![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 237 to 261 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 14:37:52
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » 10derheart, posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 14:21:35
Of course they still have value! Everything you guys said is insightful and valuable. And Dr. Bob could have still chosen to use some other words, knowing **he** was now using the mega-triggery word 'love', not a poster, and so it would carry a different...flavor? At least I guess he knows this....
I was just saying I recall Dr. Bob doing this quite a few times before and so I am sorta desensitized to a lot of my own placing of meaning on his choice of words. I come from a different place reading Dr. Bob's posts the minute I see him using verbatim quotes.
In fact, sometimes when Bob 'parrots' back phrasing and turns it into his own questions for us, statements...whatever, sometimes I feel pretty irritated. I doubt he realizes this or has this intention but it *sounds** a bit mocking at times. Interpretation, for sure as I do not believe Dr. Bob mocks anyone here. I think maybe just hearing words back (this well may be me projecting as I HATE anyone - and never allow a T to do this - reading back my own words to me....it's mortifying)in and of itself sets me off.
I, too, appreciate Dr. Bob's efforts. All this is really complicated stuff, IMO.
Posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 14:41:08
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 8, 2010, at 12:35:51
> > > What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
> >
>
> I thought he might be referring to how Babblers might interpret the conditional or unconditional factor. You rightly pointed out that Dr. Bob's rejection of certain behaviors are often felt as personal rejections. But.. you can't block the behavior without actually rejecting the person for a period of time - even though they are welcomed back. He has the power to choose whom to 'love' regardless, but each Babbler has the choice of whether to "need" his 'love' in the first place (whether or not such a love exists).
>
> When I read that post, though, the "would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love" - I wondered why he would choose that potent of a way to put it, when things were seeming to steady? I thought "well, that's likely to provoke some turmoil.."
>
> Solstice
Thats classic Bob.
Whether he is trying to stir stuff up, I don't know. I hope not.
I prefer, for my own peace of mind, to consider that he just doesn't have a clue...
Or that he is perhaps more likely just dashing off stuff in a hurry without *really* spending any time considering the implications.
He can say the most extrordinally...well....to be kind...odd things sometimes....things that seem rather odd, and yes, could cause provocation.
But they are so off the wall, most people don't really take them seriously in their content.
More we get just objectively fascinated on how a guy w/a PHD can be so...well kinda dumb ?!:)
Posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 14:52:02
In reply to Re: A thought from a newcomer..., posted by Solstice on November 5, 2010, at 13:57:13
> > 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.
>
>
> I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene. I'm envisioning something like this:
>
> 1. An infraction occurs.
>
> 2. A PBC "warning" is given each time (no immediate harsh discipline for a subsequent, but different offense... my reasoning is that many people with mental health issues also struggle with an internal sense of time and place... as well as some whose brains simply do not allow them to make the connection between punishment yesterday for an infraction, and the behavior choice they make today.)
>
> 3. If infractor does the rephrasing, apology, whatever that's required.. then all is well and no block will happen.
>
> 4. If the bock-preventing behavior is not forthcoming, a Mediator steps in to work toward resolution. PBC's seem to usually involve someone who was not civil by site guidelines toward another specific member or members. Mediator can assist both parties in resolving it, all the while modeling the civil thinking and behavior expected.
>
> 5. If the infractor is cooperative with that process - then all is well. No block happens, and the infractor doesn't feel rejected or shocked - and may receive tremendous benefit from the caring that takes place with a Mediator 'virtually' taking them by the hand to lead them back to Psycho-babble's 'straight & narrow' road.
>
> 5. If the infractor is not cooperative with the Mediator-assisted process - if they don't agree with it, or just don't like it, etc... then they are opting for the currently practiced PBC/blocking process, which would be done by Bob That gives the infractor who got PBC'd the power of where it ends up. They can cooperate with Mediator assistance, or they can throw themself at the mercy of the current PBC/blocking process. Their choice.
>
> This might involve some tweaks to the current structure such as:
>
> a) When a PBC/block warning is issued, the infractor's status is in suspension for a specific period of time. Say, one week, or ten days, whatever seems a reasonable amount of time for the infractor to sleep on it, wake up realizing they'd like to rephrase/apologize, or for a Mediator to step in and assist through to resolution. The suspension doesn't change anything about the infractor's ability to post, it just means there won't be any immediate blocking going on. Seems like it kind of works like that now - in that Dr. Bob generally gives a person time to repair... I just think a specific and consistent amount of days would be good.
>
> b) Medsiators should gave the ability to turn a poster's posting ability off. That way, if a poster-in-suspension is so angry that they are escalating and really losing control, a Mediator can stop the damage while offering assistance. If the infractor refuses, then they are opting for standard Dr. Bob-blocking. If they are responsive to assistance, then Mediator turns them back on and the mediation process starts or resumes.
