![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 114 to 138 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 15:23:35
In reply to Re: people cussed you, posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 15:08:58
> If the rules have served to alienate someone like Twinleaf something is wrong. All she did was post on a point of principle which, in one view at least, was supported by what Bob was doing with Twitter. There should be a way of allowing posts about principles while preventing personal attacks.
I think there are ways. The poster could use I-statements, or at least not use you-statements. And (sorry to be a broken record) others who want them to remain in the community -- or want there to be fewer blocks in general -- could encourage them to rephrase.
Bob
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 15:30:20
In reply to Re: people cussed you, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 15:23:35
>And (sorry to be a broken record) others who want them to remain in the community -- or want there to be fewer blocks in general -- could encourage them to rephrase.
I wasn't even aware that Twinleaf was at risk.
Would a please rephrase have alerted people who might have been able to help?
Posted by Kath on July 10, 2009, at 16:56:40
In reply to Re: blocked for 20 weeks » twinleaf, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2009, at 17:59:55
> > Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us
> PS: According to the formula:
>
> duration of previous block: 12 weeks
> period of time since previous block: 7 weeks
> severity: 2 (default)
> block length = 19.66 rounded = 20 weeks~ ~ ~ Wow. 20 weeks for saying that!
I haven't paid much attention before to the length of blocks & the whole cumulative thing.
I have heard people saying that they think the blocks are too long.Math isn't my strong point. I would like to add my voice to those already spoken that I wonder if blocks are simply too long.
I do think that's the case here:
- a person had a 12 week block
- they had 7 weeks since then with no blocks
- they are now blocked for 20 weeks.Dr. Bob, since you're willing to look at the double standard thing (I assume this means that people can be blocked for stuff deemed negative to other posters AND to you)....since you're willing to look at changing your policy in this, I wonder if you would be willing to look at the length of blocks?
Unfortunately, I don't have the mental energy to look at FAQ's etc or try to get my head around formulas.
So I don't know if the added length of a block increases for each time a person is blocked.
I guess that would make sense to me.
Like - just a silly example, but for clarity:
- you swear once, you get 1 slap
- you swear twice, you get 2 slaps
- you swear three times, you get 4 slaps
- you swear four times, you get 8 slaps
- you swear five times, you get 16 slapsI am not sure if that's sort of how it works.
Anyway, for what twinleaf said, 20 weeks seems like one heck of a long block!!!! Yikerooooo!!!
Kath
Posted by Kath on July 10, 2009, at 17:06:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 20 weeks » twinleaf, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2009, at 17:59:55
> > Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us
~ ~ ~ I keep trying to 'open' the post from twinleaf of July 8th that resulted in this block & it won't open????
I had wanted to read the whole post.
Wadup?
Kath
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 17:11:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 20 weeks/where's the post!!???, posted by Kath on July 10, 2009, at 17:06:29
I assume it's this, Kath
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090707/msgs/905631.html
Must have touched a nerve.
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 17:17:27
In reply to Re: trust » rskontos, posted by twinleaf on July 8, 2009, at 16:30:39
I mean I think it's that post.
But it's a strong opinion rather than an effort to denigrate or insult or be cruel.
Still, people were blocked on Politics for less than that.
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 17:23:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 20 weeks/where's the post!!???, posted by Kath on July 10, 2009, at 17:06:29
Now I can't get it up (so to speak) either.
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 17:24:17
In reply to Re: trust » rskontos, posted by twinleaf on July 8, 2009, at 16:30:39
Nothing to worry about.
Posted by Kath on July 10, 2009, at 17:58:47
In reply to Intermittent fault, posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2009, at 17:24:17
> Nothing to worry about.
Don't worry Siggi - I luv ya ALWAYS anyway!!!!
LOL
But it IS pretty weird that it has disappeared eh wot?
(throwing an old British 'Old Boys' Club' saying in there.) I seem to be in a wordy mood.
xoxo Kath
Posted by Kath on July 10, 2009, at 18:00:04
In reply to Re: Intermittent fault » Sigismund, posted by Kath on July 10, 2009, at 17:58:47
> (throwing an old British 'Old Boys' Club' saying in there.) I seem to be in a wordy mood.
>
> xoxo Kath~ ~ PS - not to be paranoid or anything - I understand there to be a saying 'Old Boys' Club' - I am in no way making a negative comment on age!
