![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 293 to 317 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by sigismund on December 8, 2010, at 5:48:28
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2010, at 23:25:00
I've always thought that, all things considered and allowing for the ambiguity of the medium, people on Babble have always treated each other pretty well.
Your civility standards are much higher than mine.
I understand you have wanted to hose down the fire before it gets out of control, albeit that any strategy will have unintended consequences.
If you are looking for a way to use the hose a little less, I'm all for it and will do what I can to cooperate.
I can't Babblemail people and tell them how to rephrase though.
I'm reasonably sure some would not forgive that and anyway it would be completely unsuccessful.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2010, at 23:57:50
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on December 8, 2010, at 5:48:28
> I understand you have wanted to hose down the fire before it gets out of control, albeit that any strategy will have unintended consequences.
>
> If you are looking for a way to use the hose a little less, I'm all for it and will do what I can to cooperate.Thanks, would you consider serving on some kind of Elders Council?
Bob
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 12:39:51
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » sigismund, posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2010, at 23:57:50
>Thanks, would you consider serving on some kind of Elders Council?
Goodness!
That would mean I'd have to stand in an election?
No negative campaigning?
Better still, no campaigning at all!
(I can see the advantage of that.)
But then committee meetings, or things like them....I'd consider it, yes, Bob.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 15:37:35
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 12:39:51
Sigi - are you okay with serving as the result of a campaign and election? It might be important for the community to know who all we have here who would be willing to serve on a Community Council by campaign + elections.
Solstice
> >Thanks, would you consider serving on some kind of Elders Council?
>
> Goodness!
>
> That would mean I'd have to stand in an election?
> No negative campaigning?
> Better still, no campaigning at all!
> (I can see the advantage of that.)
> But then committee meetings, or things like them....
>
> I'd consider it, yes, Bob.
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 21:13:53
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » sigismund, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 15:37:35
This is with the vote not made public?
I sure wouldn't be campaigning...then again I can think of some nifty slogans....I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 21:28:20
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Solstice, posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 21:13:53
> This is with the vote not made public?
Well.. my understansding of Bob's idea is for people who want to serve on Council to campaign (civilly) - I guess announcing their candidacy and stating their views on blocks? Then, after campaigning with however many others want to be on Council, a vote would be held. Bob says he will not make the vote numbers public - but would simply announce the 'winners' - which would be the five a the top of the heap.
> I sure wouldn't be campaigning...then again I can think of some nifty slogans....I will show you fear in a handful of dust.So - does this mean that you are willing to serve on Council - but only if you are put in place by some means other than campaigning and being elected?
Solstice.
ps - what does your last sentence there mean?
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 23:13:01
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 21:28:20
When Bob asked me if I'd consider it (I so like to please people, my vanity is so easily flattered) I naturally said I would, but I hate committees and groups and bureaucracies.
However, I guess I would consider it.
As for campaigning, absolutely not. Some people here know me and have some idea of how I think and what (if anything) I stand for. That last sentence is just me trying to think of a decent platform.
I'm in favour of kindness and civility, but the way the rules have been implemented have sometimes had a terrible effect on the Babble community as I found it when I came here. This was just after the re-election of GWB and it was said that things got out of control then on the Politics Board. I think Bob was trying to prevent a recurrence of that (a forest fire starts with a spark) and it had the unintended effect of pretty much killing it off. Anything can have unintended effects, of course.
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 23:33:43
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 23:13:01
Blocks.....
Get rid of the formula.
It is really used to get rid of people permanently with one year blocks not straightforwardly but behind an objective, scientific facade that I find unimpressive.
Absolute maximum of one month.
Most blocks should be one week and two for more hurtful personal attacks.
The Politics Board was so sensitive that Liljimmi was blocked for saying that Cheney and Bush were running the country. That was the only time I am aware of where Bob retracted a block. He thought there was an i in there. That is how sensitive it got.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 23:13:01
> When Bob asked me if I'd consider it (I so like to please people, my vanity is so easily flattered) I naturally said I would, but I hate committees and groups and bureaucracies.
