![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 101 to 125 of 348. Go back in thread:
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......
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 14:08:37
In reply to Re: A Question for Pro-block Members, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 13:10:36
It makes sense that you would prefer an environment like the first group. It helped you a lot, and you found it beneficial. Perhaps others wouldn't have found it as beneficial, and would have found the second group more beneficial.
This is *Dr. Bob's* mental health support site. There are other sites that have different rules. No matter the purpose of the site, the host has the ability and responsibility to state the terms under which his guests are allowed to post.
Babble can't be all things to all people. It can't even be the best thing for all people, because different people have different needs.
If you get benefit from posting at Babble under site rules, then it would be worthwhile to you to follow those rules and continue to post. Following the rules at Babble is more or less the cost of admission. If the cost isn't worth it to you, then it's not. It's your choice, and you have the ability to choose the environment that suits your needs.
What you don't have the ability to do, or the power to do, is to change Babble to suit your needs. Babble is what Babble is.
Mind you, I try as much as anyone to influence Dr. Bob. I try to find new ways to present situations to him, so as to change his point of view. But anything beyond that is beyond my power.
There are those who do find the civility guidelines of Babble to their taste. Of course there are other costs of admission at Babble too. Googleability, and for a short time, the buttons to Twitter and Facebook.
Everyone has to determine if they're willing to pay the admission price to post here. Either decision is valid.
But it *is* each poster's decision, not Bob's. Bob's decisions involve setting the rules and conditions. Dr. Bob can't make our choices for us any more than we can make his choices for him.
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 14:33:08
In reply to Re: A Question for Pro-block Members » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 14:08:37
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 14:42:20
In reply to Quote, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 14:33:08
You've been fairly consistent in your message about Dr. Bob and Babble, as far as I can recall.
I wouldn't say it indicated that your mind was small.
Although certainly I can find worse comparisons than to statesmen and philosophers.
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 15:00:38
In reply to Re: Quote » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 14:42:20
> You've been fairly consistent in your message about Dr. Bob and Babble, as far as I can recall.
>
> I wouldn't say it indicated that your mind was small.
>
> Although certainly I can find worse comparisons than to statesmen and philosophers.Good point. I believe I'll take it. Bye.
Posted by muffled on November 3, 2010, at 15:27:11
In reply to Re: A Question for Pro-block Members » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 14:08:37
> This is *Dr. Bob's* mental health support site. There are other sites that have different rules. No matter the purpose of the site, the host has the ability and responsibility to state the terms under which his guests are allowed to post.
> What you don't have the ability to do, or the power to do, is to change Babble to suit your needs. Babble is what Babble is.
> There are those who do find the civility guidelines of Babble to their taste. Of course there are other costs of admission at Babble too. Googleability, and the buttons to Twitter and Facebook.
> Everyone has to determine if they're willing to pay the admission price to post here. Either decision is valid.** exactly, which is why I left. It is NOT safe here.
The main prob is, I got settled in here and Bob *seemed* open to change, *seemed* open to considering input from posters so as to make it 'their' site too.
But sadly no.
This is not 'OUR' site as posters, but FULLY and completely BOB's site. He does what HE wishes, irregardless of what long term posters felt.
It was at this point (after MANY attempts to reason w/Bob) that I came to realize this:
Babble is NOT a community.
It is a NOT a democracy.
It is ***BOBS KINGDOM***.
Well I for one want to have some safety and freedom and ability to put my 2 cents worth in and have it *actually* considered as needed.
I feel UTTERLY POWERLESS on this site.
I HAVE NO POWER if things go awry.
NONE.
And I certainly do NOT trust Bobs judgement to be the best for us 'here' at the time, that is NOT the way he thinks. All he seems to care about is *numbers*, not us as individuals. This WAS proven out. He did not care that MANY very capeable long term posters left. He just didn't care.
That doesn't sit well w/me.
And thats why I keep posting here cuz I feel sad when I see others going down the same road as I did. Trusting, getting invested, trusting that my input had validity, etc etc. What a waste of time :(....
So ya, I post to warn others....
And FWIW, feel free to send my post here all around the web.
BE WARNED.
Posted by vwoolf on November 3, 2010, at 16:11:29
In reply to Re: A Question for Pro-block Members » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 14:08:37
>Of course there are other costs of admission at Babble too. Googleability, and for a short time, the buttons to Twitter and Facebook.
Is that true Dinah? Have the buttons really gone? I don't see them on most posts but here and there they still seem to pop up.
I am very grateful to Bob if they have been finally removed. I think it shows a big shift on his part and a real commitment to this site.
