![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 84 to 108 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by sigismund on October 31, 2010, at 2:46:04
In reply to Re: Please don't go Twinleaf » Free, posted by rskontos on October 31, 2010, at 1:21:25
It says a lot (about the application of the civility rules?) that someone like Twinleaf should have fallen foul of them by pursuing issues of principle.
Posted by ron1953 on October 31, 2010, at 8:28:39
In reply to Re: Please don't go Twinleaf, posted by sigismund on October 31, 2010, at 2:46:04
Posted by Willful on October 31, 2010, at 11:49:00
In reply to (sigh) (nm), posted by ron1953 on October 31, 2010, at 8:28:39
yeah. The application of blocks is becoming seemingly even more arbitrary and capricious than ever. But as Dinah says that there's no arguing with Bob on settled points of long-standing, especially unless you've got some new idea about it-- and if there's one thing we've contested with Bob, it's his policy on blocking-- I think it's really something that we should simply accept and try to accommodate.
I personally find his blocks unfair-- and often out of kilter and not balanced-- but I just don't think that getting upset about it to the point of arguing with Bob will do anything other than further agitate and anger me.
I would hate to see twinleaf get blocked. Which she won't since she retracted her comment. Should she or ron have had to retrace or apologize? IMO no -- but it's not my board.
I hope twinleaf stays because her presence here means a lot to other people on pbabble, and I hope we are the ones she's here for. It would be great if she would reconsider and not leave-- and work on keeping away from admin-- or being very circumspect here.
I feel the same way about ron. I 've liked his contributions a lot and hate to see him blocked or gone.
So all I can say too is "sigh"--
Willful
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2010, at 13:33:45
In reply to Re: (sigh), posted by Willful on October 31, 2010, at 11:49:00
I think Twinleaf very graciously did withdraw her statement, so I'd be very surprised if Dr. Bob blocked her for it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2010, at 0:37:07
In reply to Re: Please don't go Twinleaf, posted by sigismund on October 31, 2010, at 2:46:04
> I would like to withdraw that statement.
>
> twinleaf> One of the Merriam-Webster definitions for capricious is unpredictable, and that's how I meant it. That's how I see blocks, etc. - unpredictable. Is my seeing it as unpredictable somehow uncivil? I honestly and sincerely don't think so.
>
> ron1953It would be more of an I-statement to say that you're unable to predict blocks, but thanks for withdrawing and rephrasing. I'm glad we avoided more blocks this time.
--
> I personally feel that rarely do we as fellow babblers ever know when someone we care about is either in trouble or in danger of getting blocks.
Then I'm glad I said they were in danger. But were you really surprised I considered their posts uncivil?
> So many great people are blocked right now
It may be tempting to see me as responsible for reduced posting. Who do you think is blocked right now?
> It also makes me feel like I can't post because I can tell you right now a block would send me in a tailspin. Downward tailspin.
>
> rskThat's one reason I like to see posters help each other avoid blocks.
--
> It says a lot (about the application of the civility rules?) that someone like Twinleaf should have fallen foul of them by pursuing issues of principle.
>
> sigismundWhat do you think that might say about the application of the civility rules?
Bob
Posted by sigismund on November 1, 2010, at 2:01:38
In reply to Re: avoiding more blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2010, at 0:37:07
>What do you think that might say about the application of the civility rules?
That some people are singled out.
Posted by ron1953 on November 1, 2010, at 9:05:06
In reply to Re: avoiding more blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2010, at 0:37:07
> > I would like to withdraw that statement.
> >
> > twinleaf
>
> > One of the Merriam-Webster definitions for capricious is unpredictable, and that's how I meant it. That's how I see blocks, etc. - unpredictable. Is my seeing it as unpredictable somehow uncivil? I honestly and sincerely don't think so.
> >
> > ron1953
>
> It would be more of an I-statement to say that you're unable to predict blocks, but thanks for withdrawing and rephrasing. I'm glad we avoided more blocks this time.
>
> --
>
> > I personally feel that rarely do we as fellow babblers ever know when someone we care about is either in trouble or in danger of getting blocks.
>
> Then I'm glad I said they were in danger. But were you really surprised I considered their posts uncivil?
>
> > So many great people are blocked right now
>
> It may be tempting to see me as responsible for reduced posting. Who do you think is blocked right now?
>
> > It also makes me feel like I can't post because I can tell you right now a block would send me in a tailspin. Downward tailspin.