>
>
> I think there might be several advantages to this that will address the values Dr. Bob has that Dinah mentioned, as well as the legitimate issues that many in the community have consistently brought up:
>
> i) People who join this site are often in pain, are in stressful situaitons and have impairments in their ability to function optimally, etc. It seems unfair to expect people dealing with those things to first, maintain optimal civility at all times, and second, to extract themselves from a hole the dug while they were affecteds by a condition they don't even want to have (i.e., depression, anxiety, paranoia, etc.) The expectation that they can figure out how to extract themselves places a great amount of pressure on what may be a profoundly weak area. The Mediation process would be a bridge over that weak area. A way to comply with site guidelines... simultaneously respecting the legitimate responsibility Dr. Bob has to protect the community from harm, and also respecting the special fragilities of functioning found in a community of those affected by mental health issues
>
> ii) The members - the infractors themselves would be making the decision - they would have the power to determine the outcome. They can opt to cooperate with Mediator guidance, or they can opt for Dr. Bob blocking mechanisms. That way, the power is where it belongs. The infractor is in control of where they land.
>
> iii) Mediator-assistance will likely lead to LESS blocks, particularly the ones the community seems to especially despise - the ones for relatively minor infractions.
>
>
> I think Sr. Bob gains in this scenario because:
>
> 1. His rules, policies about civility, etc. remain intact.
>
> 2. He's still in control.
>
> 3. It will eliminate what has got to be uncomfortable for him - blocking for minor infractions just because the infractor hasn't rephrased/apologized (in Mesdiation-assistance, the Mediator would help the infractor understand where they got off track. If infractor rejects assistance... they are opting for Dr. Bob-blocks). So bottom line is - if a he blocks someone, it's because THEY OPTED to be blocked.
>
> 4. He seems to like the community assisting the community idea. This is just another version of it.
>
> 5. I think he'd like that infractors opting to cooperate with Mediator assistance will be learning through Mediator modeling the kind of self-restraint he wants to see - and everyone grows from that.
>
>
> Sorry this is so long - and I know there may be problems with it that I haven't thought about - - but it's an idea. I think it might work. I think it might honor the values Dr. Bob has, as well as the values of the community (self-autonomy and more merciful implementation of site guidelines).
>
>
> Solstice
>Some good stuff here...
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 15:17:19
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Solstice, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 13:57:44
Well, goodness. I can't believe I didn't notice that. Dr. Bob does it all the time! It certainly leads to my understanding his phrasings a lot more.
Dr. Bob talking about loving posters unconditionally made me feel ummm... well.... I suppose it would be rude to say incredulous. No offense intended, Dr. Bob.
I still think it not the best word choice under the circumstances.
Posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 15:30:11
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
> > 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
> >
> > alexandra_k
>
> > 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.
> >
> > vwoolf
>
> > The members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it. ... Most of all, there was love - unconditional love.
> >
> > I'm talking about REAL safety where members would (and did) bend over backwards to help another member.
> >
> > ron1953
>
> > This is not 'OUR' site as posters, but FULLY and completely BOB's site.
> > I feel UTTERLY POWERLESS on this site.
> > All he seems to care about is *numbers*, not us as individuals. ... He did not care that MANY very capeable long term posters left. He just didn't care.
> >
> > muffled
>
> > 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 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.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> > I often feel ... drained by the undercurrent of what seems to me to be self-destructive negativity on the site.
> >
> > vwoolf
>
> > 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.
> > its just not safe here. Its just not.
>
> > Are you willing to admit you were wrong bout some what you did?
> >
> > muffled
>
> I feel criticisms aren't necessarily "supportive", but can sometimes help us understand what's going on and be valuable in that way. Pondering the above clues, I imagine a hypothetical poster X:*I think we need to LOOK at things in order to effect change, and when the other person seems to not be able/willing to 'hear' what is being said, well than ya, that is frustrating and SAD.
> X sees themselves as a powerless victim and me as an uncaring persecutor. Of course I do have power. I do play a "substantial role" in blocks. But I'm not the only one with power. X has the power to bend over backward to help other posters. X also has the power to get themselves blocked. X uses the latter power, repeatedly, which seems self-destructive.*Well, if I were X, I'd see it differently. Yes, I feel powerless to change this place, absolutely. I don't neccessarily consider Bob the uncaring persecutor, I kinda morwe think of him as the very misguided one. Yes, Bob, you play MOST of the role in blocks. Often we here don't even *understand* what the fr*g your reasoning is....and sometimes there's warnings, and sometimes not....
I can get myself blocked, but oftimes people don't even understand WHY they are being blocked, and they can't prevent what they don't understand.
And esp on Admin, people are trying to stand up for change, for what they strongly beleive to be a way to make this a better place for ALL. And I am assuming that tey are intelligent people. And if they have recieved a warning, then they know they have somehow run afoul of the 'system', and I don't want to interfere with what they are trying to prove. They KNOW what to do, but they CHOOSE not to, often because ultimately they feel what they have done SHOULDN'T be wrong in a more acceptable system. Maybe they are trying in their frustration to show just how silly it is.
