![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 46. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 5:45:56
In reply to Blocked for four weeks » twinleaf, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 21, 2009, at 14:08:23
I can see how Twinleaf's comments regarding Gardenergirl's post could have led her to feel put down, but that said, I can also see how GG's suggestion that Twinleaf has 'cognitive distortions' could also be upsetting/offensive to Twinleaf, but there was no recognotion of this at the time from the deputies, and I can see how Twinleaf might have felt victimised as a result and had a need for this to be recognised.
There are situations where using the notification button just doesn't seem appropriate or enough. I can think of a personal example where a poster posted two upsetting posts in quick succession. He was blocked for the first post. The second post, directed at me left me feeling very upset but because he had already been blocked for his first post there was no recognition for his behaviour in the second. In these situations, the person at the receiving end can get the feeling "well it's ok if someone says that to me but not if they say something like that to someone else". I can see a similar situation arising if someone is blocked and shortly afterwards receives a comment from antoher poster that they take to be offensive.
It is no secret that GG is a mental health professional and therefore any suggestions she does make regarding a person's mental health might be taken with more authority by the community and the recipient than if someone was simply going by personal experience and sharing about what benefitted them personally. It is one thing to give advice and make suggestions regarding what a person should be working on in terms of their mental health if that advice is asked for, but in the context, it would seem this advice had the effect of undermining or invalidating the concerns that Twinleaf was expressing.
My worry now is that this experience will put Twinleaf off from ever returning to Babble and that would be a great loss for the community here.
Witti
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 9:36:07
In reply to Regarding Twinleaf's block, posted by wittgensteinz on January 24, 2009, at 5:45:56
> ...I can also see how GG's suggestion that Twinleaf has 'cognitive distortions' could also be upsetting/offensive to Twinleaf, but there was no recognotion of this at the time from the deputies, and I can see how Twinleaf might have felt victimised as a result and had a need for this to be recognised.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870270.html
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, even if they have already received a PBC.
> There are situations where using the notification button just doesn't seem appropriate or enough.> I can think of a personal example where a poster posted two upsetting posts in quick succession. He was blocked for the first post. The second post, directed at me left me feeling very upset but because he had already been blocked for his first post there was no recognition for his behaviour in the second.
I recognize that there are times when the rules at Babble do not seem adequate for expressing our pain and frustration. In fact, since as a deputy the rules that apply to me are even more stringent, and enforcement of the existing rules toward me is somewhat (but not infinitely) more relaxed by Dr. Bob's expressed wish, I am very much aware of this. However, the rules were created by Dr. Bob for the good of the board. And if there was no enforcement of the rules, there is no real purpose in having them. Everyone on Babble is likely frustrated by the civility guidelines at times, but they are also protected by the civility guidelines. Frustrated or not, Dr. Bob asks that we abide by the civility rules. Posters always have the option of deciding whether breaking the rules is worth the consequences, for reasons of conscience or satisfaction or various and sundry other reasons, although since I think there are valid reasons for the civility rules in fostering a supportive community, for the most part I hope that posters find a way to do what their conscience or feelings of dissatisfaction require while keeping the civility guidelines and the spirit of the civility guidelines in mind. (I am not at all suggesting that this is the only reason for posting in violation of board guidelines.)
The standard practice of not PBC'ing posts for a poster who has since been PBC'd and not blocking on posts where a poster has already been blocked has two purposes IMO. Dr. Bob can correct me if I am wrong. The first purpose is frankly related to the blocked poster. It may be harder for people to understand in some cases than others, but Dr. Bob is in favor of making rules that apply to *everyone* on the board. The second reason is practical. Once a poster is PBC'd or blocked for one post, Dr. Bob does not act on posts previous to that, so from an administrative point of view it is moot rather posts made before that time were uncivil so Dr. Bob's limited time is spent on future posts.
However, since that time, deputies suggested and received permission to post reminder posts to persons already blocked or PBC'd on posts made around the same time. Particularly if they are on different boards. Because we recognize that not everyone reads every thread or every board. So if in the future you would like to do that, please let Administration know, and if it falls into those parameters we will do it.
> My worry now is that this experience will put Twinleaf off from ever returning to Babble and that would be a great loss for the community here.
No one respects Twinleaf or her contributions to the Board more than I do. No one regrets this situation more than I do. Particularly since I post frequently on the Psychology Board, and I consider it my second family. We've had many valuable and interesting discussions over the many years of our acquaintance that I cherish, and I would hate to see those end. While I don't wish to speak for anyone else, I believe Twinleaf's contributions to Babble are greatly respected by Dr. Bob and deputies. I very much hope as well that Twinleaf comes back to Babble.
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:16:33
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » wittgensteinz, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 9:36:07
Could you please explain then why Twinleaf was blocked rather than given a warning for her post? I don't believe that the formula makes it clear to the community.
Inquiring minds sincerely want to know.
Thank you
pc
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 10:18:04
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » Deputy Dinah, posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:16:33
I think Deputy 10derheart addressed that as well as I could.
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:25:38
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » Partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 10:18:04
> I think Deputy 10derheart addressed that as well as I could.
Ah, right. Silence from you, then. Thanks for the illumination.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 10:28:20
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » Dinah, posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:25:38
I believe that Deputy 10derheart provided sufficient illumination. I do not consider that silence from me, since it is a clear endorsement of Deputy 10derheart's explanation.
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 24, 2009, at 10:57:48
In reply to Re: Regarding Twinleaf's block » Partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 10:28:20
> I believe that Deputy 10derheart provided sufficient illumination. I do not consider that silence from me, since it is a clear endorsement of Deputy 10derheart's explanation.
>
>Then that's your story, Dinah. That's all I'm saying.
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.