![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 226 to 250 of 272. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2009, at 5:10:05
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2009, at 0:22:56
> No matter what... You won't lose my friendship. Promise.
I'm selfish enough to say that that's what matters most to me. :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2009, at 11:22:25
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2009, at 0:22:56
> > 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.If you did think another poster's idea or behavior was stupid, what you would say to them?
--
> > Yes, it's up to me to decide on the rules here. How would it make you feel to abide by them?
> 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.The way things are here is I decide on the rules. And on what's negotiable.
> he has too much power, I think.
> 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?
In what way do you see the situation as unfair?
It sounds like the answer, at least in part, to my earlier question is that abiding by the rules here would make you feel powerless and subservient.
--
> 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.Exactly, we each have the power to choose, and are responsible for, what we do. You chose to post and I choose to interpret as uncivil:
> the stupid rules
> your little chosen circle of idealizers
> don't post to me
> Willful misunderstanding
You're responsible for your posts and I'm responsible for my interpretations. And you choose whether to apologize or rephrase, and are responsible for your choice. And I choose whether to block you, and am responsible for my choice.
Thanks, Nadezda, muffled, Dinah, and Partlycloudy, for trying to help.
Bob
Posted by Partlycloudy on August 19, 2009, at 12:42:21
In reply to Re: choice and responsibility » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2009, at 11:22:25
Sometimes, Babble makes me cry. That's when I know I have to step back. I see what's coming, and there is nothing I can do to prevent it.
I can't say that anything else on the internet has the same impact on my emotional state. This is huge.
pc
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2009, at 10:32:10
In reply to Re: choice and responsibility » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2009, at 11:22:25
It might be that Alex may not feel willing to make the choice to apologize and rephrase. And it likely is that you will then feel like you need to make the choice to block her, in keeping with Babble policy.
But might it be possible to block her for less than the full time she might receive under the formula? For a week perhaps? Or a month?
This might demonstrate good faith on your part that you really do wish Alex to be part of this community. And allow Alex to choose in the future to remain part of this community by committing to choose to post by site guidelines. Even if she doesn't feel like she can apologize for statements she made in the past.
I recognize that this may be inconsistent with past decisions, and you may not feel able to do this. Nor do I know if Alex would be interested in this.
But it is in keeping with what I have been suggesting recently. That blocks not be based on length but based on a willingness to abide by site guidelines. People might choose to post things in the past that they are willing to choose not to post in the future. Apologizing for things past can sometimes be harder than refraining from doing things in the future.
I think it would be a good thing for Babble for this to be part of the whole blocking process. To allow people to return to Babble from a block, if they are willing to choose to commit to follow site guidelines in the future. With perhaps some assurances given in the form of civility buddies, etc. if the first recommitment is broken. I think that people, as they start receiving longer blocks, might choose to be proactive to have more control over their blocks than they believe themselves currently to have. Making it possible to soften long blocks by their own actions might reduce the fear and resentment.
Just an idea.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2009, at 16:15:35
In reply to Might I make a suggestion? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2009, at 10:32:10
I appreciate the thought, Dinah, but I choose not to participate in a site where the rules are applied inconsistently, punitively and where posters genuine concerns are unfairly dismissed as arising from their issues.
Dr Bob can block me to kingdom come - I really don't give a sh*t.
I do miss Babblers... But then there are so many former Babblers who have left in protest who I miss as well. I choose to be one one the latter.
(Let Bob try and put things back on posters - 'you lament that there are less people here - what can you do about that' while once again ignoring the most salient feature - his decisions around inconsistent enforcement and long block).
If that isn't stupid... Then... What is it???
I want to let you know that I'd support you in getting help for your issues, Bob.
But I'm sick to death of this place.
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2009, at 17:54:53
In reply to Re: Might I make a suggestion?, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2009, at 16:15:35
Well, as I said, I support you in any decision that you make. Although of course it does make me sad that you won't be able to get and give support on Babble.
Still, I think the idea has merit, and I hope Dr. Bob does consider it in general, even if you aren't interested in it yourself. Maybe some good can come of this, in terms of the goal of reducing block times overall.
((( Alex )))
Talk to you soon I hope. I haven't heard how things are going lately with school and your therapist.
Posted by gobbledygook on August 23, 2009, at 19:40:37
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:06:04
Hi Alex,
I don't know if you remember, but we were in chat together for hours once in the past when I was someone else. You had me in stitches with your quick wit and hysterical links..."Medication, sometimes the world just needs a break..," Bill and Monica, and some others. That was the most fun I've ever had in chat!!! Thank you for those moments. I thought you were so engaging and real and hoped that you would come back and chat more but I didn't see you for a long time after that. When you eventually did come back I was someone else by then and somehow we never really got to interact again like before.
