![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 209 to 233 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on August 14, 2009, at 22:09:48
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Sigismund on August 14, 2009, at 22:02:59
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2009, at 18:11:22
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:28:54
> I wouldn't say of someone here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid'. Bob is big enough to look after himself, however.
Would you say of another poster here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid' if you thought they were big enough to look after themselves?
--
> If he goes around judging other people to be 'civil' or 'uncivil' ... then it seems hypocritical for him to expect that we will treat him the same way we treat others here.
>
> what is it that justifies his not altering his behavior in light of what people have had to say about the harmful effects of his judgements / punishments?
>
> What it comes down to: It is his site.I don't expect you to feel the same way about me and others, but I do ask you to treat both me and others civilly.
Yes, it's up to me to decide on the rules here. How would it make you feel to abide by them?
--
> you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???
>
> alexandra_kI don't see them doing that now to try to support you.
> >Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction?
>
> Yes, although I know nobody who would react well to any attempt at coaching from me.
>
> SigismundIs anybody else assuming they won't be effective if they try to help Alex avoid a block?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 5:44:24
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2009, at 18:11:22
Once again you try and turn things around... And sabotage the whole discussion. Can't be bothered talking to you, really.
> Would you say of another poster here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid' if you thought they were big enough to look after themselves?
No, that is not it. The thing is that you put yourself in the position of judging that others words are 'uncivil' or 'not good for the community' or 'disrespectful' or whatever when there is far from consensus among the experts that the persons words are these things. How civil is that (in your sense)?? And yet... You repeatedly do this. And what is more, you think that up to a one year block is appropriate sanction for the times (which are idiosyncratic at best) that you choose to extend your (idiosyncratic at best) interpretation in an attempt to justify this. That is your decision. Don't be so very surprised if people judge that to be... Uncivil at best. Stupid, even, if you expect that people will just lap it all up because you profess 'psychiatrist' and 'university of chicago' affiliation (even when you aren't bound by their codes of conduct in your little enterprise here).
> I don't expect you to feel the same way about me and others, but I do ask you to treat both me and others civilly.
whatever that means...
> Yes, it's up to me to decide on the rules here. How would it make you feel to abide by them?
depends on the rule and on how you choose to interpret my words when you judge them.
> > you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???
> I don't see them doing that now to try to support you.
i didn't think the admin board was about support. most people i know have simply given up on the whole thing and have either left or simply choose to refrain from wasting their breath trying to be heard on admin.
> Is anybody else assuming they won't be effective if they try to help Alex avoid a block?
how about you Bob? anything you think you can do to avoid your blocking me??
interpret my words charitably (civilly even???)?
consider your conduct??
i don't know why i don't just leave you to your little chosen circle of idealizers, really. 'good' little group you have selected, indeed...
Posted by Nadezda on August 17, 2009, at 15:25:30
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 5:44:24
I'm not sure, Alex, why you assume that people who don't particularly agree with you and who more or less accept the idea of civility as an important practical one, that can be understood and reasonably applied, are idealizers of Bob.
Someone has to apply the rule. Or how else would it be effectuated? whom would you suggest for that role other than Bob? Aside from his role as owner of this board, and per se, I don't see anyone else who's established a claim to doing it here.
There may be circumstances when a year long block is appropriate-- the specifics would be debatable. Many may not agree with Bob's particular judgments in cases, or even with some elements of his general approach. Is there anyone whose general approach and specific decisions you expect to agree with entirely?
Do you honestly feel that civility is any more obscure in meaning than fairness, reasonableness, or any other value? Do you honestly think that there's some need for concensus among experts-- even if there were experts, to be summoned-- to validate the worth of something like civility? Isn't that merely a norm of social interaction? Why do we need experts for that?
I 'm really having trouble following the implications, or assumptions, of many of your positions about this.
And I personally feel uneasy with some of the discussion.. I don't know if you'll get blocked or not, and I certainly hope you don't-- I wouldn't presume to suggest that you say anything you don't believe-- but I wonder if you have any feeling that any of what you've said could possibly be hurtful or make anyone feel put down?
Nadezda
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 15:37:07
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Nadezda on August 17, 2009, at 15:25:30
> I'm not sure, Alex, why you assume that people who don't particularly agree with you and who more or less accept the idea of civility as an important practical one, that can be understood and reasonably applied, are idealizers of Bob.