Yes, it is self destructive, but they are doing it in their desperation to TRY and effect change and to warn others of how this place REALLY is.(UNPREDICTABLE). They are choosing to sacrifice in order to help others. And I respect that.
We were a community that cared foir each other, which is also another reason blocks were so awful, cuz it hard to see your homeys hurt :( and to be so helpless to help them when it happens. Blocking is a BIG DEAL to many.
> What brings X back after even a very long block? Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.* I think there can be a variety of reasons they come back. Eternal hope that things will change. Anger at Bob for being so cruel. A wish to warn others. And mostly, a strong desire to back with their support people.
"your power to choose who to love".....love word aside, I myself choose to care for all as much as I am able. I DON'T CHOOSE this, its just the way I am built. I don't 'choose' who to care for, I just care, for all. I am assuming that the majority of us, even the most prickly, just want caring, to be accepted. And thats what used to be found here for the most part. Except for Bob and his blocks. Sometimes comming out of the blue :( It seems babblers are often willing to accept others faux pas, but not Bob. Nope, screw up and be blocked. Not accepted, not nutured, but banished. And if you have struggles, then you get banished for long periods of time. I cannot see this as supportive in ANY way, only as harmful. To the banned one, and to their friends.
Bob, I don't want your love, I would just want to feel accepted by you. But I don't, its very conditional. You accept 'some' of me, but not all of me. Thats not theraputic...
> Does that scenario resonate with any of you? It reminds me again of shame and guilt:
>
> > Shame ... comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do.
> >
> > guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. ... worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/958778.html
>
> I've been wrong (for example, about the original Facebook/Twitter buttons) and used my power to do something about it (make them opt-out). Some blocks may be overkill, but I've never left a scar on anyone's leg. X isn't safe anywhere as long as they carry shame around inside them.*I am glad you made a concession there, but many people got hurt along the way. If you'd just listened/HEARD, from the start....:(
So, YOU DO feel some blocks are overkill???? Then why do you continue despite the fact that so many tell you that they are HARMFUL????????????????
Bob, you left a scar on my leg as surely as if you wielded the knife yourself. Maybe the SI is an innapropriate thing, but this is a mental health site and many people with MH issues have poor ways of coping. Thats why we go to T, to learn better ones. It was DIRECTLY due to my response to your overkill and very surprizing actions. You need to take responsibility for your actions cuz they DO HURT people. If your action had been less odd, then I likely would have not had such a strong reaction. It was just SO unexpected, just when I had been comming to start to trust you some.(I no longer trust you). You have power and that is a huge responsibility and should be handled with the help of the many wise people you have here. Not on your own.
> Unconditional love from me: unrealistic. 9 realistic possibilities:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968845.html
>
> I hope X -- with the help of others -- chooses wisely.
>
> Bob* I choose to keep working with my T to achieve better coherence and coping skills. At this point, I choose NOT to participate on Babble, other than here because I do not feel this is a safe site to post on. I don't even moderately trust Bob to havr my best interests at heart, only his vision of babble.
I choose to continue to think the best of people unless proven otherwise.
Mostly, I am just sad.
Posted by Deneb on November 8, 2010, at 16:51:14
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
I think Dr. Bob loves us! (Well not in a romantic sense LOL).
I think Dr. Bob "loves" everyone on Babble, especially when they are civil. :-)
Dr. Bob spends so much time here, there can only be one reason for it: Dr. Bob cares about Babblers very much!
Just look at how much time he spends reading and responding to people here! He REALLY cares a LOT!
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 20:33:15
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » 10derheart, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 15:17:19
Glad I could help a little....I was at first afraid to say anything, since I assumed everyone knew where he got the language and I would look silly and insult everyone else by mentioning the obvious (not that you guys would let on to me that I did...) but decided to risk it.
I think being away so long I've forgotten how safe it generally is (for me) to risk stuff on Babble I hesitate to risk elsewhere. Funny how therapeutic moments happen all of a sudden...:-) Not that any of this thread is about me or my intractable 'stuff' - it's certainly not. But a surprise side benefit is nice.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 20:42:07
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 20:33:15
Don't ever be afraid to point out anything. I miss quite a lot. :)
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 20:52:02
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » 10derheart, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 20:42:07
> Don't ever be afraid to...
hah! Easy for *you* to say. Not so much for me especially since I (still) fear "looking dumb" or somehow embarrassing myself more than almost anything. Just ask my all my therapists of the last eight years or so...;-)
But I try to ignore the fear and occasionally succeed.
I don't think you miss as much as you think you do.
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 20:56:03
In reply to C'mon, pro-block members, chime in, posted by ron1953 on November 2, 2010, at 10:46:57
I am not pro-block. I dislike posters being blocked and wish it was never needed. But I do feel they are a useful, if unfortunate, tool sometimes.
I am pro-civility and pro-guideline-following.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 8, 2010, at 23:42:45
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
I feel very similarly to muffled on this (and related) issues.
> I imagine a hypothetical poster X:
> X sees themselves as a powerless victim and me as an uncaring persecutor.I am wary of your setting things up in this way.
