![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 145 to 169 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:54:10
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:43:54
I'm not asking that Babble reflect my values; I'm asking Babble to consider *respecting* different values.
My-way-or-the-highway does not seem to be an atmosphere conducive of cooperation. It is, by definition, exclusive, where, IMO, the implied message is "say it my way or STFU".
Also, regarding PBCs and blocks, public humiliation is to me, uncivil.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:01:22
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:54:10
I think that there could be a case made for blocks being made private. Originally I favored transparency, and disliked places where people suddenly disappeared for no reason that anyone knew. Or that only some people knew, leading to all sorts of off board gossip. But I see the benefit of the other way as well. However, if Dr. Bob's primary value is transparency, how could he reflect his values and also reflect your values that on board admin actions are shaming and wrong?
I think there may be two mutually exclusive sets of values at play here. How is Dr. Bob to reflect his values about language and respect for others, while also allowing language that does not match his values and discourse that he does not find respectful?
Babble reflects the values of Dr Bob because he maintains the website. Other websites reflect other values. I might not be comfortable at those sites because the values they reflect are not compatible with my own. That doesn't make Dr. Bob's values right or wrong, or the other website values right or wrong. No one is out to be unkind or harmful on purpose. People put different priorities on values that in and of themselves are commendable. Choices have to be made about which values to favor. Dr. Bob has made his choices.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:10:02
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:01:22
Dinah, I read your words and they read as if you're Bob's official spokesperson. Is that the case? Can Bob not speak for himself? I'm aware of Bob's rules, but I do not assume to know what it is he's trying to accomplish, mainly because he hasn't said so. I will not take your word on it.
One of the main problems I see with Bob's civility rules is that they're a moving target.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:23:28
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:10:02
Must I be Bob's spokesperson to have thoughts on the matter? Must I be Bob's spokesperson for my thoughts to be in some ways positive towards Bob?
I've spoken to Dr. Bob many times over the years. I'm not sure whether we've ever spoken on this topic, and we are rarely in perfect agreement on any topic. If you wish Dr. Bob's input, you can ask it. It's probably best to ask specific questions. What questions would you like to ask? Such as...
"Does this site's guidelines reflect your values?"
"Will this site continue to reflect your values?"
"Are you comfortable with the priority you place on your values, and are you committed to maintaining that priority?"
"Would you consider reflecting my priorities instead?"
Or would you like him to speak to some other purpose?
I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you wish to have independent confirmation of, since I have been speaking as myself, and with my own conclusions as to the likelihood of change on Babble. Do I actually sound like Dr. Bob? I wouldn't have thought so...
There is less consistency in the application of civility guidelines than I personally would prefer. Perhaps Dr. Bob also believes in your quote by Emerson about hobgoblins and small minds. Would you prefer he appeal more to statesmen and philosophers?
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:39:23
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:23:28
Let's simply agree to disagree. I may disagree with some of your views, but I respect and defend your right to state them in any fashion you like, and would never suggest that you shouldn't.
I don't have specific questions for Bob that I haven't already posed in some form or another, few of which he's addressed with anything more than such statements as "be the change you want" or "blocked for....". It's Bob's site and I think he should be more involved in the dialogue than he is. And I'm not quite certain whether or not he's laughing his tochas off at all of this.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:43:59
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:39:23
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:52:40
In reply to Thank you for the conversation. (nm) » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:43:59
And there you have it. You and I are in total disagreement, even after all that we discussed, yet it appears we're OK with that. It may be uncomfortable, but we ultimately have benefitted from the process to get to a point of acceptance, where we might move on to other topics.
And this pretty much is something I'd like to see more on Babble - the permission to go THROUGH something without the process being stymied by interference, unless interference is absolutely necessary (I know - Bob's definition of necessary vs others is a question).
We argued. We survived. We gained.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:56:58
In reply to Re: Thank you for the conversation. )Dinah, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:52:40
We also kept it respectful, or at least I tried to.
Should other dialogues take place respectfully, there would be no impediment from Dr. Bob.
It's not against site guidelines to disagree. It's not against site guidelines to be angry. Incivility may be more likely to take place under those conditions, but it isn't a requirement.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:10:09
In reply to Re: Thank you for the conversation. )Dinah » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:56:58
> Incivility may be more likely to take place under those conditions, but it isn't a requirement.
