![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 65 to 89 of 99. Go back in thread:
Posted by Zeba on June 29, 2009, at 22:29:04
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on June 29, 2009, at 18:42:00
Ditto;
this is Dr. Bob's site, his rules, and he is the only one (and deputies) who can determine how long to block someone. This is why many therapist think this is an abusive site. I understand full well now. When one shifts responsibilty from self to others, especially a doctor, then I have to wonder what in the world.
Posted by twinleaf on June 30, 2009, at 4:31:42
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2009, at 10:55:09
I did not see posts aimed at Happyflower to encourage her to make amends. Also, the person she might have made amends TO was never identifiied.
She simply went on expressing the ways in which she had been hurt by this site while waiting for you to return and give her a very long block, which you did..It seems as though your rules. even though you made them, have become like the Ten Commandments. You yourself now have to follow them slavishly. Even though there is a very thoughtful discussion (below) about the desirability of shorter blocks and helping people settle their differences, you have not given your opinion on that thread. Several posters there have emphasized the emotional damage which can occur with long, escalating blocks- as well as he near impossibility of those posters regaining a trusting, useful position here. Not one person supported long or escalating blocks.Why cant you take some of these thoughtful comments and opinions into your consideration- not to necessarily make any changes now, but just to allow them to be part of a developing discussion, and maybe to enable you to depart, in individual cases, from the extremely rigid rules you appear to have become enslaved by?
Based on the discussion below, posters who are part of this community would like to see:
1. Short blocks only of a week or two. No long or escalating blocks. I think we all know that, rarely, someone will start posting here with ongoing destructive intentions. Those people should be blocked permanently.
2. Encouragement and time for posters to settle their differences, when those arise. They should not be told what to say or do by the administrators, but treated with sufficient respect that they know best what they each need, and will work hard to achieve it.
3. A recognition by the administration that this forum and the people in it, become emotionally important to many posters. Long blocks are equivalent to being kicked out of a group of friends whom one very much wants to stay with.It can be an extremely painful and harmful experience. Knowing this, I think all actions, such as blocks, should be carefully weighed against a humane evaluation of the strengths, weaknesses and present personal stresses which an individual has.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2009, at 5:08:35
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on June 29, 2009, at 18:42:00
> "I'm just enforcing the guidelines here. I was sad that this community wasn't able to help her avoid another block..... - Bob"
>
> SERIOUSLY?? Just enforcing? Enforcing what? You WROTE the guidelines.
>
> Those words sound as if you want to avoid the responsibility for her block. Of course, she is responsible for her behavior...but you are the one who wrote the rules.
>
> She is blocked because her behavior violated YOUR rules.
>
> Your new kick is to blame "the community". You are just trying to shift blame, imho.
>
> bayI agree.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2009, at 5:27:14
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2009, at 5:08:35
> > "I'm just enforcing the guidelines here. I was sad that this community wasn't able to help her avoid another block..... - Bob"
In fact I find this suggestion positively malignant insofar as it suggests that the community failed her by not doing enough to 'help her avoid'.
Rather than focusing on how you failed her in setting up your stupid f*ck*ng rules and incomprehensible blocking system.
As always the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Oh f*ck*ng happy day when you finally choose to acknowledge your role in it all and at least meet us half way.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2009, at 10:07:10
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2009, at 5:27:14
> SERIOUSLY?? Just enforcing? Enforcing what? You WROTE the guidelines.
>
> Those words sound as if you want to avoid the responsibility for her block.
>
> Your new kick is to blame "the community". You are just trying to shift blame, imho.
>
> bay> When one shifts responsibilty from self to others ... then I have to wonder what in the world.
>
> Zeba> Oh f*ck*ng happy day when you finally choose to acknowledge your role in it all and at least meet us half way.
>
> alexandra_kI acknowledge that I wrote the guidelines, too.
What I'm trying to shift is power. Or, to be more precise, self-efficacy, since we already share power. As I said before, I wonder if some posters may be attached (not by choice, of course) to feelings of powerlessness. But empathy, communication, reassurance, and checking in give you influence (a form of power). But the flip side of power is responsibility.