You seem fond of characterizing us (or hypothetical posters) as characterizing you as 'evil' or a 'persecutor'. I think that in doing so you give yourself license to write off our views or criticisms as pathological or the result of pathology / immature thinking rather than the result of mature thinking.
(Do you characterize your colleagues similarly when they disagree with you?)
> X has the power to bend over backward to help other posters.
And many X's have done so.
> X also has the power to get themselves blocked. X uses the latter power, repeatedly, which seems self-destructive.
Some do, yes. Why is this? Typically because they were engaged in the 'bend over backward to help other posters' process when you blocked them for reasons they could not understand.
> What brings X back after even a very long block?My reasons are similar to Muffled. When I'm here, that is. I go months without checking the boards these days.
> Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
I never thought you loved unconditionally. I actually don't believe in such a thing. IMHO all love is conditional (though this is controversial as some believe in God or think they would love their kid even if the kid turned into Hitler or whatever).
IF we simplistically assume for the sake of argument that you love those you don't block and don't love those you block (but love those who return after a block) then the issue becomes one of whether you choose to love or not love seems a lot like whether you roll a 1 or a 5 on a dice. AKA: random. arbitrary. unpredictable. You think you make sense (of course you do). Others don't see rhyme or reason. Thats a problem (it seems to me).
> Does that scenario resonate with any of you?So... Not really. I'm sorry but I don't follow what you are trying to say. I am trying... Because I figure that you are... But I genuinely don't understand.
>It reminds me again of shame and guilt:
oooooookayyyyyyyyyy...
> > Shame ... comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do.
> > guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. ... worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.
Oh, I get it. You think that our not understanding whether you are going to block or not is the result of our inability to distinguish guilt (which we should be feeling) rather than shame (which is why we are doing the whole immature thinking thing?).
Because your blocking or not makes sense to you - you think it should to us, hence you think we choose whether we will be blocked or not, whether we get your love or not.
Well... That's... Convenient (i.e., ego boosting) for you. I must say. And... Thats what's important (really) - right?
I mean... From (at least some) of our perspective... The problem is that your blocks aren't predictable, expected, or justifyable. There isn't rhyme or reason. It looks arbitrary or decided on some factor that we don't grasp (hair color? name beginning with a certain letter of the alphabet? whatever feelings you have attached or not attached to a posting name because of your early childhood experiences?) Since it isn't predictable and doesn't make sense posters often impose an order the only way they know how: By taking control of whether they will be blocked or not. The most obvious (and least harmful way to the community) of doing that is to: be uncivil to you and get predictably blocked. If you aren't going to be more predictable in your blocking behavior... What other option is there?
Leave?
In order for us to feel guilt for what you choose to block your choices would need to be understandable.
And back to you...
Posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities-yeah, sure :(, posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 15:30:11
> *Often we here don't even *understand* what the fr*g your reasoning is....and sometimes there's warnings, and sometimes not....
> I can get myself blocked, but oftimes people don't even understand WHY they are being blocked, and they can't prevent what they don't understand.I feel the passion in Muff's sentiment here... it's almost an outcry. From my foxhole, I think the difficulty for blocked members in understanding how they got there is the biggest reason that:
1. Blocks frequent, long, and are often ineffective in causing the one blocked to follow site guidelines when they return and
2. The pain runs deep in this community regarding the blocking issue.
Members getting blocked and re-blocked to the point that they are running into these 12-month things is because they DON'T understand how they got there. These are good people. Many of them are in therapy. People in therapy are generally interested in growing and learning to cope better with impairments they didn't ask for. If a member understood what was getting them blocked - most would not keep falling into it. But many genuinely do not... because the modeling they got growing up was awful... because they have biological vulnerabilities that affect their behavior over which they have much less control than they would otherwise... because they have suffered so many injuries in life that they have not yet found the balanced state one has to maintain in order to consistently color between the lines here.
I have an idea that I believe will maintain Dr. Bob's civility principles as they are, without causing the disruption, the pain, and the eternal blocks. I suggest some kind of "Mediator" system - with the members who have demonstrated wisdom in these things serving as Mediators - to step in and assist a member who has violated the guidelines - - to help calm the fires and bring the 'infractor' back 'into the fold' by walking with them thru it, modeling reparatory work, etc.
Blocks could be reserved for those who refuse to participate (for whatever reason) in that process.
Dr. Bob - part of your purpose in the current blocking system is that members learn more appropriate behavior, and that members assist each other. The current system is not really serving your purposes. I think the kind of system I'm thinking of might.
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 4:21:11
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on November 8, 2010, at 23:42:45
> Thats classic Bob.
> He can say the most extrordinally...well....to be kind...odd things sometimes....things that seem rather odd, and yes, could cause provocation.
> But they are so off the wall, most people don't really take them seriously in their content.You mean they're not listening to what I'm saying?
> I think ... when the other person seems to not be able/willing to 'hear' what is being said, well than ya, that is frustrating and SAD.