Maybe on the continuum, it would be 'committee light.' Five Council members. No requirement to vote on shortening a particular block. But, if a vote is requested, and there is a Quorum of three willing to vote - then the vote will take place. The Council members involved stipulate the terms of a shortened block. Period.
So maybe it wouldn't be so bad.
>
> However, I guess I would consider it.
>
> As for campaigning, absolutely not.:-) That's important for Bob to know. As yet - I haven't seen anyone say they'd be happy to campaign. I still think the best chance for having a Community Council that represents the community is for Bob to say (for example) "Okay - during the month of January I want everybody who is willing - to send me the names of five people they would like to serve as your Community Council for one year with the power to shorten blocks." Then at the end of January, he looks at the results and starts with the top five names, contacting them and asking if they'd like to serve. He goes down the list until he has five - and then announces the names of the Council for 2011. Simple. No disruption. No popularity contests. He's still king, but he's allowing community-chosen representatives to vote by majority to shorten the blocks of blocked posters who ask for a vote. Just doesn't get any simpler than that.
Would you be willing to do it under those conditions, Sigi?
> I'm in favour of kindness and civility, but the way the rules have been implemented have sometimes had a terrible effect on the Babble community as I found it when I came here.I think a Community Council could go a long way toward resolving that problem.
Solstice
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 0:42:32
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
>Would you be willing to do it under those conditions, Sigi?
I'm interested in your response to what Willful had to say about this in the other thread.
I will have a look.
Posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 0:43:59
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
That is such a clear description of how you envision the Council working, Solstice. I also think that it would go a long way towards resolving the distress Babble has been suffering from. I hope that Bob will see the advantages of an appointment system such as the one you describe.
I think that the great majority of long-time posters - the ones we would want to be on our Council - would not want to campaign or participate in an election. Almost everyone probably feels the way Sigi does; several long-time posters, such as Dinah and gg, have already said so. The selection system you describe, combining volunteering and appointing. seems ideal. I hope Bob will find that it suits his purposes. Somehow, it doesn't seem reasonable to agree on the most challenging issue - having a Council with power to modify blocks- only to have the whole concept fail over one small point - how members are chosen.
Sigi, you have been such a terrific presence here, combining warmth, humor and brainpower. If we get a Council, I hope you can serve (comfortably) on it!
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 0:44:40
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
>http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973310.html
I'm a sucker for anyone who uses animadversions.
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 0:58:40
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 0:43:59
>Sigi, you have been such a terrific presence here, combining warmth, humor and brainpower. If we get a Council, I hope you can serve (comfortably) on it!
As you may be familiar with from King Lear, you are as kind as the pelican.
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 1:21:06
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
>he looks at the results and starts with the top five names, contacting them and asking if they'd like to serve. He goes down the list until he has five - and then announces the names of the Council for 2011.
>Would you be willing to do it under those conditions, Sigi?
I think so.
>The Council members involved stipulate the terms of a shortened block.Meaning they determine it?
Who can request the vote to shorten the block? The blocked poster? Any other poster?I very much agree with the idea that we have to make the best of what we have left. Many here will remember posters they miss. But it's not even certain we will be alive tomorrow.
Every year the Buddhist monks here do a Kalichakra
http://clicks.robertgenn.com/images/artists/karen_broadbent/080307_karen-broadbent-artwork.jpg
which they then sweep away as a reminder of impermanence.
So, while I miss many that were here, I hope to meet others who will mean a lot to me too.
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 9:09:31
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 1:21:06
Sorry, so much has been said and I am a little confused...
Just exactly WHAT has Bob agreed to?
WILL he toss out 'The Formula' ? Will he cap blocks at eg 1 mo?
IS he willing to allow this to be so?
Personally I am up for 1 week blocks being the maximun 'norm'.
Also, how will it be approached? Similiar as now?