;-)
Posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 0:30:33
In reply to Re: people cussed you, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 15:23:35
>>>
I think there are ways. The poster could use I-statements, or at least not use you-statements. And (sorry to be a broken record) others who want them to remain in the community -- or want there to be fewer blocks in general -- could encourage them to rephrase.>>>I saw nothing for her to rephrase, it seems to me only you did. Maybe you should have asked her to rephrase, no double standards right?
rsk
and I told myself I wasn't going to continue to engage you Dr. Bob because I feel you seem to be unable to see my points.
Posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 0:41:12
In reply to Re: people cussed you, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2009, at 3:20:51
> > I remember so many times people actually cussed you and you did not block them. What changed.
>
> I've had second thoughts about having a double standard. For one thing, it's less inviting here if people are afraid of getting, as Seldom put it, a faceful of cat.***People are already getting a face of cat as you quote by being blocked for things I feel are just not warrantive of a block.
>
> > I could say the statement Twinleaf said to you to my p-doc, a Menniger trained psychiatrist and he would be ok with it and not feel put down.
>
> OK, but I'm not Twinleaf's p-doc.
>
> BobI feel for that she is glad. But that again, was not the point. I know you are not her p-doc, the point in case you did not understand me is I feel that your feeling put down should have been something in training you learned to deal with and having a mental health site you would recognize will happen from time to time and most administrators of anything whether it is a website or business etc will feel put down or even hurt but need to for harmony and getting along with others overlook and rise above it. Not join the fray.
But wouldn't have been nice that you advised us the you were re-thinking what I feel is a so called double standard(meaning I don't really agree with it was a double standard), yet you did not. You just acted.
Enough of this. I feel you will never get my point and I now feel like my head hurts from beating against a brick wall.
rsk
Posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 0:54:50
In reply to Re: trust » rskontos, posted by twinleaf on July 8, 2009, at 16:30:39
You are welcome. And I am sorry he blocked you for stating your opinion.
rsk
i feel the same way about my privacy. And if I want it out there I want to be the one to do it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2009, at 11:41:13
In reply to Re: people cussed you » Dr. Bob, posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 0:41:12
> I wasn't even aware that Twinleaf was at risk.
>
> Would a please rephrase have alerted people who might have been able to help?
>
> SigismundIt might have. But people read her posts and know the guidelines, so is that necessary?
--
> Math isn't my strong point. I would like to add my voice to those already spoken that I wonder if blocks are simply too long.
> I do think that's the case here:
> - a person had a 12 week block
> - they had 7 weeks since then with no blocks
> - they are now blocked for 20 weeks.
>
> So I don't know if the added length of a block increases for each time a person is blocked.
> I guess that would make sense to me.
> Like - just a silly example, but for clarity:
> - you swear once, you get 1 slap
> - you swear twice, you get 2 slaps
> - you swear three times, you get 4 slaps
> - you swear four times, you get 8 slaps
> - you swear five times, you get 16 slaps
>
> I am not sure if that's sort of how it works.
>
> KathThat's the general idea, though of course I don't think of blocks as slaps, though of course they may be experienced that way.
She had gotten up to 12 weeks, so the next step would've been 24 weeks, but it was reduced to 20 weeks because of her 7 weeks of "good behavior".
--
> People are already getting a face of cat as you quote by being blocked for things I feel are just not warrantive of a block.
That's a really interesting point, some people seem to be more willing to risk a faceful of me than a faceful of other posters.
> I know you are not her p-doc, the point in case you did not understand me is I feel that your feeling put down should have been something in training you learned to deal with and having a mental health site you would recognize will happen from time to time and most administrators of anything whether it is a website or business etc will feel put down or even hurt but need to for harmony and getting along with others overlook and rise above it.
I think my training may have been a factor in that double standard. Administrators may appreciate the need for harmony and be more willing than p-docs to have customers escorted out.
> But wouldn't have been nice that you advised us the you were re-thinking what I feel is a so called double standard(meaning I don't really agree with it was a double standard), yet you did not. You just acted.
>
> rskI didn't make an announcement, but I've been moving in this direction since at least:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/889029.html
Bob
Posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 12:14:03
In reply to Re: people cussed you, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2009, at 11:41:13
..I think my training may have been a factor in that double standard.