I agree.
> oftimes people don't even understand WHY they are being blocked
> They KNOW what to do, but they CHOOSE not toA or B? Posters have the power to ask if they don't understand why.
> Yes, it is self destructive, but they are doing it in their desperation to TRY and effect change and to warn others
1. There are ways to warn others that aren't self-destructive.
2. When 1 out of every 2500 posts results in a block
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/947061.html
I don't know how vulnerable others feel.
> Bob, you left a scar on my leg as surely as if you wielded the knife yourself. Maybe the SI is an innapropriate thing, but this is a mental health site and many people with MH issues have poor ways of coping. Thats why we go to T, to learn better ones. It was DIRECTLY due to my response to your overkill and very surprizing actions. You need to take responsibility for your actions cuz they DO HURT people.
>
> muffledI take responsibility for my actions. I kept you from posting. I didn't leave that scar. You need to take responsibility for your actions.
> whether you choose to love or not love seems a lot like whether you roll a 1 or a 5 on a dice. AKA: random. arbitrary. unpredictable.
>
> alexandra_kMe being random/arbitrary/unpredictable = posters being powerless.
--
> You seem fond of characterizing us (or hypothetical posters) as characterizing you as 'evil' or a 'persecutor'. I think that in doing so you give yourself license to write off our views or criticisms as pathological or the result of pathology / immature thinking rather than the result of mature thinking.
>
> alexandra_kFair enough. I can also imagine a hypothetical poster Y:
Y sees me as misguided and themselves as a martyr.
I have the power to block people. Y has the power to get themselves blocked. Y uses that power, repeatedly. It's self-destructive, but calls attention to my misguidedness. What brings Y back after even a very long block? Their devotion to their cause.
There's more than one way, however, to be a martyr.
> > Mahatma Gandhi outlined several rules for civil resisters (or satyagrahi) in the time when he was leading India in the struggle for Independence from the British Empire. For instance, they were to express no anger, never retaliate, submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities, surrender personal property when confiscated by the authorities but refuse to surrender property held in trust, refrain from swearing and insults (which are contrary to ahimsa), refrain from saluting the Union flag, and protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Theories_and_techniques
That, of course, is *civil* disobedience. These days, we hear more about uncivil martyrs. Maybe the unrest here can help us empathize with them.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:12:12
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 4:21:11
> Posters have the power to ask if they don't understand why.
They do. But they don't have the power to compel an answer - even less to compel one that helps them understand.
Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
> There are ways to warn others that aren't self-destructive.
Yeah. And people do seem to be doing that.
> I didn't leave that scar. You need to take responsibility for your actions.
Maybe think of the scar as a physical overflowing / expression / concretization of an inner pain (suffering / torment) that resulted from being isolated from ones friends unexpectedly.
> Me being random/arbitrary/unpredictable = posters being powerless.
Yes. We could empirically test whether you are random / arbitrary / unpredictable (e.g., by seeing whether independent judges could reliably distinguish posts you would block from posts you would not). So it is an objective feature of your blocking that I'm talking about here - and not some 'distorted perception arising from pathology'.
> Y sees me as misguided and themselves as a martyr.
Sigh. I'm not sure that is very much better. I prefer:
Z sees you as unpredictable in your blocking behavior and themselves as being in the position where unpredictably being isolated from the community for up to one year and branded 'uncivil' outweighs any good that could come from partaking.
But going with the martyr thing for a while (even though I'm fond of Socrates, myself)...
> submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities
(ho ho you'd like that wouldn't you!!!)
> protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
If we think of 'officials' as 'new posters' and the label of 'uncivil' and a blocking as an 'insult' or 'assault'... Isn't that what a number of posters are doing?
Was Socrates 'uncivil' - do you think?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:19:36
In reply to Re: Babble :( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 7:34:08
> Would it surprise you to hear that I really wish there was more balance on Admin at least in part because I'd prefer to be mad at him myself sometimes without feeling the need to be fair to him?It doesn't surprise me at all. I understand what you mean. (((Dinah))). I miss you, too.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 7:34:54
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:12:12
> > Posters have the power to ask if they don't understand why.
>
> They do. But they don't have the power to compel an answer - even less to compel one that helps them understand.Must they ask Bob? Other posters may have an inkling of the reason.
> Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
That's your perception.
> > I didn't leave that scar. You need to take responsibility for your actions.
>
> Maybe think of the scar as a physical overflowing / expression / concretization of an inner pain (suffering / torment) that resulted from being isolated from ones friends unexpectedly.And if a poster cut someone else? Would that also be Dr. Bob's fault? Is it different if they cut themselves? It would be a bit disturbing to be at a Babble where Dr. Bob let the fear of self harm guide his decisions. It would give those who self harm a fair amount of power compared to those who don't. Dr. Bob's a mental health practitioner. He understands the boundaries.