What is important practically about blocking muffled and zen for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk and yet not blocking nikki for the same? what is important practically about blocking lou for posting more than three and a row and not blocking others for the same? is this understandable or reasonably applied? it is understandable that zen got blocked for one year for saying something along the lines of 'I was having a sh*t day' - do you think? or do you... simply not really think on these cases? how come?
(Is it really that you disagree with me that the above is unfair and unreasonable?)
And it can't have been mere oversight, even. It was brought to his attention about the unfairness during the year that zen was blocked... What is that? A sign that he has too much power, I think. 'Better to leave the past in the past' - indeed. Never mind that his decision to do so was affecting anothers present. And that is not okay.
> Do you honestly feel that civility is any more obscure in meaning than fairness, reasonableness, or any other value?
And countries get invaded in the name of 'freedom'. Yeah. Don't make it right.
> Do you honestly think that there's some need for concensus among experts-- even if there were experts, to be summoned-- to validate the worth of something like civility? Isn't that merely a norm of social interaction? Why do we need experts for that?
Well... Maybe if the UN reached something like consensus about when an invasion was justified people would be left feeling a little different about the invasion. Not to 'validate the worth of something like freedom' - of course. But to put some checks and balanced on what is allowed to declare it falls under its name.
> but I wonder if you have any feeling that any of what you've said could possibly be hurtful or make anyone feel put down?
And I could... Wonder the same about you. And round and round and round we go (and as usual Bob will prevail).
Posted by SLS on August 17, 2009, at 16:17:41
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Nadezda on August 17, 2009, at 15:25:30
> I'm not sure, Alex, why you assume that people who don't particularly agree with you and who more or less accept the idea of civility as an important practical one, that can be understood and reasonably applied, are idealizers of Bob.
I feel the same way. I felt put down as I don't think it is necessary that I be among a small circle of idealizers of Dr. Bob in order to support guidelines of civility in posting. And so what if I were among those who idealize Dr. Bob? Is the word idealize a pejorative when it comes to Dr. Bob? Is it possible that the circle not be so small?
- Scott
Posted by muffled on August 17, 2009, at 16:33:36
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 15:37:07
I'm NOT saying this cuz of Bob.
I am saying this of my own accord.
But if you don't want to be blocked, you have to do what Bob says, cuz as you said, it IS his website.
That is why I am seldom here.
So my suggestion is to apologize to those who felt dissed by your words, cuz I know you don't mean to make others feel bad, and then walk away.
You can't win.
Everyonce in awhile I get sucked in, but then I realize I need to walk away.
I have found another site.
Babble will always be special to me, but I can't hack how Bob runs it.
I got tired of beating my head against the wall.
He won't change.
If you want, you can bmail me, I am not big on bmail, but sometimes I do.
Take care,
M
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:35:36
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 15:37:07
Do people think it is fine for Dr Bob to block muffled and zen (zen for one year) for saying `sh*t' without an asterisk whereas not block Nikki (not even give her a warning) for saying `sh*t' without an asterisk?
One could of course say 'its his site' - but isn't this to acknowledge the unfairness of the situation and just basically advocate... sucking up the unfairness?
One might be tempted to say `oh well, he must have just missed it - he wouldn't intentionally be unfair in that way'. Only trouble with this was that people did bring it to his attention and he muttered something about 'leaving past civility determinations in the past'. not that that was much help to zen who was blocked in the present.
so... What to make of this?
Is turning a blind eye to it part of idealization does one think?
Turing a blind eye to all the unfairnesses in the archives...
Since when did 'idealizing' become an insult?
I've asked SLS pretty pretty pretty please (enforcement and the details of what one needs to do to get enforcement around here aside) pretty please simply don't post to me.
I feel insulted by Bob not being able to answer fairly straight-forward questions. By him trying to present either-or options in the name of 'friendship'. By his... Popularity contest around here. Why was Lou required to refrain from more than three posts in a row? Popular demand. I suspect he will lie low about now... Wait for people to jump on me... Then block me by Popular demand. That is fine. I ask myself: Is this really a group that I want to be part of? Admin is about... Professing ones love for Bob, it seems. Of course, that is administrative. Posting ones concerns about a dictator being unfair in his determinations and appealing to authorities (U Chicago and psychiatrist) when he is not bound by their codes of conduct is of course... Not administrative at all. I see. Really... What would you call that?
Self-serving springs to mind...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:40:44
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:35:36
And people have tried to talk to him reasonably about this. Over and over and over and over. And he just turns things around answering questions with questions until people get frustrated... And then some others get scared that those who are pressing him will... Kill him or something so they start to get antsy and then things are escalating... And then a blocking (by popular demand). And round and round things go...