How is that? I don't get your meaning now.
..Administrators may appreciate the need for harmony and be more willing than p-docs to have customers escorted out.>>
Again, I fail to understand your logic in this statement. Can you elaborate?
Did you open this site to get good feelings from? And how over the years did your double standard become something that needed overhauling. If you are doing away with the double standard in regards to you, can we block you when you say things that offend us?
rsk
Posted by muffled on July 12, 2009, at 20:23:36
In reply to Re: people cussed you » Dr. Bob, posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 12:14:03
For trying.
But beware, cuz Bob'll just make ya nuts.
I think mebbe he means well, just, well....he's Bob....
Take care,
M
Posted by HyperFocus on July 14, 2009, at 0:39:57
In reply to Re: people cussed you » Dr. Bob, posted by rskontos on July 11, 2009, at 12:14:03
>Thanks so much for understanding, rsk. In the past, I have posted a lot of quite personal things here, and loss of privacy is really a worry to me. Needless to say, I won't be doing that anymore in the future. It just seems odd to me that Bob, who as a psychiatrist is presumably very well educated about privacy issues, has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us- both for our emotional safety and well-being, and, in some instances, for our jobs. I personally think it would be much more professional if posters were given the choice of "opting-in" to Twitter.
There is nothing in the above post that is uncivil. Twinleaf was saying that choosing to twitter posts means you do not have an understanding of how important privacy is for posters. That is not uncivil. That is civil criticism.
You blocked twinleaf for 20 weeks without warrant and without warning. You did not give her a PBC or a chance to rephrase. You did not even give other posters a chance to help her with whatever she is supposed to have said. You chose to change your blocking policy without warning - is that really fair? The worst thing is that you blocked her this away after she has written how much these long blocks hurt her.
Posters have to agree to terms of service here. You also have a contract with us in that you do not punish posters for no reason. If you can't follow this then you should include in your TOS something like "posters agree I have the power to block them for months without warning and without reason."
Nobody on PB is perfect, far from it. We all make mistakes and you have made a very grave one. I'm asking that you do the right thing and unblock twinleaf and apologize to her.
Posted by Kath on July 14, 2009, at 10:04:10
In reply to Dr. Bob you owe twinleaf an apology, posted by HyperFocus on July 14, 2009, at 0:39:57
Dear Dr. Bob,
I've been feeling sad & uncomfortable about Twinleaf's 20 week block - in a vague way.
Reading HyperFocus' post helped put words to my feelings. I appreciate the fact that you have been involved a lot in the Admin discussions recently & I hope that you have time to read this post. I'm quoting the part's of HF's post that ring true for me & adding my own comments.
In my view, I see
> ......... nothing in the above post (Twinleaf's) that is uncivil. Twinleaf was saying that choosing to twitter posts means you do not have an understanding of how important privacy is for posters. That is not uncivil. That is civil criticism.> You blocked twinleaf for 20 weeks without warrant and without warning. You did not give her a PBC or a chance to rephrase. You did not even give other posters a chance to help her with whatever she is supposed to have said.
It looked to me as if the block happened within a couple of hours of Twinleaf's post & I find that really disturbing.
I don't understand it particularly because we're being encouraged to attempt to help each other. It seems to me that a PBC or a chance to rephrase would have been in line with the attempt that is in process of trying to come up with ways of sort of 'shifting' potentially problematic posts (how's that for unintentional alliteration!)> You chose to change your blocking policy without warning - is that really fair?
I'm not sure what that means.
> The worst thing is that you blocked her this away after she has written how much these long blocks hurt her.
I agree & think that a PBC or please rephrase would have been better. If Twinleaf made no reply or rephrasing, then I think that would be the time for a block, if there was going to be a block. Perhaps I missed a previous post where Twinleaf was told that comments such as that would result in a block? (I hope so & if there is one, I'd like to read it, because it would make me feel better.)
Dr. Bob, I hope that you will give some consideration the those points. I hope that you will reconsider the block - or at least the length of the block. I'm sorry if Twinleaf's words were uncivil or hurtful or unfair to you. (I am being sincere here - not patronizing.) Usually I'm not 'around' Admin much, so I don't know if you ever change blocks, etc. I hope you decide to do something in this case - especially because there seems to be a lot of desire to find ways to help each other avoid blocks.