--
> I did not see posts aimed at Happyflower to encourage her to make amends.
I didn't, either. Though I did see one that showed her how she might interpret things more charitably.
> I think we all know that, rarely, someone will start posting here with ongoing destructive intentions. Those people should be blocked permanently.
Why permanently? I see it as more supportive to welcome Babblers back after blocks.
> Even though there is a very thoughtful discussion (below) about the desirability of shorter blocks and helping people settle their differences, you have not given your opinion on that thread. Several posters there have emphasized the emotional damage which can occur with long, escalating blocks- as well as he near impossibility of those posters regaining a trusting, useful position here. Not one person supported long or escalating blocks.
>
> twinleafBe the change you wish to see. Show other posters how they might interpret things more charitably. Encourage them to apologize. Suggest they not address those they can't get along with. In those and other ways, use your influence to help them avoid long, escalating blocks.
Bob
Posted by BayLeaf on June 30, 2009, at 20:40:32
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2009, at 10:07:10
"Suggest they not address those they can't get along with. "
well, then I need to back away from the keyboard.
can't beleive i got involved again. waste of energy.
he does not budge from what he wants. discussion is pointless.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2009, at 23:06:46
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2009, at 10:07:10
> What I'm trying to shift is power. Or, to be more precise, self-efficacy, since we already share power.HAHAHAHAHA all the times posters have blocked you according to site guidelines. What power do they have???
> As I said before, I wonder if some posters may be attached (not by choice, of course) to feelings of powerlessness.
Well, in the spirit of meeting us half-way and all, I wonder if one particular poster may be attached (not by choice, of course) to retaining control.
If a little bit of both could result in a particularly unhelpful dynamic.
You seem very keen to persuade (us? yourself?) that you don't actually have the control that you actually do have. Very keen to persuade (us? yourself?) that we have more control than we actually do have.
> But empathy, communication, reassurance, and checking in give you influence (a form of power).
You lost me.
> But the flip side of power is responsibility.
Like the responsibility you take for the rules you have, the way you interpret posts meeting or failing to meet your rules, and the block lengths you set, and choose either to or not to enforce? That kind of power and responsibility?
> Be the change you wish to see. Show other posters how they might interpret things more charitably. Encourage them to apologize. Suggest they not address those they can't get along with. In those and other ways, use your influence to help them avoid long, escalating blocks.
Why don't you be the change you profess to wish to see? Change your blocking system. If you really hate to block people and hate to see them blocked and are sorry that you block them then... Why not just stoppit?????
Posted by Zeba on July 1, 2009, at 0:18:19
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2009, at 10:07:10
Bob It is impossible for you to shift the power when you have the power to block.
Zeba
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 1:22:38
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by alexandra_k on June 30, 2009, at 23:06:46
> > Suggest they not address those they can't get along with.
>
> well, then I need to back away from the keyboard.
>
> can't beleive i got involved again. waste of energy.
>
> BayLeafHow does backing away feel compared to getting involved again?
--
> > What I'm trying to shift is power. Or, to be more precise, self-efficacy, since we already share power.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA all the times posters have blocked you according to site guidelines. What power do they have???You all have the power to support and educate each other. Which keeps this site going. You all are the engine.
Your power to change me, however, is limited. Though the wish to change me is understandable.
> Why don't you be the change you profess to wish to see? Change your blocking system. If you really hate to block people and hate to see them blocked and are sorry that you block them then... Why not just stoppit?????
>
> alexandra_kGood question. I think it comes down to my role being administrative and that of posters being supportive. Blocking people is administrative. Helping people avoid blocks is supportive.
Speaking of being administrative, have you seen:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902892.html
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2009, at 2:16:18
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 1:22:38
> Your power to change me, however, is limited. Though the wish to change me is understandable.
Conversely your power to change us, however, is limited. Though the wish to change us is understandable.
Perhaps in both cases the issue isn't really about changing who we are. Perhaps the issue is more about changing certain behaviors that are considered problematic. You consider our behavior problematic and we consider yours problematic.