Or will there be a warning in ALL threads so that a person has at least a heads up before being blocked?
I think if people feel safer and less at loggerheads w/Bob and his policies, then posters may be more willing to help each other. But as it stands now, Bob just blames us for not helping which i think just tends to piss people off.
So what I would like to know....is there going to be any REAL change here?
REALLY?
????
Also, for thise willing to 'run' for a council....bless their hearts, do they know what they are getting into???
I would think they need to have a good sense of what they are getting into. I don't want to see any posters hurt whilst just trying to help out.....
I think it would be good to have some registered 'chats' with those willing to be on the committee(just them), so that they can discuss ramifications etc ahead of time, and see if they even have the time or desire to work w/the others.
And again....just what is Bobs role exactly going to be?
And as far as removing harmful posts....WILL he accede to the wishes of the comminttee of not?
What ability to remove posts/block etc will the committe have? Will there be a better turn around time, or will they have to wait for Bob to 'reappear', as he has a tendency to be hard to access at times...
Will the committee have the ability to eg stop a harmful thread(a site i go to can stop any more posts on a thread gone wild...)
I think a committe just thrown together will be rife with poss. probs. It would need to be done right.
etc...
As far as I am concerened ALOT hinges on Bob.
I can't see jumping aboard and becomming invested in a site that will ultimately be controlled, possibly in much the same way as it was before....
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:37:48
In reply to clarity???, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 9:09:31
Hey Muff..
> Sorry, so much has been said and I am a little confused...
There has indeed been a lot to wade through!
> Just exactly WHAT has Bob agreed to?
> WILL he toss out 'The Formula' ? Will he cap blocks at eg 1 mo?He has offered to allow a Community Council to shorten blocks, after an as-yet-undetermined minimum time has been served. It's currently stuck over the issue of how to seat council members. Bob wants campaigns and elections. So far - no takers. I've suggested each member sends their nominations to him privately, and he contacts the top five (who agree to serve) - and then announces 2011's council.
If there is a Community Council who can shorten blocks, then there is no need to fool with anything else (like block caps, etc.). He could issue a three year block that Council could pare down to the minimum, in their discretion by majority vote. It's important to remember that Bob wants the blocked poster to be the one responsible for contacting council and negotiating with them about shortening the block. The goal would be to shorten blocks to allow posters who have agreed to follow the guidelines back in.
They would have the ability to release a block if they vote by majority to do so. They would NOT have to get Bob's permission, or wait for him to 'reappear.'
As far as Council members themselves - it's unchartered territory so there's no way to know for sure what it will be like - but Bob has suggested that any incivility directed at Council members (I assume in the performance of their duties) would merit extra penalties. I really don't think there would be much, if any, of that anyway.
Solstice
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 11:46:07
In reply to clarity???, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 9:09:31
I haven't been reading this in detail, Muff, but I don't think Bob has agreed to any of the things you mentioned.
I don't think he created the space for this community in order to strangle it to keep it civil, but I can't see him walking away from the formula either. As you say, small blocks would be so much better. The problem with the formula is that it is so not transparent. Well, maybe that's not right. It's transparent to me.
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 11:47:24
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:37:48
Cuz blocks ARE the issue here.
One of the issues is the shock factor. So I think caps are important.
Cuz there's likely gonna be plenty who won't want to/choose to appeal.(shame and all that)
So if the block was a week, then a person could just 'sit it out'.
That would mean ALOT less 'control' would be needed aka The Council.
Cuz at this pointy I am still seeing the council as having too much...power(lol, yet again).
See, like I said, if there were a cap on the blocks, it would just automatically be 1 wk-nuff said. Not a bunch of angst ridden negotiation there...just the way it is.
Personally, I see the role of the council more as whether a block is needed *period*.
Also, agin...the other stuff I posted is VERY important IMHO as well.
I think this stuff needs to be CLEAR before any one can safely jump in.
I thank you solstice for 'filling in' for what Bob wants. But ultimately, it comes down to the owner and lol 'king' of this site....