Posted by sigismund on November 3, 2010, at 16:19:06
In reply to I'm pro-block, posted by vwoolf on November 3, 2010, at 0:51:25
Me too. Just not the way it is done here.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 16:36:18
In reply to Re: A Question for Pro-block Members, posted by vwoolf on November 3, 2010, at 16:11:29
It's an option now. Posters can choose to opt out of the buttons. The default is to leave them on.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 16:37:47
In reply to The Reality of Babble, posted by muffled on November 3, 2010, at 15:27:11
I would definitely say it is a community. *We* are the community of Babble.
It's not a democracy.
Posted by muffled on November 3, 2010, at 18:04:32
In reply to Re: The Reality of Babble » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 16:37:47
> I would definitely say it is a community. *We* are the community of Babble.
>
> It's not a democracy.Yep, the 'community' is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYYTLJ8YHi4
Under Bobs thumb.
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 18:41:37
In reply to Under Bobs thumb, posted by muffled on November 3, 2010, at 18:04:32
IMHO, an online community would require more than the handful of active members (except perhaps on the meds board) and the handful of daily posts. It's more like a teeny weeny clique.
P.S. Don't confuse "persistent" with "consistent".
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 19:37:28
In reply to Under Bobs thumb, posted by muffled on November 3, 2010, at 18:04:32
It sometimes lessens my enjoyment of Babble, as someone who wishes to remain here, to have what appears to me to be a steady stream of criticism about Babble, about the personal qualities of remaining posters, and/or about Dr. Bob.
Negativity can be draining to my energy level.
I don't think I've ever been in a group of people where so many people who have chosen not to remain part of the group, still remain a part of the group for purposes of telling people how they no longer wish to be part of the group.
I sometimes feel a bit hurt, depending on the poster involved. (Other times I might feel aggravated, or even amused.)
Because if Dr. Bob sets the price of admission, the posters who are actively posting are the "attraction". If people don't find the attraction worth the price of admission, that's fine. But it's hard to have that pointed out with such a high degree of frequency.
By definition almost, this post is not directed at any one person. It's the critical mass. I have, in the past, proposed that Dr. Bob reserve participation on the Administrative board to those who are actively posting, on topic, on other boards. But he has rejected that idea, and prefers to allow things as they are. He apparently feels that criticisms of Babble, even if unaccompanied by other posting, are supportive to the community.
I live with that, because it is his site, and he makes the rules here.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 19:48:42
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 18:41:37
I think you've fairly consistently mentioned cliques as well.
clique [ kleek, klik ] (plural cliques)
noun
Definition:
exclusive group: a close group of friends or coworkers with similar interests and goals, whom outsiders regard as excluding themI see newcomers welcomed at Babble. I see a good number of the remaining Babblers make a real effort to be inclusive.
To me, that is not a clique, despite the fact that people can get rather close on Babble, and that because we are all here, we would appear to to share some interests and goals.
Of course, Babblers have no ability, beyond being welcoming and trying to be inclusive, to determine how others view them.
I'm sorry you feel excluded. Do you get that feeling at all times, or does it come more frequently when you have used terms like cliques or kiddie pools? Perhaps Babblers feel that you might not welcome inclusion to groups that you refer to in those terms? I suppose I'd feel a bit rude if I tried to force friendship on someone who does not appear to wish it.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 19:54:31
In reply to Under Bobs thumb, posted by muffled on November 3, 2010, at 18:04:32
For the record, I don't feel very supported when referred to as under Bob's thumb, Bob's sycophant, Bob's follower, a clique, etc. I don't see myself as any of those things, and I doubt most others who have chosen to remain here see themselves that way either.
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 21:01:15
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 19:54:31
IIRC, I've never used the word "clique" here before today, so I have no idea who you might be referring to. Perhaps you can flip what you're seeing as negativity into encouragement for Babble to be more supportive of different styles, etc..
Regardless of everything else, the OBVIOUS lack of members and posting says something. I do not see how that can be ignored or defended.
Why do you bother responding to these posts?
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 21:08:38
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 21:01:15
I'm sorry if I was mistaken in your previous use of the word clique. I've certainly perceived a certain consistency in your evaluation of those who continue to post at Babble. But I can be mistaken.
I wouldn't be surprised if the negativity on board helped contribute to the lack of posting. If I were a new member, I would be less likely to post here after reading these types of posts.
Would you prefer that I not bother to respond to your posts?
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 21:43:51
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 21:08:38
> Would you prefer that I not bother to respond to your posts?
I asked not because of my personal preference, but because these threads seem to be a source of angst for you.
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.