> >
> > rsk
>
> That's one reason I like to see posters help each other avoid blocks.
>
> --
>
> > It says a lot (about the application of the civility rules?) that someone like Twinleaf should have fallen foul of them by pursuing issues of principle.
> >
> > sigismund
>
> What do you think that might say about the application of the civility rules?
>
> BobHead games, Bob. The lack of participation at Babble proves, to me, that an obvious majority doesn't care for them. Good night and good luck!
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2010, at 13:57:49
In reply to time to say goodbye..., posted by twinleaf on October 30, 2010, at 9:08:22
re: twinleaf leaving
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2010, at 14:05:04
In reply to ode to Bob, posted by muffled on November 1, 2010, at 13:57:49
OMG!!! Just watched whole vid... that time period was a *scarey * LOL!!! one for music!!
Check the look on the lead singer AAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!
ROFL!!!
I am dating myself aren't I????
LOL!
LOL!
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2010, at 15:08:10
In reply to Re: (sigh), posted by Willful on October 31, 2010, at 11:49:00
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2010, at 5:38:00
In reply to Re: more blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2010, at 0:25:33
I've said this a few times before and this is the last time I'll say it again:
> I'd like to ask those who care about ron or twinleaf -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent more blocks.
I really don't like it when you say things like the above. It sounds to me like you are putting the sole responsibility for blocks on those who are in danger of being blocked and the community rather than facing up to the substantial role that you play in choosing to interpret posts in a certain way to justify your decision to block them.
One way in which people try and prevent more blocks is by encouraging you to consider the significant role you play and also try and encourage you to change your blocking behavior.
> Protests haven't proved all that effective at preventing blocks...
Has your asking people 'who care' about x to encourage them to apologize or rephrase been all that effective in preventing blocks?
>... and may even encourage behaviors that lead to them.
'Cause you get sh*tty?
> You have the right to protest (as long as you're civil), but if your goal is to prevent more blocks, please consider a different strategy.
Ditto.
If anything... Your blocking behavior has gotten progressively worse over the years. People are leaving because... Well, many say why they are choosing to leave. But perhaps you actually like things that way...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2010, at 5:39:14
In reply to Re: more blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2010, at 5:38:00
Thanks for your support and encouragement over the years. I understand why you feel like leaving (on the basis of what you have said) and respect your decision.
It is a shame that things have turned out this way.
But really, what did Bob expect?
Posted by ron1953 on November 2, 2010, at 10:46:57
In reply to Miss you twin, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2010, at 5:39:14
I think we need to hear from the "other side of the aisle". I sure would like to know their views.
Posted by ron1953 on November 2, 2010, at 16:05:00
In reply to C'mon, pro-block members, chime in, posted by ron1953 on November 2, 2010, at 10:46:57
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2010, at 21:48:17
In reply to Miss you twin, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2010, at 5:39:14
You know it is funny...
Once upon a time Bob got it into his head that a better way to go would be to move from the current autocratic system (him in charge) to a more democratic system. I guess the thought would be that we would become more civil (according to him) if we weren't rebelling against him.
This was a change because I think prior to that he thought that our protesting against his actions prevented us turning on each other. During that time he seemed to think that it was good when we spoke out against his actions because he thought that was required in order for us to play nice with each other (a kind of coming together against a common enemy thing to do).
So... Deputies arose. Part of the democratization of babble. Only problem was that many of the deputies left or ceased being deputies or got upset with Bob because even though they were supposed to share some of the power (e.g., blocking decisions) Bob didn't actually relinquish any and thus they either had to do what he would do were he to act or... Quit or be de-deputized.
So the deputy thing rather than resulting in more democracy only resulted in creating duplicate copies of the autocrat. Reminds me of something... But best not said online.
Now we have the 'report this post' feature. I wonder who chooses whether the reports will be acted upon or not.
It is his site. He seems to want to let go (at times). But... He can't. Or won't. Or probably some combination of the above.
Still. Guess he is doing us a favor, really, because as people get better... They do indeed come to see some of this. And make the decision to move on. For their own mental health.
A way of helping prevent online addiction, to be sure.
But also a way of undermining the community that was so helpfully addictive.
Still. What ya gonna do?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2010, at 21:55:59
In reply to C'mon, pro-block members, chime in, posted by ron1953 on November 2, 2010, at 10:46:57
> I think we need to hear from the "other side of the aisle". I sure would like to know their views.