"Requirement"? I don't quite understand what you mean.
Posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:39:23
Sigh.
Good points all.
My main reason to post here now and then is to remind others that come here to be careful.
I don't know why Bob even HAS the option of turning the auto asterisk off??
Why does he block for @ss?
I remember my first block. I felt at home here, safe.
I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked. It was such a horrible feeling. I didn't know what had happened. Then I finally understood(I must have come across the block post) that I was blocked. I felt sick, my head spun. I was so embarrassed and ashamed. I'd just been trying to have a bit of fun.....
So, I have scars on my leg to show the punishment I took for being 'bad'. Cuz I must have been bad to get banished like that.
I liken that block to me as a kid playfully saying f*rt to a parent and them backslapping me into a wall and then telling me I could not speak to my main support friends for a week. NO DISCUSSION.
WAY OVERKILL.
Then add to that if a person has some issues and is trying, but continues to screw up, the blocks escalate rapidly.
And oftimes the ONLY person that seemed to care to block was Bob? Nobody else minded the posters behaviour, or at least they understood it and were trying to be supportive.
Then there is Bob and his random often lenghy absences. He would not be there to help when help was truly needed.
It just all makes no sense.
The third STRONG issue I have is that Bob honestly didn't seem to have any concern that the majority of the community had problems with the way he was running things were going to leave.
He just didn't seem to care. As Dinah says, the community IS Babble, but appaerently not in Bobs mind.....if they all left...more would come, after all he's doing everything he can to make Babble 'in the public eye' (another reason I don't feel safe here). etc etc etc
So I am sorry Dinah if you feel picked upon, cuz it is SO NOT you, you are sweet. It is this site and how it is run that concerns me. I don't want others to come here and get burned.
Its not how Babble 'used' to be nor will it ever. Cuz its just not safe here. Its just not. I tried.
Bob as you have pointed out, is not changing.
I'm sorry.
Hmmm I was going to turn ON my tweet etc buttons so this could go 'out' there, but I dunno how?
LOL, oh well.
I did find the facebook, and the tweets are just new people added.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 13:18:20
In reply to Re: Thank you for the conversation. » Dinah, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:10:09
Just my backward way of saying that participants in a discussion have the choice to remain constructive and respectful.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 13:26:23
In reply to Babble :(, posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
I think it was the posters who insisted that they have the option of turning off auto asterisking. I'm not sure what was being asterisked that they wouldn't be blocked for if they said anyway.
((( Muffled )))
I *am* sorry you were hurt. Had you previously received a pbc for language? One thing I will say is that however little I like Dr. Bob's "Please help poster x from being blocked", I do like that he gives posters a chance to rephrase or retract before they are blocked. I think that is a step forward, although I do recognize that there is still a shaming aspect to it. And certainly I'd like to see a change of terminology.
I'm sorry if I was too sharp. I don't mean to hurt you or anyone else. It's just a situation that's been wearing on me. It wasn't personal to any poster.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:33:05
In reply to Re: Babble :( » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 13:26:23
And I see the rephrase/retract directive as just another form of public humiliation.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 4, 2010, at 13:56:50
In reply to Rephrase/Retract, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:33:05
> And I see the rephrase/retract directive as just another form of public humiliation.
I've always interpreted it (although with no affirmation) as an equivalent to a PBC and so carrying the same consequences for the failure to respond to the request.pc
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:59:07
In reply to Babble :(, posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
> Sigh.
> Good points all.
> My main reason to post here now and then is to remind others that come here to be careful.
> I don't know why Bob even HAS the option of turning the auto asterisk off??
> Why does he block for @ss?
> I remember my first block. I felt at home here, safe.
> I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked. It was such a horrible feeling. I didn't know what had happened. Then I finally understood(I must have come across the block post) that I was blocked. I felt sick, my head spun. I was so embarrassed and ashamed. I'd just been trying to have a bit of fun.....
> So, I have scars on my leg to show the punishment I took for being 'bad'. Cuz I must have been bad to get banished like that.
> I liken that block to me as a kid playfully saying f*rt to a parent and them backslapping me into a wall and then telling me I could not speak to my main support friends for a week. NO DISCUSSION.