I will undoubtedly miss your distinctive posts if you go, but I understand, and respect and support whatever you decide is right for you at this time. I also want to say that I have always liked who you are, Alex. Just wanted to let you know in case I don't see you for awhile.
Wishing you zen mindfulness, Alex.
Ava
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2009, at 12:34:48
In reply to Re: Might I make a suggestion?, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2009, at 16:15:35
> Dr Bob can block me to kingdom come - I really don't give a sh*t.
OK, we each make our choices and are responsible for them.
Please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that this community helps you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
Dinah and Ava, thanks for trying to help.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 52 weeks
period of time since previous block: 37 weeks
severity: 2 (default)
block length = 36.89 rounded = 37 weeks
Posted by BayLeaf on September 8, 2009, at 19:47:40
In reply to Re: choice and responsibility » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2009, at 12:34:48
Usually you put it in the subject line. Why not this time?
So you won't listen to the MANY MANY MANY requests to stop these long blocks.
Why can't you change your ways on this policy? It's sending good people away from your site.
Unless that's what you want...the slow demise of Babble. If so, good work.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 28, 2009, at 10:30:21
In reply to Alex blocked for 37 weeks :-( » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on September 8, 2009, at 19:47:40
> Usually you put it in the subject line. Why not this time?
Because the subject was choice and responsibility. And I've been wondering in general if it needs to be in the subject line.
> So you won't listen to the MANY MANY MANY requests to stop these long blocks.
>
> Why can't you change your ways on this policy?I listen to the requests. But I don't have any plans to change this policy. Posters are free to stop these blocks on their own if they want.
Bob
Posted by Kath on September 28, 2009, at 20:54:49
In reply to Re: choice and responsibility, posted by Dr. Bob on September 28, 2009, at 10:30:21
> Unless that's what you want...the slow demise of Babble. If so, good work.
~ ~ I can't imagine that you want the slow demise of Babble Dr. Bob, & I don't know if it has anything to do with this whole issue, but what I DO know is that on the 'boards' that I go to, there have been way fewer posts & WAY fewer of the old names that I know & love, & not enough 'New' posters to make up for the ones who have gone (in other words, if the 'old' members changed their names).
I feel sad about this & I feel a huge sense of loss.
Kath
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2009, at 8:46:47
In reply to Re: choice and responsibility » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on September 28, 2009, at 20:54:49
> I don't know if it has anything to do with this whole issue, but what I DO know is that on the 'boards' that I go to, there have been way fewer posts & WAY fewer of the old names that I know & love, & not enough 'New' posters to make up for the ones who have gone (in other words, if the 'old' members changed their names).
>
> I feel sad about this & I feel a huge sense of loss.I do, too. Though people moving on is to some extent inevitable. Regarding new posters, see my post below about maintaining Babble:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090813/msgs/918926.html
Bob
Posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 3:42:59
In reply to Re: will there be a 'no twitter' list?, posted by information on June 30, 2009, at 19:44:21
Twitter is a massive forum with so many topics and contributors interacting at once that I don't have any problem about having posts on twitter.
I don't see it as really any different from babble in terms of privacy and wonder if some people aren't responding out of fear of the unknown-- and imagining that it will be all the "bad" things that an "other" place can be.
It feels pretty private to me, in the sense that I don't feel that anything bad will happen if my thoughts are posted there-- or that somehow I'm more vulnerable than I am here, or in life.
Nadezda
Posted by BayLeaf on October 27, 2009, at 3:43:03
In reply to Re: I don't mind having posts on twitter, posted by Nadezda on July 1, 2009, at 16:54:59
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2009, at 3:43:04
In reply to DR BOB - IS THERE AN OPT OUT FOR TWITTER??? (nm), posted by BayLeaf on July 1, 2009, at 21:27:47
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2009, at 3:43:05
In reply to Re: I don't mind having posts on twitter, posted by Nadezda on July 1, 2009, at 16:54:59
Posted by muffled on October 27, 2009, at 3:43:06
In reply to Opt-out of twitter, posted by Roslynn on July 5, 2009, at 16:42:56
Some I ain't seen in awhiles!
Best wishes to alla you guys :-)
Kinda neat to know yous all out there!
Makes me happy.
Hope you all doing OK.
I am OK.
Take care,
Muffled
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.