Who will prevail?
You.
So who has the power really?
We can leave, of course. That seems to be the power we have when the dynamic is considered in the above way.
> > Why don't you be the change you profess to wish to see? Change your blocking system. If you really hate to block people and hate to see them blocked and are sorry that you block them then... Why not just stoppit?????> Good question. I think it comes down to my role being administrative and that of posters being supportive. Blocking people is administrative. Helping people avoid blocks is supportive.
And some posters here have a dual role where they do a little of both administration and support. You seem to block where they would not, however, and you seem to block people for longer periods of time.
It should be noted that you also have the power with respect to determining the nature and limits of the roles and you have the power to decide which roles you assign to the various people who post here (including yourself). Our power once again is merely to 'opt out'.
> Speaking of being administrative, have you seen:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902892.html
I have.
> Waiting to reply can make it easier to be civil...
I need some more time. It is on my 'to do' list, but my internet access is limited right now and my mental state is fragile. I will get back to it though, from a place of good intent.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2009, at 2:20:18
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by alexandra_k on July 1, 2009, at 2:16:18
Thank you for the apology, by the way. It comes and goes, but I think it does mean something to me. Something that I can accept. At times. It will take a while. I'm sorry.
Posted by twinleaf on July 1, 2009, at 3:11:45
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2009, at 10:07:10
I am talking about a VERY RARE thing- a poster who comes on to a site with the sole purpose of tearing everyone down. This happened recently to a birdwatching site I belong to and the person was blocked permanently- but this is very very unusual.
Bob, do you ever consider eliminating long and/or escalating blocks? A number of people, from painful personal experience, have pointed out the harmful aspects of them, and a number of therapists have expressed intense concern about them also, Unless I missed it, no-one has ever written in favor of them- except YOU. But, alarmingly, you do not ever give the reasons why you want to give them- other than that they are in the rules which you wrote, and that you have the power to do it.
We all know this, because you have said it over and over. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT LONG BLOCKS ARE UNIVERSALLY CONSIDERED HARMFUL IN THIS COMMUNITY, would you consider changing your rules so that long blocks are no longer given?
Posted by gardenergirl on July 1, 2009, at 8:35:18
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by twinleaf on July 1, 2009, at 3:11:45
There are universally-held beliefs here?
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 1:22:38
Dr. Bob, I dont entirely understand what youre trying for here, but I do think its not a bad thing to encourage posters in this sort of support. But while Im entirely in favor of responsibility, Im not sure fellow posters have the power to encourage people to act in such a way to avoid a block. And as you have no doubt guessed, in some cases it would not be seen as support by either fellow posters or the poster in question to encourage them to do something they find morally wrong to avoid a block. Or maybe people are afraid of being hurt themselves if they put themselves out that way.
I think its great to, for example, thank those who did attempt to intervene, and point out that this is enormously helpful to Babble. And if people attempted to intervene, but were inadvertently uncivil in trying to follow your wishes, maybe some education is in order. But I dont think chastisement is appropriate in those cases where the community failed to make an effort to divert a poster from a path that appeared to be leading to a block. In other words, I think positive role modeling, and administrative feedback might be more effective and better received.Posters have made their proposals. Youve made your proposal, and it doesnt seem at this point to be well received. But no one has attempted to state the goal, and try to mesh out something that may not be ideal to anyone, but may be better than one now exists.
One thing that might help is to post some statistics that show the scope of the issue. How many people are currently blocked for long periods of time (or at all)? How many PBCs have been granted recently?Its your job as site administrator to be clear which proposals are just not going to happen, so that posters can move onto new ideas.
For example, I doubt that a two week cap will be ok with you. But perhaps something shorter than a year would be open to discussion. Or better yet, IMO, other alternatives can be offered.