> WAY OVERKILL.
> Then add to that if a person has some issues and is trying, but continues to screw up, the blocks escalate rapidly.
> And oftimes the ONLY person that seemed to care to block was Bob? Nobody else minded the posters behaviour, or at least they understood it and were trying to be supportive.
> Then there is Bob and his random often lenghy absences. He would not be there to help when help was truly needed.
> It just all makes no sense.
> The third STRONG issue I have is that Bob honestly didn't seem to have any concern that the majority of the community had problems with the way he was running things were going to leave.
> He just didn't seem to care. As Dinah says, the community IS Babble, but appaerently not in Bobs mind.....if they all left...more would come, after all he's doing everything he can to make Babble 'in the public eye' (another reason I don't feel safe here). etc etc etc
> So I am sorry Dinah if you feel picked upon, cuz it is SO NOT you, you are sweet. It is this site and how it is run that concerns me. I don't want others to come here and get burned.
> Its not how Babble 'used' to be nor will it ever. Cuz its just not safe here. Its just not. I tried.
> Bob as you have pointed out, is not changing.
> I'm sorry.
> Hmmm I was going to turn ON my tweet etc buttons so this could go 'out' there, but I dunno how?
> LOL, oh well.
> I did find the facebook, and the tweets are just new people added.
>I'm pretty sure I know how you feel regarding blocks. While it may be laudable for Bob to want Babble to be an idyllic site where seldom is heard a discouraging word, it isn't working. Despite Babble's accesibility to the general web public, membership is not increasing. This kind of idealism is quite similar to the American government's war on drugs, where the ideal justifies the harm done.
- Highest prison population of any country in the world, including higher arrest and incarceration rates for minorities
- Ruining young peoples' lives due to a permanent criminal record or the effects of incarceration
- Billions of dollars spent with absolutely no end in sight
- Police resources used for drug war instead of public safety
- Perpetuation of a dangerous black market....the list goes on, as does the war.
OK, not exactly the same thing, but it's the same mindset.
Posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:33:17
In reply to Babble :(, posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
>I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked. It was such a horrible feeling. I didn't know what had happened. Then I finally understood(I must have come across the block post) that I was blocked. I felt sick, my head spun. I was so embarrassed and ashamed. I'd just been trying to have a bit of fun.....
Yeah, that's right.
That's just nothing surely.
After all everyone has been through, do people care about stuff like that?
Direct personal attacks and viciousness, yes, I think there should be blocks for that.
In other words..... boundaries, but wider ones.For the record, and I emphasise that I have not read all of Twinleaf's posts, but I've read a few, I think I should have been blocked 5 times over compared to her if blocking was required.
Posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:34:59
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:59:07
> it's the same mindset.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good plan.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 14:39:48
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:34:59
(grin)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2010, at 5:04:49
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:33:17
> After all everyone has been through, do people care about stuff like that?
> Direct personal attacks and viciousness, yes, I think there should be blocks for that.
> In other words..... boundaries, but wider ones.I agree.
> But since those former posters who take such an interest in Babble rarely (if ever) seem to be positive about Dr. Bob and Babblers, it leads to a rather one sided contribution. The balance on the board becomes skewed from what it would be should those making use of the board be the contributors.
Former posters are often former posters (rather than present) for a reason. Their lack of positivity about the civility rules / Bob's decisions or current Babblers posting likely has something to do with that. The balance on the board wouldn't be so skewed if there were more remaining (who felt positive) than those who have left.
Were those who are mostly or wholly gone now really not contributing to the site in a positive way when they were around? Is the site really better off for people being blocked for the things Bob blocked them for (leaving aside personal attacks / viciousness to other posters)?
I wonder if Bob got sick of feeling like he had to check in. I wonder if he is happy with the consequences of his policies because he got his small board of posters who he selected after all...
C'mon now Dinah, you have threatened to leave should Bob do x or y. The x or y might be different for other posters (such that they have gone / have mostly gone)... But everyone's got their limits, you know.
I believe the difference is that you got what you wanted when you threatened to leave. Others... Did not.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 7:49:53
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2010, at 5:04:49
I've said that there were things that would cause me to believe that the cost outweighed the benefit of Babble. There are things that would cause me to leave. They were also things that many people objected to, and that Bob found a way to compromise on.