If nothing else, would you please considering allowing more time than a couple of hours for fellow-babblers to spot potential problems & put their 2 cents worth in to try & help others?
Sincerely, Kath
Posted by Zeba on July 14, 2009, at 14:04:38
In reply to Re: will there be a 'no twitter' list? » Zeba, posted by 10derHeart on July 5, 2009, at 1:20:52
No disrespect taken. I do not look at stuff here that often, and so I am just now noticing this response. No disrespect, but unless you are an attorney, I don't know that you can comment on legalities.
When I signed up for Babble, there was no such thing as twitter, and so I never agreed to twitter.
Also, Dr. Bob says Babble is his thing, and I suppose that applies to the Babble twitter now too. Problem is, that any research he might do that makes use of babble or twitter I assume will be done by him as an employee of the University of Chicago. As I sit here right now at the U of C, I wonder how his Dept. Chair would feel about all the people who so object not only to having posts go to twitter but to now having a much more public link to Babble. I would like to be removed from Babble as well, but apparently this is not possible. I think people should have this option.
I will be back over here tomorrow too, and perhaps I should check.
Zeba
Posted by Sigismund on July 14, 2009, at 16:52:01
In reply to Dr. Bob you owe twinleaf an apology, posted by HyperFocus on July 14, 2009, at 0:39:57
I think you said that very well.
I'm unsure as to the reason for this outcome.
It doesn't seem to be in the best interests of any one poster or the Babble community.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 9:05:09
In reply to Dr. Bob you owe twinleaf an apology, posted by HyperFocus on July 14, 2009, at 0:39:57
> There is nothing in the above post that is uncivil.
>
> You blocked twinleaf for 20 weeks ... without warning. You did not give her a PBC or a chance to rephrase. You did not even give other posters a chance to help her with whatever she is supposed to have said.IMO, telling someone they demonstrate little understanding could lead them to feel accused or put down. But reasonable people can disagree.
Posters can expect a warning before their first block, but not necessarily before every block:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/899170.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceI'd asked her to be civil before, she had more than a day to rephrase, and other posters had more than a day to help her avoid that block.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 9:05:22
In reply to Re: will there be a 'no twitter' list? » 10derHeart, posted by Zeba on July 14, 2009, at 14:04:38
> Problem is, that any research he might do that makes use of babble or twitter I assume will be done by him as an employee of the University of Chicago. As I sit here right now at the U of C, I wonder how his Dept. Chair would feel about all the people who so object not only to having posts go to twitter but to now having a much more public link to Babble.
Research I might do wouldn't necessarily need to be done as an employee of the University. This site is owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University. Also, research could be done without my involvement or even knowledge. Those who object to being tweeted are free to opt out. And I disagree that Twitter is more public than Google.
Maybe these concerns reflect feelings of powerlessness? Or mistrust?
Bob
Posted by muffled on July 15, 2009, at 10:53:59
In reply to Re: Dept. Chair, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 9:05:22
"Maybe these concerns reflect feelings of powerlessness? Or mistrust?"
Bob you are SUCH a P-Doc LOL LOL LOL!!!!
Now....is THAT uncivil???!!! ;-}
I'll give you a good tip....stick w/the meds side of P-Dockery....
Is THAT uncivil???
I don't mean this this be mean, more fun, though the second part I am serious about.
I think no amount of learning and training can instill understanding of emotions in a person if they don't have that knowing to start with.
And thats OK!
We are who we are.
We can strive for improvement, but we must also try to understand our limitations.
From 12 step programs.
"Change the things we can, accept the things we cannot change....and have the wisdom to know the difference..."
Best wishes to you.
I do mean that.
M
Posted by muffled on July 15, 2009, at 11:16:36
In reply to ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on July 15, 2009, at 10:53:59
"Change the things we can, accept the things we cannot change....and have the wisdom to know the difference..."
I have achieved the wisdom to know the difference.
I want to say so much here, to help change, but I cannot make change here. I did try, many times.
I am having the wisdom to know the difference, so sadly i walk away :(
Take care all.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 14:13:35
In reply to sadly, posted by muffled on July 15, 2009, at 11:16:36
> > Change the things we can, accept the things we cannot change....and have the wisdom to know the difference...
>
> I want to say so much here, to help change, but I cannot make change here. I did try, many times.What things did you try to change those times?
Bob
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.