I propose something that emphasizes the responsibility of posters. After all, the goal of a block is not to punish or extract vengeance. The goal of a block is to enforce a policy that cannot be enforced any other way. The goal of the policy is to have a reduction of conflict on the site so that the main focus of the board is support and education. Setting a time limited block then having people come back on occasion angry and hurt and not particularly receptive to site guidelines is not perhaps the best approach to achieve your goal. Neither, IMO, is very short blocks since a considerable period of turmoil often precedes a block, and that would not be desirable every two weeks. Its a fine balance between trying to support those who are hurt by admin actions and those who are hurt by poster actions.
How about instead of blocks being set by time, that blocks instead be set by the taking of responsibility by posters to follow site guidelines. For example, after a first block of a week or so (with no blocks in the recent past), a poster could be contacted by Admin or contact Admin and express an understanding and willingness to abide by site guidelines. Or at least a willingness to try to understand and abide by site guidelines. If there is another issue in a reasonable period of time, the poster will again be blocked, and this time offer some sort of corrective plan. Something like I understand that what I wish to say on Faith is not necessarily ok under board guidelines. I dont like it, but Ill abide by that. Or I dont really understand the rules, but Ill ask someone before I post. Or I know I blow up when Im angry, and say things Ill later regret. If I feel Im getting angry, Ill walk away from the computer. If that still doesnt work (again, within a reasonable period of time), there would be probation, where a poster might have to get their posts okd by another poster. In other words, the emphasis should be on a posters willingness to abide by site guidelines, no matter how much they may dislike them. At the same time, a poster could state what they believe Admin could do to help them follow site guidelines. I think at least a week ought to go by between block and offer of compromise.
Also, since shame often seems to come up in these conversations, perhaps we could open the possibility of off board admin actions, and the removal of uncivil posts. I dont like it, because it doesnt seem to be as aboveboard as I prefer. But if shame is a major factor and a sticking point, maybe it would be for the best. It seems to be the accepted standard for the internet. OTOH, that would make it difficult for posters to understand board policy.
In other words, instead of posters saying what they think should be done, and you saying what you think should be done, how about a conversation based on what Im sure are shared goals.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:18:48
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
The first step at least could be automated, as a reregistration under the same posting name required after a block.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:26:52
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
It was likely incorrect to say no one tried. More correct to say that no one has succeeded in starting a give and take with you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2009, at 10:34:33
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by twinleaf on July 1, 2009, at 3:11:45
> Perhaps in both cases the issue isn't really about changing who we are. Perhaps the issue is more about changing certain behaviors that are considered problematic. You consider our behavior problematic and we consider yours problematic.
>
> Who will prevail?
>
> You.I will? You'll change those behaviors?
> We can leave, of course. That seems to be the power we have when the dynamic is considered in the above way.
> you also have the power with respect to determining the nature and limits of the roles and you have the power to decide which roles you assign to the various people who post here (including yourself). Our power once again is merely to 'opt out'.
You have options besides fight or flight. But maybe you consider them less acceptable for some reason?
> > Speaking of being administrative, have you seen:
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902892.html
>
> I have.
>
> > Waiting to reply can make it easier to be civil...
>
> I need some more time. It is on my 'to do' list, but my internet access is limited right now and my mental state is fragile. I will get back to it though, from a place of good intent.
>
> alexandra_kOK, thanks.
--
> I am talking about a VERY RARE thing- a poster who comes on to a site with the sole purpose of tearing everyone down.
How would I know what a poster's purpose was?
Also, that seems to imply two distinct types of posters, those for whom short blocks are appropriate and those for whom permanent blocks are appropriate. There wouldn't be any in between?
> Bob, do you ever consider eliminating long and/or escalating blocks? ... alarmingly, you do not ever give the reasons why you want to give them
>
> twinleafI've already eliminated the longest blocks. And permanent blocks! And added de-escalation. I give them to enforce the posting guidelines here.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 11:21:42
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:26:52
And still not. :)
Posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:35:41
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on June 29, 2009, at 18:42:00
I second bayleaf's respond. As if you are just enforcing someone's elses rules. Like you're a deputy. Come on that is a cop out if I ever heard one.
rsk
Posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:44:52
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2009, at 10:07:10
>>What I'm trying to shift is power. Or, to be more precise, self-efficacy, since we already share power. As I said before, I wonder if some posters may be attached (not by choice, of course) to feelings of powerlessness. But empathy, communication, reassurance, and checking in give you influence (a form of power). But the flip side of power is responsibility.>>>
Then give us some power. We don't have immunity if we try to help a poster not get blocked and it blows up in our face because you step in and block people right and left.