And nothing changes.
At the very least: Don't claim affiliations when you are not bound by their codes of conduct.
And: Appreciate that your civility determinations are very idiosyncratic (not much inter-rater reliability in what you consider a blockable for a year offense - not without CONSIDERABLE training at any rate - and the majority of other psychiatrists would not agree).
So: Block people for up to one year (plenty of evidence that that is harmful) for idiosyncratic reasons under the name of 'civility'. If you think that is okay... I really don't know what the hell is supposed to justify that...
But that does seem to be what (in fact) you are doing.
If that is The Way Things Are then fine. But at least be honest about that fact.
And be honest about the fact that this simply isn't negotiable. Don't pretend to give a sh*t what we think when you so obviously don't and when you so obviously aren't prepared to look at what actually is best for this site (as opposed to 'for you') at all.
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 6:28:45
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2009, at 18:11:22
Hi doctor.
> I've asked SLS pretty pretty pretty please (enforcement and the details of what one needs to do to get enforcement around here aside) pretty please simply don't post to me.
Perhaps you could review the DNP guidelines here. I believe I have the privilege to respond to a post without posting to or directly addressing a particular party who has requested a DNP. Of course, a DNP is supposed to be petitioned for via the administrative notification system.
I will continue to post along this thread if it is my desire to do so, regardless of the proximity with which my posts appear to any other individual's posts.
Nothing new here.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 9:25:47
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:35:36
I may have once idealized Dr. Bob. It's not an insult really. I don't think I do idealize him after all these years. I *do* trust him to be exactly who he is - at least the person he's always been on Babble. Which isn't the same as idealizing him. And for me the person he's always been on Babble is someone who is a good enough administrator with flaws and strengths. Just like most people.
I've been incredibly rude to him in emails from time to time. In emails. And yet I truly do regret those times when I am rude to him.
Sometimes I've really been angry about other things on the board, and Dr. Bob is a safe person to be angry with. He never responds in kind. He stands like an immovable object in the face of my storm of fury. I don't believe that I have the power to hurt him. Sometimes that makes me even more angry with him, and makes me feel like upping the ante to get an emotional reaction. Which never works with Dr. Bob, which is why he's safe. That may be idealization, but I don't think so. I see it as being a good quality in an administrator and perhaps in general, and one I sometimes wish I was able to develop, but I'm not unaware that it comes with downsides, as most good qualities do.
Being angry with him allows me to be less angry with others. And since it can generally be seen that anything that does or doesn't happen on board is his ultimate responsibility, because he sets the rules and determines how they will be enforced, it's always easy enough to be angry with him.
Yet I always feel genuine regret, and I always apologize.
Sometimes the reason I apologize is that I feel regret for saying something that I realize in my heart of hearts he did not deserve.
Sometimes I apologize even if I believe he deserved every word I said. Because what Dr. Bob does is what Dr. Bob does. What I do is what I do. In my eyes, when I speak to anyone, whether positively or negatively, I'm expressing more than my beliefs about them. I'm also expressing information about myself. About my own values. One of my values is that in public or in private, people deserve the basic respect that all human beings deserve. I can express disagreement with a person's choices or their beliefs without expressing disrespect for the person.
Dr. Bob probably doesn't mind if people email him whatever thoughts are on their mind. I doubt that anyone could be ruder than I have been on occasion, although perhaps I just don't have a good enough imagination.
But he asks that on board, we treat each other - himself included - with basic respect and civility. We don't have to *feel* respect. But he asks that we *behave* in accordance with his site guidelines. I don't think that's a bad thing to ask. It's perfectly possible to disagree with him policies, to ask him to change his policies, while being civil to him.
And we did, and he did. He put in autoasterisking, and he modified the block formula. Those issues are in the past, and whether or not we agree with him on those decisions, the important thing is that he's put policies in place to see they don't happen again. He can't change the past, he did change the future. He changed the rules because we said things that changed his views on the topic. I don't think incivility to him would cause him to change his views. Persuasive arguments presented logically are more likely to succeed.
And.... While this is slightly off topic, no one is blocked for a year for saying anything at all. Someone receives a PBC for saying something, then a one week block, then it increases from there, more slowly now than it used to. A lot of times there is a tendency to think "Someone was blocked for a year for saying *that*?" And the answer is no, of course someone wasn't blocked for a year for saying that. Any more than the last out is the one that causes the game to be lost.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:10:57
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 6:28:45
> Perhaps you could review the DNP guidelines here.Of course. The 'rules' come before 'civility'. I mean 'pretty pretty please do not post to me' what is so hard to understand?