There have been times on Babble when I self injured because of my feelings of hurt that came from my interactions with other posters. I remember at least one time that I wrote something about posting with blood on my fingers. To my utter relief, Babble went down as I hit submit. (Or possibly before, I suppose. I'd have no way of knowing it went down before I tried to do something.) I was so shaken with relief. It almost felt like diving intervention. Because to have posted that would have been the ultimate in accusing, I think. "You have caused the blood on my keyboard." And of course, they hadn't. They'd been less than civil and less than kind, but they hadn't caused me to hurt myself. That was my choice.
> Sigh. I'm not sure that is very much better. I prefer:
>
> Z sees you as unpredictable in your blocking behavior and themselves as being in the position where unpredictably being isolated from the community for up to one year and branded 'uncivil' outweighs any good that could come from partaking.And yet partaking continues. And often in such a way that increases the chance of a block.
> If we think of 'officials' as 'new posters' and the label of 'uncivil' and a blocking as an 'insult' or 'assault'... Isn't that what a number of posters are doing?
Yes, I think it's possible that a number of posters are trying to protect new Babblers from injury by warning them off Babble. And yet Dr. Bob allows it...
Doesn't sound like the actions of the man you describe.
I miss you too Alex. You know where to find me. Sorry I missed you in chat the other day. Dratted time zones.
((( Alex )))
I do understand, you know. I even sympathize. But I can't see how it's in your best interests to see Dr. Bob in this way, when to my mind, he'd done an awful lot to show his caring for you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 10:08:28
In reply to I'm pro-block, posted by vwoolf on November 3, 2010, at 0:51:25
> 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.
>
> vwoolfThanks for reframing (sorry, I couldn't resist) this discussion. Could you elaborate on how a block might define a poster?
This reminds me of an idea we talked about when I was there, a new board that would focus on, to use your language above, learning about oneself from how one responds here. I like that idea very much. A lot of details would need to be worked out, but maybe it would make sense to start by trying to get an idea of how much interest there might be?
--
> I think Dr. Bob should have engaged [Twinleaf] more on an explanation of where the limits lie rather than to direct threats of blocking.
> That's what saddens me about Dr. Bob's interactions with Twinleaf this time. I think Twinleaf recognized the benefit of approaching Dr. Bob in a more constructive way, and Dr. Bob didn't perceive the difference as I did.
>
> Dinah> Twinleaf's case has been the saddest of my time at Babble, I suppose because so evidently she has tried to be a kind, considerate and supportive poster.
>
> I'm not saying having issues of principle justifies anything, but I do think context is important. A person who had been a deputy once said that the training involved evaluation of posts out of context. ... Maybe he has some problem with people taking up issues of principle, I don't know.
>
> sigismundDeputy training involves posts out of context before posts in context. Like learning math involves multiplication tables before word problems. What issues of principle did you see her as taking up? Maybe I was wrong to engage her the way I did. Twinleaf, are you reading this? Do you have any questions about where the limits lie?
--
> 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 members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it.
> "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
>
> ron1953Ron did seem to be exposing himself to danger and we did seem to be going through some stuff here. Was he saying he wanted me to be more straightforward and brutal?
> 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.
>
> muffled> "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
> The sinners are much more fun" - Billy Joel
>
> ron1953Since your freedom of speech is limited here, I guess your freedom to have fun may be, too.
--
> 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.
>
> muffledThe FAQ section on the buttons:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#sharetweet
The settings page:
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/settings.pl
Remember that if you turn them on, they're displayed after all your posts, not just particular ones.
The server automatically welcomes new posters on Twitter (which is linked to Facebook), but some tweets are from me. There might not have been any recent ones from me when you looked before, but there are now:
http://twitter.com/psycho_babel
--
> I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene.
>
> SolsticeI also had the idea that posters could help other posters avoid blocks. :-)
But not of designating specific posters. That reminds me of the Elders Council idea that hyperfocus had:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968745.html
Bob
Posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 12:31:34
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 10:08:28
> > I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> I also had the idea that posters could help other posters avoid blocks. :-)
>
> But not of designating specific posters. That reminds me of the Elders Council idea that hyperfocus had:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968745.html
>
> BobYes, and after that initial post, I did eventually run across hyperfocus' excellent Elders Council idea. I think that any idea, or combination of ideas, that can work to achieve your objectives in a more successful and more merciful format deserves your serious consideration.
If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly. Maybe they can work together.
The current blocking system is only achieving part of your objectives, and it does so at the expense of other objectives. It's often not possible to have everything, but I think some very worthwhile ideas have been thrown in the hat that have a much higher chance of not only more closely achieving all of your objectives, but also of healing so long and deep injuries to the community that take place in the current blocking system.
There is no avoiding the reality that every single thing we do in life has a consequence - whether pleasant or unpleasant. But if in administering consequences we get strapped into a narrow notion that in order to be effective consequences have to be harsh, unyielding, exponential, and absolute... then we are shutting out the creative ideas that really might be able to achieve All the goals of consequences (of the blocking sort here).