But I am steamed now. Already the amount of posters and posts etc are so far down and you try to shift the focus on it is because we don't "help" each other avoid blocks. Again, I feel this is a cop out.
Then to try and analyze us that we "want to feel powerless" Please don't assume you know how we feel. When we post how we feel and you read into it your own projections.
The bottom line is we, the posters, feel you, the administrator, are unfairly and to no avail using blocks in a way that hurts us all including the site and its number of daily posts and new threads. Being in part because we are losing those we feel for and miss. But I guess you just don't get that. You want to make us accountable but not yourself.
But again, as this argument goes on and on and on, your views won't change yet you expect us too. So how does that work.
We have no power Dr Bob. If we did the blocking formula would be changed. Period. You have it all.
How can we be part of the change when it is your opinion we are up against?
rsk
Posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:50:22
In reply to Re: block avoidance » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 9:14:09
Dinah,
I appreciated for one, your attempt, to get Dr. Bob to meet us halfway.
I really appreciated this post. However it all turns out, I like knowing someone understands where we are trying to go with this.
rsk
Posted by Zeba on July 1, 2009, at 15:19:59
In reply to Re: block avoidance, posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:44:52
My impression only, but it seems to me that Dr. Bob is playing word games. Of course he has all the power to block or not. If he would like to back off of that power and chnage things, that would be fine. However, in the end, the whole blocking process of anything greater than 30 days, in my mind, is punitive and excessive. Some here think that it should not be more than two weeks.
I am having a slow day at work due to a No Show, as otherwise I would not even bother with all this anymore. I just would wish that others would not allow themselves to get worked up over Bob and his ways. He is who he is and from my perspective, he does not seem ammenable to changing his behavior in spite of the fact that he thinks posters should be amenable to changing their behavior.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 17:39:25
In reply to Re: thanks Dinah » Dinah, posted by rskontos on July 1, 2009, at 12:50:22
I don't think I deserve much more credit than Dr. Bob. Dr. Bob and I aren't so far way from one another in what we want.
I don't know that posters and Dr. Bob are so far off with what they want, either. It's just that people, Dr. Bob, posters, and all the rest of the world, sometimes have trouble communicating.
My therapist and I fight not infrequently. I always say that although we fight, we hold on to our relationship with one hand. We try to keep in mind the greater goal.
I suppose I try to do that with Dr. Bob as well, although of course he doesn't have the same commitment to me that my therapist does. He does have that commitment to Babble though.
Dr. Bob cares about posters, I think. He doesn't want to see people blocked. Posters and Dr. Bob both care about Babble, and babblers.
Wouldn't it be better for all of us to "fight" with one hand on our care for Babble and babblers? With an eye to keeping Babble as a viable and supportive message board in an internet that gets bigger and bigger every day?
All of us who have been in therapy, or gone to therapy school as I'm guessing Dr. Bob has, know the basics of fair fighting. Validation for the other person's feelings and desires, even if we can't grant them. Respect. Expressing anger with at least one eye to the overall relationship and the overall goal.
Even if some posters may not like Bob, they probably do appreciate his providing Babble and the time he puts in - given that they care enough about Babble to stay.
And in his own way, I don't think Dr. Bob means this as a shifting of blame onto the babble community, but as something that has occurred to him to support posters who are posting in such a way that a block is a possibility.
I think Dr. Bob is a good-enough administrator, just as I think posters are good-enough posters and the deputy-posters are good-enough deputies. We're all we've got (in the composition of Babble at least), so we might as well make the best of it?
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 17:40:22
In reply to Re: thanks Dinah » rskontos, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 17:39:25
Fighting *to* relationship.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 19:03:20
In reply to Re: thanks Dinah, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 17:40:22
I'm like this in real life too.
Pity my poor son.
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.