I've also said that when it becomes clear that Bob won't change those things, I would give up on Bob changing those things.
You've frequently compared this to a small board that Bob handpicked. Bob's policies on blocks are no different than they've ever been. The few changes have all been in the direction of leniency. It is posters, not Bob, who decide whether to live with them. It isn't as personal as some people seem to think it is. Dr. Bob's happy to have anyone post at Babble, so long as they agree to abide by site rules. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. When I go anywhere I assume that I will have to abide by the rules that govern that place. I have to swallow that fact at Babble as much as I do anywhere else.
People who say how harsh Dr. Bob is ought to consider how many places would allow former clients to enter the establishment to complain about it in front of current clientele. Many times. If you were to do that at a store, I'm guessing you'd be escorted outside. If you were to do that at a doctor's office or therapy group, I'm guessing you'd be escorted outside. If you were to do it at a home, I'm guessing the police would be called. Judges might require that protesters remain on public property. Most boards I know don't allow it either.
Dr. Bob allows it, so long as it isn't in violation of site guidelines. Perhaps that ought to be considered, when determining how unjust he is and how much he tries to rid himself of posters.
It would be interesting for Dr. Bob to tell us how many people are currently blocked, if he does not include blocks for actions protesting blocks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2010, at 9:40:53
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by damaged on November 4, 2010, at 6:05:47
> i am new.
Please don't change your posting name without following these steps:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#names
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceI've blocked this name and extended your previous block.
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 members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Toph on November 5, 2010, at 9:41:41
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:02:38
> > I have no less interest and genuine concern for the issues of my family because I am not as involved with them on a daily basis now than I did when I was young and more interacting.
>
> Do you interact with them now primarily to criticize how things are done in your family? If, say, one sibling is taking on the burden of caring for your parents, does your concern take the form of complaining about their actions or about your parents?I don't have time to respond to all of your responses or questions, but this one sort of struck a nerve. I work in adult protective services. Sibling caregivers frequently do not have their parents' best interests in mind. Thankfully, out of town, more caring siblings often rescue their parents from their "more involved" siblings who are abusing, neglecting or stealing from their parents.
This is also true here where I have found some less involved participants to be more concerned for the welfare of other participants than more active or less critical participants.
It annoys me that you seem to characterize posters who complain about practices they find unfair to others and themselves as people less interested in the welfare of this community. It may be true in many cases, but I find it insulting to me.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:00:16
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Dinah, posted by Toph on November 5, 2010, at 9:41:41
I don't believe I said anything about the level of concern of posters.
You did.
I responded.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:04:54
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:00:16
If this is bothering you, you can back away....
I so sorry you caught in this.
Its Bob not you.
I wish you could disentangle yourself from him :(
Let him defend, or whats more likely, ignore.
He's a big boy, he gonna have to take care of his own problems and mistakes.
TC girl.
M
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:17:54
In reply to Dinah, posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:04:54
Muffled, I've always felt worse when I didn't stand up in these circumstances. While I know Dr. Bob can handle himself, it doesn't seem right to say nothing all the time in response.
My mother taught me to to take responsibility for my own choices, and not to blame others for them. Dr. Bob sets the rules. Others decide how to respond to those rules. That's fair enough. But it also seems fair to accept the consequences of those decisions.
There are guidelines for behavior on this site. If someone decides not to follow those guidelines one time, or if they don't understand the guidelines, they are told through a PBC. By the time someone has been blocked for a long period of time, the poster has made many choices that lead to this point.
I wish Dr. Bob would change "Please Be Civil" to "Please Follow Site Guidelines" and change the wording of admin decisions to highlight the choices they make.
Along the lines of...
"Please follow site guidelines. They are located in the FAQ. If you choose not to follow site guidelines again, the result will be a week long block."
Or
"I previously have asked you to follow site guidelines. You have made a different choice, and the result is a block of one week. I regret that this is the choice you made, because I appreciate your contributions here. I hope that when you return, you will decide to follow site guidelines so that we can continue to enjoy your contributions."
I've said what I wanted to say. I'm not sorry I said it, although I hope I remained civil. If others leave me out of the conversation in future, I will leave it at that.
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.