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 12:23:44
In reply to Re: not enuf clarity, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 11:47:24
I may have not done a good job making it clear that it's all still just *hope* :-)
> Cuz blocks ARE the issue here.
Blocks are definitely the biggest issue.
> One of the issues is the shock factor.I do understand that the shock factor has been very important to you. I agree that it would be awful to have no warning that your toe was getting over the line - only to be suddenly whacked with being cut off from an important community of support.
I do think Bob has taken measures to ensure people are forewarned, though. He really does have a protocol for moving toward a block. It isn't terribly new - or terribly old, so it has been imperfectly practiced, as new things often are. But it seems to have recently reached a pretty predictable point. He will issue a PBC (which is a kind of warning). He will ask for a rephrase (which is also a warning). He'll ask for others to 'help' keep someone from getting blocked (annoying, I know.. but the spirit behind it is good, I think). If the person being warned responds by apologizing or rephrasing - - all is well. But if they post a response complaining about Bob's warning - or justifying what they said that he's asking them to rephrase - - - well... they often end up with a block.
So I think the warning thing is taking place. It may not be the kind of warning that would be ideal for you - but sometimes we have to (especially if we aren't making the rules) figure out how to 'see' when the warning is being delivered. Differently than you'd like maybe, but it is pretty predictable and identifiable.
> So I think caps are important.Caps really aren't necessary, though.. if there is a Council one can contact and say "ok - so I got a 6 month block. What do I need to do to pare that thing down?"
> Cuz there's likely gonna be plenty who won't want to/choose to appeal.(shame and all that)People who don't want to appeal - regardless of their reason - won't have to appeal to Council. I don't think the goal is to dispute blocks, or remove civility standards. Muffled - I really don't think you'd be happy with no civility standards here. In order to protect you from the incivility of others - the others have to be protected from incivility that you might stumble into. So if someone gets blocked, they have a choice. If they want to focus on the shame they may feel - then they don't have to ask for Council's help. If they want to get back to posting, then they can tell the shame they feel to take a back seat, and appeal to Council. Council is NOT Bob. Council members are NOT deputies who are following Bob's notions. Council are peers. fellow babblers. If you go to them and say "I want to get rid of this block" ..as long as you remain civil with them, you might find yourself being guided toward getting rid of the block. Maybe they'll explain "Well Muff - when you said '-----' this is why Bob considered it uncivil.. so what you need to do is look at the list of civility buddies and see if there's someone there that you can work with to come up with an apology or rephrase or whatever.. and as soon as you get that taken care of then your block will be removed" Now - that's just *my* idea of how it might work - but still - Council is an avenue of returning to the community. No one has to use it. If someone appeals to Council and then gets uncivil - Council could very legitimately say "Hey - we don't respond to incivility. Come back when you can make a civil appeal." That poster would be stuck in their block until they figured out how to be civil when dialoguing with Council. As it should be. Bottom line Muff, is that overcoming shame is an important thing to learn. It's not easy. But it's important. Maybe the strong desire to be active in the community will be the pull one might need in order to accomplish that?
> So if the block was a week, then a person could just 'sit it out'.
> That would mean ALOT less 'control' would be needed aka The Council.The only thing Council will control is the ability to lift blocks by majority vote, and to impose (or not impose) conditions of a release of block. I think the important thing is to get a Council in place. that will be the relief valve. This will never be a place that is free free of blocks - and there will never be a set of block criteria that satisfies each and every member. But if we have a Council, we have a relief valve.
> Cuz at this pointy I am still seeing the council as having too much...power(lol, yet again).Maybe you are thinking of it having powers that have not been part of Bob's proposal? They will not have the power to block.
> See, like I said, if there were a cap on the blocks, it would just automatically be 1 wk-nuff said. Not a bunch of angst ridden negotiation there...just the way it is.But there might be times/situations for which 1 week is really not enough time. But if 1 week is the minimum time that must be served - then no one need be blocked longer than 1 week if we have a Council.