> I believe I have the privilege to respond to a post without posting to or directly addressing a particular party who has requested a DNP. Of course, a DNP is supposed to be petitioned for via the administrative notification system.
Mmm hmm. Of course. This makes the best sense of 'civility', indeed.
> I will continue to post along this thread if it is my desire to do so, regardless of the proximity with which my posts appear to any other individual's posts.
Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this. Of course... Bob will prevail.
> Nothing new here.Indeed...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
In reply to Idealizing, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 9:25:47
> He put in autoasterisking, and he modified the block formula.
But he didn't apologize to Zen or Muffled. He didn't take what he did to them back.
>Those issues are in the past,
I don't think they are. There isn't a system that doesn't allow a poster to post more than three posts in a row - and his enforcement of that rule is just as arbitrary and intermittent as his enforcement of the swearing without an asterisk rule. Which is to say sometimes he chooses to enforce (and sanction blocks of up to one year) whereas otherwise he does not.
> and whether or not we agree with him on those decisions, the important thing is that he's put policies in place to see they don't happen again.
Not with the three post rule.
>He can't change the past, he did change the future.
But the 'past' is the 'present' when people are presently blocked for his decisions that were made in the past.
> He changed the rules because we said things that changed his views on the topic.
When he appreciates that he can no longer sustain the support of the community without changing... He changes. I don't think it is about 'reason' so much as 'popular opinion', however. And not only that... The 'popular opinion' of those who he has chosen not to block. A self selected 'opinion' if ever there was one...
> I don't think incivility to him would cause him to change his views. Persuasive arguments presented logically are more likely to succeed.
That isn't my experience at all. Rational arguments are responded to with questions that attempt to throw everything back on the person asking the question. I haven't seen Bob give a straight answer to a straight question in... All my time here... I really don't know why anyone would think that...
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:28:11
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
> That isn't my experience at all. Rational arguments are responded to with questions that attempt to throw everything back on the person asking the question. I haven't seen Bob give a straight answer to a straight question in... All my time here... I really don't know why anyone would think that...
And yet in all my time here, I do think that. I think it because I've experienced it. Well, to be clear, Dr. Bob's idea of a straight answer and mine don't necessarily agree. But I have experienced him listening to a rational argument and seeing the validity of it.
And in all my time here, I've never known Dr. Bob to do anything at all because of popular opinion alone. Never.
I'm not saying that how you experience Dr. Bob isn't valid, but it is not how I experience him.
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:30:45
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
Perhaps more to the point, have you ever seen Dr. Bob change his opinion because someone has been uncivil to him?
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:28:11
I don't think I've seen him change his opinion at all. Kinda like... Bush.. The whole war on terror (on incivility) is a war that is worth fighting indeed... Even when the UN (the majority of psychiatrists) don't accept that the way he thinks that one should fight it is the way that one should fight it...
I don't particularly care what Bob judges to be 'civil' or 'uncivil'. He is pretty 'uncivil' (according to his own definition) but then that is okay (according to him) because the role that he has elected himself in does not require him to be civil. See what a reasonable and civil person he is????? No, it is his self appointed role to judge of us whether we are civil or not civil, decent or indecent, good for the community or bad. His judgements are so clear and authorative that they justify sanctions of... Being blocked for up to one year.
Defining yourself as God doesn't make you so Dr Bob.
You gotta have known someone would call you on your sh*t one day - right?
Is that what this site is? A whole 'playing chicken' experiment with respect to when someone might call you on your sh*t?
Called. You are.
Now what you gonna do? Exclude me from the circle of opinions you feel you have to take seriously, of course (ie label me uncivil and be done with me)
Question: In good conscience???
Really?????????
I thought you were smarter than that...
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:52:28
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:10:57
> Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this.
Now, you see, you are addressing me directly here. That leaves you available for me to address back.
Do you really expect me to refrain from posting along a thread just because your name appears somewhere within it?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:54:14
In reply to Re: make change, posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:52:28
> > Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this.
>
> Now, you see, you are addressing me directly here. That leaves you available for me to address back.
>
> Do you really expect me to refrain from posting along a thread just because your name appears somewhere within it?By the way, I owe you nothing.