Well now, this is rather easy...
(Playing devils advocate - so to speak).
If there weren't any blocks at all then people would say things like 'I hate you you useless piece of sh*t' to each other. That would undermine the supportive aspect of this site and then posters would leave.
There are already a lot of online communities that don't have much in the way of moderation and because of the online disinhibition effect people really can be very hostile to each other.
This is a community that is supposed to be supportive. Some people here can't or don't stay in other online communities where people do say hurtful or unsupportive things to each other. Even without the online disinhibition effect many people are here because they find that others are hurtful or unsupportive IRL and they have trouble coping with that too. This place is special because it is meant to provide a sanctuary from such things.
The way in which it does so is for Bob to decide whether or not he will block people on the basis of what he decides is 'uncivil' words. Clearly if he didn't block people for up to one year for saying 'I think' instead of 'I feel' then the community would degenerate into people saying 'you useless piece of sh*t' to one another and then... Well... I guess then people would leave.
You know, the 'good' ones. The ones who Bob chooses not to pick apart their posts.
And that would be a horrible thing (for them).
Of course.
Posted by vwoolf on November 3, 2010, at 0:51:25
In reply to Re: C'mon, pro-block members, chime in, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2010, at 21:55:59
Believe it or not I do support blocks, and I have said so often before.
I think it is like the frame in therapy, without which it is not therapy. And like the frame in therapy, everyone hates it.
I think that if we as posters are prepared to look, we will see ourselves reflected in the way we respond here on Babble. Bob is merely representing, in a shadowy internet kind of way, something internal to ourselves. He stays so far out of Babble that we can't know what he is really thinking. And so we start to project.....The frame (or block) represents the edge between ourselves and reality, and so defines us. It's not really about Bob at all, although of course he is the one who holds the frame and so catches all the crossfire.
I still maintain that PsychoBabble is therapeutic, in a funny, laid-back kind of way, and it is this that distinguishes it from other sites, and what brings blocked posters back after even very long blocks.
But I do feel very sad when people I like are blocked.
Posted by SLS on November 3, 2010, at 6:53:06
In reply to I'm pro-block, posted by vwoolf on November 3, 2010, at 0:51:25
I am an advocate of forum moderation, including posting blocks. However, I remain uncomfortable with what I perceive to be a threshold for infractions that is too low to earn sanctions.
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 9:54:40
In reply to Re: I'm pro-block, posted by SLS on November 3, 2010, at 6:53:06
I appreciate hearing from youse guys.
Are you "pro-block" because you think that blocks help make a member a "better" member, or because they get rid of members whose posts you don't like?
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 10:40:00
In reply to A Question for Pro-block Members, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 9:54:40
Do you see those as the only two choices?
That would be as difficult to answer as some of the political poll telephone calls I received lately.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 10:40:38
In reply to Re: A Question for Pro-block Members » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 10:40:00
For *me* to answer, of course.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 11:20:22
In reply to A Question for Pro-block Members, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 9:54:40
I really don't understand the opposition to blocks, per se.
If I go to someone's home, or someone's business, I expect that they will have expectations for my behavior in that home or business. If I violate those expectations, I would not be at all surprised if I were asked to leave. If I went to the home of another with the understanding that such expectations existed, I would expect the host to ask those who violate those expectations to leave.
It's not about wanting to change a poster, or about wanting to be rid of a poster. It's about having a set of rules, or expectations, for participating in a forum.
Dr. Bob is very careful about using the words only and not intent when judging whether someone is choosing not to live by the rules he set out for participation. But he also clearly uses a poster's history. Just as he is harder on incivilities in a thread where a warning has already been issued, he considers a block or pbc to be a warning, and is less lenient afterward with infractions. He likely considers that a person's prior history is a good indicator of whether or not they have an intent to comply with his requirements for posting.
Where I differ with him at times is that he doesn't consider intent when he's also considering history. To me, it was clear that Twinleaf came back with the intent to abide by site guidelines, and has tried to express her opinions in such a way as to be true to herself as well as being respectful of Dr. Bob, the guidelines, and her fellow posters. With that in mind, I think Dr. Bob should have engaged more on an explanation of where the limits lie rather than to direct threats of blocking.
My only objection to doubling of block lengths, or lengthy blocks, is that they don't even attempt to correlate with willingness to abide by site guidelines. A year's block isn't enough if a poster has no intent to participate in a positive way and abide by site guidelines when they return. A month is too long a block if a poster indicates through their attitude and their actions a willingness to learn and abide by site guidelines.