Regardless of the system designed I think it's important that there be a way to avoid blocks that REALLY puts the power in the hands of the poster. If they are unable (for whatever reason) to understand how they ended up blocked - then they have no power. And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic. A poster may be swimming along just fine, and suddenly find themselves threatened with a block and be shocked. For people in this community, threats of any type are acutely felt, and many have not sufficiently recovered from the trauma that got them here in the first place to meet your expectation that they say to themselves "Oh, looks like I need to get myself a civility buddy to help me figure this out." The people who can do that already do it. But there are a lot of posters who find themselves facing a block who need someone with a helpful and compassionate heart to just step in and model for them, explain to them, guide them back to the 'straight & narrow.' They won't find their way back on their own. And a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone. The ones that can do that already will. But there are a bunch of good folks on here who struggle with it - and end up with excessively long blocks, or they huddle behind a rock with their arms over their heads, scared to death to risk posting.
There has just got to be a better way... but it is going to take serious consideration on your part for there to be any modification of the system.
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:12:12
> Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
Wherever it's set, it detects someone's breath spray.
> Z sees you as unpredictable
And how does Z see themselves? And what brings Z back after even a very long block?
> > submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities
>
> (ho ho you'd like that wouldn't you!!!)ho ho = it's clear the disobedience here isn't civil
> > protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
>
> If we think of 'officials' as 'new posters' and the label of 'uncivil' and a blocking as an 'insult' or 'assault'...In the context of civil disobedience here:
officials = me and deputies
insults and assaults = incivility
resisters = martyrsBob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 18:21:37
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 12:31:34
> If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly.
Then maybe that's more like what Dinah's calling volunteer civility buddies?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969367.html
> Regardless of the system designed I think it's important that there be a way to avoid blocks that REALLY puts the power in the hands of the poster. If they are unable (for whatever reason) to understand how they ended up blocked - then they have no power.
The power to avoid blocks is already really in the hands of posters. Even if they're really unable to understand how they end up blocked, they still have the power to stop posting.
> And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic.
If I need to elaborate more, posters have the power to ask again. Plus, as Dinah said, other posters can elaborate.
> a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone.
I think it's worth a try. The risk is that a poster might not have any friends designated, and they might be influenced more by their friends than a designated person they don't know.
> There has just got to be a better way... but it is going to take serious consideration on your part for there to be any modification of the system.
True, but the system is only half of the equation.
Bob
Posted by muffled on November 9, 2010, at 18:26:02
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
>
> In the context of civil disobedience here:
>
> officials = me and deputies
> insults and assaults = incivility
> resisters = martyrs
>
> BobWhat deputies????
Definition of INSULT
1: a gross indignity
2: injury to the body or one of its parts; also : something that causes or has a potential for causing such insult <pollution and other environmental insults>Definition of ASSAULT
a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)Definition of UNCIVIL
1: not civilized : barbarous
2: lacking in courtesy : ill-mannered, impolite <uncivil remarks>
3: not conducive to civic harmony and welfare
Definition of RESISTER
: one that resists; especially : one who actively opposes the policies of a governmentDefinition of MARTYR
1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principleSo, to me not all assaults are uncivil.
Alot of what are being considered asaults are just discussion.
Sometimes insults are just facts being pointed out.
Sometimes resisters will choose to martyr themsleves, some times not.
But resisters doesn't equal martyrs.
If noone ever resisted, we women still wouldn't have a vote.
If noone ever resisted, black people would still be treated as less than human. If noone resisted there would be no government policy changed for the better.
etc.
And I not trying to be disobedient here.
I just want to effect change where I can.
I have effected changes w/in the area I live.
If people band together with a common goal policies can be changed.
Its the squeaky wheel that gets oiled in this world.
If everyone just sat at home and noone dared to speak up, this world would be a sorry place.
I beleive that where I am in community, I have a voice, along with others in the community. Be it my municipality, school district, church etc.
I want to be involved here, but over the years I have concluded that I can't work w/Bob cuz he doesn't seem to work with others well. His communication skills, which are uber important in this scenario, seem to be lacking.
I can't work w/someone who is a rougue and doesn't work WITH the group.Definition of ROGUE
1: resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable <capsized by a rogue wave>If Bob could change his spots, I'd run w/him, but I have yet to see any real change in his overall behaviours.
he has 'seemed' to work w/us before.
Is this just the same thing? I don't know.
Look at the whole deputy scenario.
So, ya, I have eternal faith in miracles, but alot of doubt about Bob's abilities to carry these ideas through.
Not that Bob is bad. Bob is Bob. I even kinda like him to some extent. But I Can't abide his managment of this place.
I still want to dream tho....
Posted by Deneb on November 9, 2010, at 23:16:37
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities-yeah, sure :(, posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 15:30:11
Hey Muffled,
I just wanted to say I'm sorry you were so hurt over your block. I know blocks hurt a lot. I've been blocked several times and at times I didn't think I was going to survive. Dr. Bob blocked me all those times. I don't hate him though. It's not personal even though it feels personal at the time. I'll probably be hurt if Dr. Bob blocks me again, but I wouldn't be devastated this time. I also do everything I can to be civil to avoid a block in the first place.
