![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 153 to 177 of 348. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:27:10
In reply to Re: Dinah » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:17:54
So does he warn for blocks now?
I mean in a timely fashion?
Cuz a PBC from months ago, long fogotten, and to do with an entirely different conversation, used to count as a warning...which IMHO is a crock. The warning should be IN the thread. Then if ignored, THEN a block(if needed).
Just seems to me that the blocks seem to just kinda shockingly *arrive* :( out of the blue sometimes.
I fully beleive there should always be warning except in very extreem cases.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:39:21
In reply to Babble warnings, posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:27:10
I think he's trying, though we don't necessarily like the results. I think his "Please help Poster X avoid a block" is meant to be a warning of sorts. Personally, I'd prefer that he just make it a warning or request. The Babble population have more than gotten the point that we can encourage others to comply with site guidelines.
I think he's gotten far better at warnings. Not perfect perhaps, but better.
I do think it's not unreasonable of him to block someone who just returned from a block only to return and do the exactly same thing very shortly after. The block itself could be considered a very strong warning.
I'm not talking about any particular situation. And in the case of Twinleaf on this thread, *I* don't think that applies at all, as I've previously stated.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:45:24
In reply to Re: Babble warnings » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:39:21
"I think he's gotten far better at warnings. Not perfect perhaps, but better."
He needs to do better. This is a mental health site.
He has the luxury of being able to review and look back, as it is the written word.
There is really no excuses.
I don't feel he has a friggin clue.
Makes me sad it does.
And scares me.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:50:58
In reply to Babble warnings, posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 12:27:10
I really am sorry if I upset you.
Your post to me earlier, talking about your own experiences with blocks, really touched me. Because you talked about your own experiences and vulnerabilities, it somehow didn't strike me in the same way that other Admin posts have. It didn't seem as negative, if that makes any sense. You were talking about Babble being hurtful, but you framed it in terms of how *you* were hurt on Babble. I am sorry that you were hurt on Babble.
Maybe I'm just burned out from an election season that seemed to last forever, and had me deserting regular TV for watching movies on DVD. I don't think I'll ever understand why a politician easily leading in the polls doesn't choose to take the high road. Even if I was already planning to vote for the politician, it always makes me want to have a little talk with them. Or turn them over to my mother in her best teacher mode.
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:57:57
In reply to ((( Muffled ))), posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:50:58
I always say that I'm a Montessori mom at heart. And I am!
But I suppose there's also more than a bit of teacher in me too, handed down from my mother. :)
Can't you just see me, arms akimbo, in front of a class? Or facing a politician?
If it makes it any better, I turn it on Dr. Bob on a not infrequent basis.
It's just that my pull to the center is so strong, that I can't maintain my own negative feelings about Bob when so much negativity is shown towards him. While if the board was full of breathless admiration for him, I'd probably make a few pithy remarks in the opposite direction.
Balance. I crave balance.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 13:00:03
In reply to Re: ((( Muffled ))), posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 12:57:57
Sigh. Miss ya.
Wished I could be here.
TGC eh?
M
Posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 13:03:01
In reply to ((( Dinah))), posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 13:00:03
> Sigh. Miss ya.
> Wished I could be here.
> TGC eh?
> MI miss you too, and wish you could be here. Maybe join us sometimes in chat?
TGC? I'm terrible at acronyms.
Posted by muffled on November 5, 2010, at 13:06:03
In reply to ((( Muffled ))), posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 13:03:01
TGC=take good care ! :)
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.