10:59:05
In reply to Re: for posters who don't understand blocks. » fayeroe, posted by Partlycloudy on January 23, 2009, at 10:09:53
I don't recall Psycho-Babble ever being like some other Internet venues where flame wars were allowed to develop unchecked. I think we always attracted some very mature and sober people.
However,
I would liken the old Psycho-Babble to a rodeo. It was a lot of fun at the time, I must admit, but you would lose something on the reruns. Some people had nothing better to do than to shoot their mouths off. It was bloody, but fun to watch. Some people were all bull, and left an odor trail everywhere they went. I never bothered riding the bull. What's the point? If you don't get thrown off and land in crap, you still have to step in it. Then you had the stallions with their notions of grandieur. I loved to ride their backs until they broke. And then, there were the clowns.
Thank God for the clowns.
- Scott
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 23, 2009, at 11:14:53
In reply to Re: for posters who don't understand blocks., posted by SLS on January 23, 2009, at 10:59:05
>
> Thank God for the clowns.
>
>
> - Scott
We still have those!!
Posted by stellabystarlight on January 23, 2009, at 12:48:11
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » wittgensteinz, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 23, 2009, at 0:21:14
Re: a recent sequence... » wittgensteinz
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 23, 2009, at 0:21:14
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » twinleaf, posted by wittgensteinz on January 22, 2009, at 19:08:05
> I don't get it - where was the warning? It looks like Twinleaf returned, made a single post and immediately was blocked again for 4 weeks without even a caution.
Yes, that is essentially what happened.
>I just don't see how this block and its length are justified.
We don't always post requests to be civil (warnings) prior to blocking. It depends on the poster's history and other circumstances, e.g., experienced poster vs. a new poster, reasons for prior block, nature of incivility, time since end of last block, etc. One typical time we may choose not to post a PBC first actually is when a poster posts in violation of the guidelines immediately after a block. As for the length, it is double the length of the last one, as has been done in the past. The formula in the FAQ -
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
actually calculates 6 weeks here, but Dinah chose not to use it. Dr. Bob has given us the choice of using that tool, or not. When I don't use it, it's always because I feel the block length it suggests is too long. I'm fairly confident that goes for Dinah, too, although she may have additional reasons for not preferring the formula.
>Was this really the best thing to have been done?
I'm unsure there's any answer to that question that would be "the answer" for everyone. Babblers have many strong and differing opinions about using blocks in general, as well as about when they should be used, and for how long. In the archives and even currently, you will find many threads on the topic. As deputies, we try to follow Dr. Bob's prior practices, and be fair and just in each situation, to the best of our abilities. Dinah did follow prior practice in this case.
Dr. Bob has been alerted, and asked to review the block and its length. He, of course, can change it to whatever he wishes, including no action, if he disagrees with what we did.
> Until now, I hadn't realised Twinleaf had been blocked the last couple of weeks.
The prior block was actually over on Jan 6th.
Witti, I'm sorry your infrequent visit to Admin had been focused on this topic. As deputies we really dislike blocking, and use it only as a necessary tool, with reluctance. However, we also believe in the civility guidelines and think it's best for the community they continue to be firmly enforced. Reasonable people can definitely disagree, and often do. There are, for example, let's say - "spirited" discussions between the deputies and and Dr. Bob at times over the most appropriate rules for this site and actions to be taken in given situations.
I hope, even though you may not agree, you understand some of our considerations a bit better.
-- 10der
**********************************************************************************************I don't get it either.
So, some posters get warnings before getting blocked and some don't, because it depends on factors outside of formula?
Her block ended on 1/6...if she'd waited longer before posting again, she would have gotten a warning?These are my feelings, but Twinleaf's last post didn't make me feel unsafe in any way.
I thought she was voicing her feelings and perceptions in a respectful way.I understand it's a complicated situation. And it's subjective, but I sincerely don't perceive her post as uncivil or unsafe.
Thank you.
Stellabystarlight
Posted by Sigismund on January 23, 2009, at 13:50:18
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by stellabystarlight on January 23, 2009, at 12:48:11
Was account taken of Twinleaf's posting history?
Posted by Nadezda on January 23, 2009, at 16:11:48
In reply to Re: a recent sequence... » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by stellabystarlight on January 23, 2009, at 12:48:11
For what it's worth, I do understand the blocks.
I understand why things happen-- not every time, but usually.
I'm sure I'll be blocked at some future time, when I lose my cool and post in a less than careful or kind way. I've done it before (not been as kind or careful as I'd like) and I'm concerned that I'll do it again.
It does depend on how the person at the receiving end of the unkindness reacts. Some people are okay; others report and ask for a sanction. This results in what seems like erratic and in that sense unfair results. But it makes sense.
Could it be done in another way? yes. Would it be better, or worse? possibly both.
I happen, for better or worse, to think this is a pretty fair system, given the complexity of running a large and complicated board.
I know it feels really bad at times, and I empathize with that. One wants to change it, protest against it, and have one's voice heard. That's why we have the admin board. We can at least protest--if not protect the person from feeling hurt--, even if not change the outcomes.
I wish it could be more ideal.. And it's part of why it's important for people to show support and caring for people who're blocked and sanctioned. Here-- or where the posts were made. I'm glad people are doing that.
But I do understand the way things are done.
Nadezda
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2009, at 17:32:08
In reply to Re: a recent sequence..., posted by Nadezda on January 23, 2009, at 16:11:48
> It does depend on how the person at the receiving end of the unkindness reacts. Some people are okay; others report and ask for a sanction.
I just want to clarify one thing. Reports are not necessarily made by the poster involved. Anyone can notify Administration, including deputy/posters.
But definitely we prefer things to be worked out if possible, and if posters involved respond in such a way as to facilitate rapprochement, it decreases the chance of administrative involvement.
I'm obviously not thrilled when posters get angry with Administration, but I'd hate to see those feelings turned toward other posters.
It definitely did serve a purpose when Dr. Bob was around. Even I routinely deflect my anger towards him. And he *seems* able to handle that. I think I'd fall off my chair if I found out anything I've ever said actually hurt Dr. Bob's feelings.
All these comments are very general in nature and do not directly bear on any particular situation.
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.