Dr. Bob doesn't want anything bad to happen to you if you get blocked and get upset. He's just doing his job as admin. He has to block people when they are uncivil. He has to be fair and apply the rules equally to everyone.
((((Muffled)))))
Posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 18:21:37
Dr. Bob - I can't tell you how much I appreciate the dialogue..
> > If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly.
>
> Then maybe that's more like what Dinah's calling volunteer civility buddies?Yes.. and I posted more about it in response to another of your posts. Bottom line (in my way of thinking) is that naturally, all CB's will be volunteer. It's not a job anyone will be coerced to perform. I think they need to be an organized group.. an 'entity' if you will. As I said in my other post, people who have the insight to understand they need a helping hand probably already get it. I'm focusing on the members who are genuinely unclear about why their post was incivil. Incivil posts are generally the product of 'hot' emotions. 'Hot' emotions generally shut down rational thinking and executive functioning. Some members may have emotions that escalate faster than they are realistically able to manage. There are situations like PTSD that (as I'm sure you know) keeps their fight or flight on a hair trigger... there's emotional dysregulation, all kinds of things. Members who cope with being split into 'parts' may end up with one part losing control, and the other parts paying the price.. a dilemma Muffled so poetically described repeatedly. That's where your expectations get unwieldy. I'm thinking of a Civility Buddy "process" where an incivil poster is 'deposited'.. and if they want to restore their posting privileges, they will walk through the process with a Civility Buddy to completion - satisfaction of your legitimate requirement that they repair the breech.
>
> The power to avoid blocks is already really in the hands of posters. Even if they're really unable to understand how they end up blocked, they still have the power to stop posting.I don't think enough factors of the dynamic are included. Think of what we know about abused women and why they stay in abusive marriages, even at the risk of the well being of their children. Do they have the power to walk out the door with their kids and find refuse? Sure. But they don't FEEL the power. That's what I'm trying to distinguish. If a poster is cited for incivility, each and every time they will have to make a choice. i) CB Process; or ii) the mercy of Dr. Bob. That kind of a thing will TEACH them about the power they have in a tangible way.
"Power to stop posting" - while it certainly 'is' a choice they can make.. please understand that it seems silly to me to consider that viable. They are here because they want to post. Set something up that helps the folks who have not been able to keep themselves out of trouble.
> > And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic.
>
> If I need to elaborate more, posters have the power to ask again. Plus, as Dinah said, other posters can elaborate.This is might be too loose of a thing to work well with the posters who have their own spot in your block book. These are folks whose emotions get hot very quickly. They need a structured process where their privileges are suspended - and they have to make a coice. Cooperate with a CB who will walk them to restoration, or opt for the mercy of Dr. Bob. You're asking people who's brains have been hijacked by hot emotions to think, reason, and figure things out as if they are in a more rational state. That is just not a fair expectation.. and in my estimation, that is why the blocks - even year long blocks - are not successful. It will never end if the status quo is maintained.
> > a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone.
>
> I think it's worth a try.I am thrilled beyond what I can possibly describe!
> The risk is that a poster might not have any friends designated, and they might be influenced more by their friends than a designated person they don't know.
Well.. in what I envision, this shouldn't detract from the system's effectiveness. Civility Buddies would be an organized group of balanced, respected members who have volunteered to serve. An incivil poster who hasn't retracted on their own would be 'deposited' into the CB process. They would not be able to post, and would have a single decision to make. Either: i) work with a CB who is available; or ii) sit there and wait for a CB you like; or iii) throw yourself upon the mercy of Dr. Bob. If they need a space of time to restore their emotional 'baseline' - suspension of privileges provides that. Depending on the nature of the incivility and nature of the incivil poster, the CB 'process' could be hours short - or days/weeks long. If they become unacceptably incivil to the CB 'walking' with them, they can be defaulted to the mercy of Dr. Bob. I think the main thing is that this kind of process would provide the space of time for emotions to cool, for rationality to be restored, and for them to work with someone who can model for them - a peer who can help them understand where their communication crossed the line.Entirely eliminating blocks is unrealistic. But this provides a process that is flexible and responsive to a poster's willingness to learn and cooperate.
Again, thank you for dialoging about it Bob. You've got a motivated bunch of people here, and I have confidence that they will see it through if you will stay in this thing while we all work together to put together a structure likely to more mercifully succeed than the current one at meeting your objectives.
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:37:50
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
I think it's really important to point out that some civility buddies might not be comfortable with a forced civility buddy situation, and that's perfectly ok. There is a very different dynamic with people who voluntarily seek advice.
For those volunteers who feel comfortable with that situation, mandatory civility buddies could certainly be an option. Dr. Bob was enthusiastic about the idea a while back, but posters were less enthusiastic.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:43:43
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969518.html
What you describe, with mandatory civility buddies, could be a part of what Dr. Bob is asking about here.
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.