I think perhaps Dr. Bob is attempting, through his requests to have people help others avoid being blocked, to highlight the aspect of choice involved in posting. I think that it could be conveyed in a way that would be more effective and better accepted by the community, but I do understand the underlying rationale.
Dr. Bob doesn't block anyone permanently, unlike other sites. Posters are always welcome to post with the sole requirement that they abide by site guidelines. It is the poster's choice whether or not they wish to do so.
(With, again, a wish that he would be more charitable as to a person's current state of mind, as opposed to merely considering history.)
I don't see why that is such a controversial issue. The application perhaps, but I don't see a controversy behind asking people to abide by the expectations of the site, and requesting that they leave if they are unwilling to do so.
Posted by SLS on November 3, 2010, at 11:22:36
In reply to A Question for Pro-block Members, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 9:54:40
> I appreciate hearing from youse guys.
>
> Are you "pro-block" because you think that blocks help make a member a "better" member, or because they get rid of members whose posts you don't like?Neither.
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 13:10:36
In reply to Re: A Question for Pro-block Members, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 11:20:22
Dinah said, "If I go to someone's home, or someone's business, I expect that they will have expectations for my behavior in that home or business. If I violate those expectations, I would not be at all surprised if I were asked to leave. If I went to the home of another with the understanding that such expectations existed, I would expect the host to ask those who violate those expectations to leave."
I understand that argument, and it's been stated here on numerous occasions, but I don't think it applies to a supposed mental health support site. As for me, I do not assume others' expectations, which I have found is frought with hazards. Also, I wouldn't hang out with ANYBODY who would be so audacious as to tell another how to behave.
I'll give some background about my feelings regarding blocks: Like many members, I've been a mental health consumer, having spent many an hour (and dollar)in therapy and having taken countless medications, all to very limited "success". Near the tail end of my involvement with professional/drug therapy (circa 2004), I was looking for support during my separation and divorce. I couldn't locate a divorce support group, but I did find a "men's support group". When I spoke to a founding member about joining the group (which, incidentally, had been in existence for 15 years), he made it a point to warn me that the group was very dynamic and could be quite straightforward, even brutally honest. I decided to check it out. Yes, they were straightforward, and yes, they were brutal, but I got more therapeutic value in six months than I had received in years of professional "help". The other members felt the same way about the value of the group. The bonds that were formed in that group were terrific - in fact, one member remains a close friend (I left the area in 2005). The members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it. Nobody ever attempted to censor anybody, and nobody was ever asked to leave. Sometimes it was loud, sometimes it was ugly, sometimes there were tears, and sometimes there were blowouts between 2 members. But there were smiles, and belly laughs, and hugs, and social stuff outside of the group, and there was GROWTH. Most of all, there was love - unconditional love.
Now, fast-forward to Oregon, where I moved to in '05. Missing my east coast group, I sought another men's group here. I found one and it turned out to be extremely bland and superficial, and not very therapeutic. Interestingly, when I was able to stir the guys up and start some REAL conversation about real personal issues (which wasn't very often), they would all enthusiastically comment on what a good meeting it was. Otherwise, the meetings were a waste of time. I was thinking about leaving the group when the following incident occurred: one of the members was recounting something very emotional to him and got a bit loud, as I might expect. However, the member whose house we were in told the talker to quiet down. Keep in mind that the host lived alone, and nobody but the group was there. Here's a guy who's trying to pour out some emotional stuff in a supposed support group, and he's told to quiet down. The look on his face said it all. I stopped attending that group after that.
I think that peer support can be of incredible benefit, but rules, conditions, admonishments, etc. undermine what's possible, creating a "walking on eggs" situation where nobody is really free to open up. Some Babble members use the word "safety" to describe some of the reasons for the civility rules and results, but I was a lot safer in the east coast men's group than here in Babble. I'm not talking about superficial safety as in no cuss words, no arguments; I'm talking about REAL safety where members would (and did) bend over backwards to help another member.
Thus are my experiences and feelings about peer support, and why I think conditional peer support is not only unhelpful, but possibly damaging.
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 13:35:39
In reply to Re: A Question for Pro-block Members, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 13:10:36
I thought of the busiest board on Babble - Medication, where in a forum sponsored by a (I assume) licensed and DEA-registered physician, laypeople freely give advice on powerful medications. Doesn't sound safe to me......
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.