- Scott
Posted by Nadezda on August 18, 2009, at 12:58:26
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
You aren't suggesting, are you, Alex, that there's any analogy between the war on terror and the civility rules here?
Or any argument that derives from the fact that you can construct a sentence of the form: "X (a person) has an idea about Y (something to be done) which Z (some other arguably virtuous group) doesn't accept"--? do you?
If that were some sort of argument, then I could say, with irony: Obama's (Bush's) plans for health insurance (war on terror) is a struggle worth engaging even though the people attending town hall meetings to voice their opinions (the UN) don't accept that one should pursue it...
You really have to draw some connection between civility here and the war on terror (assumed to be a bad thing) for this sort of point to have any force. But there's no connection. To put it otherwise, it's an implied equivalence that is unsupportable. It's like comparing bad apples to the rack. It fails from lack of resonance between the terms.
It doesn't strengthens your objections to the civility rules--
Nadezda
Posted by Partlycloudy on August 18, 2009, at 13:09:42
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
Although I'm not intellectually up to participating in this thread, I want to let you know I support your position, Alexandra.
I hope that your strongly stated views do not end up in another long block - it would be a shame to lose your voice from the site for any period of time.
pc
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 15:04:19
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
> You gotta have known someone would call you on your sh*t one day - right?
??? It seems to me that Dr. Bob gets "called" on things all the time. You certainly aren't the first. Many have been blocked protesting Dr. Bob's administration. Sometimes I wonder if people quit protesting the long blocks, if there would be long blocks at all. Admittedly, I don't quite understand the purpose. Why deprive yourself of a voice on the site in order to protest? What is the concrete goal? Other than perhaps to forcibly remove yourself from someplace you don't wish to be. Admittedly it's hard to walk away sometimes.
> Question: In good conscience???
>
> Really?????????
>
> I thought you were smarter than that...Smarter than that how? Smarter than enforcing the guidelines on his own site? How is that not smart? Or in good conscience. By your own account, if he blocks some people for a behavior, he should block others for the same behavior. How is that unconscionable?
I feel like I'm totally missing the point here.
What will be gained?
I really really don't understand. I don't understand any of this. I feel enormously sad, and frustrated on top of it, because I just don't understand why.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 18:16:44
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 15:04:19
> Many have been blocked protesting Dr. Bob's administration.
Are you sure about that? He doesn't seem to think that that is so.
> Why deprive yourself of a voice on the site in order to protest?
I'm not 'depriving myself' of anything. I don't enforce the rules here - Bob does. He chooses what he will do with his conduct. He chooses whether he will block me or whether he will not.
> Smarter than that how? Smarter than enforcing the guidelines on his own site? How is that not smart? Or in good conscience. By your own account, if he blocks some people for a behavior, he should block others for the same behavior. How is that unconscionable?
The idea is more that... Blocking someone for one year for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk strikes me as too harsh. I wonder how the majority of people would feel about this if Bob did a survey. I wonder how the majority of psychiatrists would feel about this even. Do people really agree with him that a person who says `sh*t' without an asterisk is 'incivil' or 'indecent' or 'harmful to the community'? Do they really think that that justifies him blocking a person for up to one year? His intermittent enforcement (sometimes he will sometimes he won't) just compounds the problem. The solution isn't to enforce more. Analogy:
Some people might have their hand chopped off for theft. You know, steal something worth 5c - lose a hand. People do 'choose' to lose a hand insofar as they choose to steal - right Bob? Problem: Some people lose a hand, others do not. Maybe it is a little too harsh to remove a persons hand for theft. I know... Lets enforce the rule more consistently - somehow that is supposed to magically make everything okay???
(The point is that inconsistent enforcement compounds the problem. But this isn't to condone the act or to say that the solution is to more widely apply precisely that which is problematic).
But really... All this is... Simply a waste of breath, yeah. Cause really... It will just end up in the archives... Forgotten... LIke all the other complaints. But then... What complaints? Bob doesn't seem to think there are any... I'm just a random raver - right Bob?
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 18:25:49
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 15:04:19
thanks muffled and partlycloudy. i'm usually reluctant to name names. asking people who have left or reduced their imput to go down on the record as such is like... trying to herd a bunch of cats lol.
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 19:38:01
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 18:16:44
> > Many have been blocked protesting Dr. Bob's administration.
>
> Are you sure about that? He doesn't seem to think that that is so.I believe we mean that differently. Many people have been blocked while stating that they are in the process of protesting site administration. They are not blocked *for* protesting site administration. There are people who protest site administration who do not do so in such a way that will result in a block.
> > Why deprive yourself of a voice on the site in order to protest?
>
> I'm not 'depriving myself' of anything. I don't enforce the rules here - Bob does. He chooses what he will do with his conduct. He chooses whether he will block me or whether he will not.But Dr. Bob is not the one choosing how to post here. You are. Do you think that whether or not Dr. Bob blocks you has nothing at all to do with your own choices? You originally chose how to post, you chose how to respond to his "suggestions" about apologies, you chose how to respond to other posters, and you are choosing how to post right now. You do have a choice whether or not to be blocked. Dr. Bob will make his choices, true. But he will make his choices based on your choices, and he has clearly laid out what his choices will be. What you choose to do in response to that is as much a choice as what he chooses to do in response to your response.
Dr. Bob is not the only active participant in this. You are just as active as he is. You can't choose to post in a way that Dr. Bob has defined as against site guidelines and still not be blocked. He can't choose to have you post as he wishes you would. You both have choices. But both of your choices are constrained by the choices of the other.
> > Smarter than that how? Smarter than enforcing the guidelines on his own site? How is that not smart? Or in good conscience. By your own account, if he blocks some people for a behavior, he should block others for the same behavior. How is that unconscionable?
>
> The idea is more that... Blocking someone for one year for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk strikes me as too harsh.Again, no one is blocked for a year for saying anything at all. Someone is blocked for a year for violating site guidelines a certain number of times. With the guidelines admittedly being set by Dr. Bob as his right and responsibility on the site he owns and operates. To be precise. If I were to be blocked for a year, it would be because I at the very least:
1. Violated site guidelines. Given a PBC.
2. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for a week.
3. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for two weeks.
4. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for four weeks.
5. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for eight weeks.
6. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for sixteen weeks.
7. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for thirtytwo weeks.
8. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for a year.This is assuming that I violated site guidelines as soon as I came back from each previous block, was caught every time, was given the maximum consequence, and at no time was particularly uncivil to another poster. If my eighth violation of site guidelines was overriding the asterisking system, I would be blocked for a year not because I overrode the asterisking system, but because I violated site guidelines eight times within a certain period of time as defined by Bob's formula.
Dr. Bob has eased up on block lengths, but people do still get blocked for long periods of time. If you want to say that eight violations of site guidelines shouldn't result in a year's block, then fine. But you need to be here to say that. You need to be here to discuss changing board policy. You need to be here for Babble to hear and see you.
> But really... All this is... Simply a waste of breath, yeah. Cause really... It will just end up in the archives... Forgotten... LIke all the other complaints. But then... What complaints? Bob doesn't seem to think there are any... I'm just a random raver - right Bob?
>I do not see how it is possible for Dr. Bob to believe there are no complaints since he reads Admin on at least a semiregular basis.
If it's not healthy for you to be here... If it's not someplace you want to be... Then you know that I will support whatever decisions you make. I'm not asking you to apologize. I wouldn't ask you to apologize. I want you to do whatever is best for you. But... I guess I just don't understand how it can be best for you to see this as Dr. Bob blocking you for some whim of his own, and not see that you are not powerless in your relationship with him or with Babble. I guess I don't see feelings of powerlessness as being the best thing for anyone.
If you'd like for me to drop this, I will of course not continue discussing this. But I hope we can continue to talk about other things. I don't want to lose you as a friend over Babble. That's a loss I choose not to take, to the extent that it is my choice.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2009, at 0:22:56
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 19:38:01
Yeah, I choose what I will and will not post here, I am responsible for what I say.
But Bob is responsible for what he does and doesn't post here. He is responsible for the way he interprets things and for his blocking behavior.> . Someone is blocked for a year for violating site guidelines a certain number of times.
Well... Someone is blocked for a year because Bob repeatedly judges them to have violated site guidelines a certain number of times.
> Dr. Bob has eased up on block lengths, but people do still get blocked for long periods of time. If you want to say that eight violations of site guidelines shouldn't result in a year's block, then fine. But you need to be here to say that. You need to be here to discuss changing board policy. You need to be here for Babble to hear and see you.
I'm kinda done. I've said what I wanted / needed to say. I'm kinda done now.
> I do not see how it is possible for Dr. Bob to believe there are no complaints since he reads Admin on at least a semiregular basis.
Yeah, you would think.
No matter what... You won't lose my friendship. Promise.
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.