> Personally, I see the role of the council more as whether a block is needed *period*.
I initially wanted to include that - - but people here that I consider wiser than me did not think Council's role should be to question the determinations of our 'King' :-) After thinking about it, I see their point. Really.
> Also, agin...the other stuff I posted is VERY important IMHO as well.
> I think this stuff needs to be CLEAR before any one can safely jump in.
> I thank you solstice for 'filling in' for what Bob wants. But ultimately, it comes down to the owner and lol 'king' of this site....You are right on there. And one thing that plays a large role is the fact that Bob has the power to pull the plug. That will never change. Since we have to live with that fact, maybe some of our ideas about the perfect set of circumtances are worth setting aside - in order to keep a functioning community that is as protective as possible, without being overly punitive.
Sol.
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 12:29:10
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:37:48
>He has offered to allow a Community Council to shorten blocks, after an as-yet-undetermined minimum time has been served.
I wonder what that minimum is?
I have always felt that it would be more transparent of Bob to just block some people for life than to use the formula in the way it has been used. Which is, establishing an precedent via a PBC and then ratcheting up the penalties until you are at the year long block. You could see, when those people came back at the end of the block, they were watched very very carefully, and they were treated differently too.
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:02:29
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 12:29:10
> >He has offered to allow a Community Council to shorten blocks, after an as-yet-undetermined minimum time has been served.
>
> I wonder what that minimum is?It hasn't been set. He asked a while back what others thought that limit should be. I think I said a few days. Not very many people answered him on it.
> I have always felt that it would be more transparent of Bob to just block some people for life than to use the formula in the way it has been used.Well - although I can see that a year block feels like it might as well be lifetime, I've been having a ball interracting with someone here who I believe has been blocked for a year (Alex - right?) I'm glad she didn't get blocked for life. She stirs the pot - for sure. But perspectives like Alex's do keep things closer to the center of reality. And I Love all her wry irony. She's got a sharp eye.
> Which is, establishing an precedent via a PBC and then ratcheting up the penalties until you are at the year long block. You could see, when those people came back at the end of the block, they were watched very very carefully, and they were treated differently too.
I honestly don't know. I've noticed that more than others, some do seem very prone to pbc's, rephrasing requests, blocks, and then longer blocks. But I think if we could look at it objectively - or have someone from the outside look at it objectively for us, we'd notice some things.
First - I am absolutely certain that Bob is not capable of being 100% consistent and equal in enforcing civility guidelines. But I don't think anyone else is capable either. So that would be an unmeetable (is that a word?) expectation. Deal with Bob is, though, that this Is 'his baby.' No one is more motivated to keep it intact than Bob. You just can't invest the amount of time and effort into something like this that Bob has invested, and it mean nothing. So in my view - there isn't another imperfect person that I'd rather have as Babble King.
Second, I think that there are a good number of people here who have emotional, psychological, and/or biological conditions that make them more vulnerable than others to violating civility guidelines: i) Folks who are young and have hot passions and less mature self-restraint; ii) folks with diagnosis' that make impulse-control a real challenge - like bipolar, ADHD, etc; iii) folks with dissociative disorders that result in loss of time for their most well-functioning part; iv) folks with cognitive disorders that impair their reasoning, their executive functioning, their language skills. Some of these folks have the potential to develop what it takes to stay within the guidelines. Some, through no fault of their own, may not possess the potential to ever have enough control to stay neatly within the tight civility guidelines here. I don't think any of those who have trouble with this deserve to be punished for infractions. I also don't think civility guidelines should be abandoned - which I think would quickly lead to mayhem and really kill off the community. I think civility must be managed - but I think here it should be done with an abundance of compassion, and without the tones of shaming and punishment that have been imbedded in the current system.
It's all very tricky. I think Bob works hard to strike a balance. He says he thinks it can be improved. I think he's putting legs to his words by proposing a Community Council. I'm a newcomer to the active posting community - and in my own arrogance sometimes I wish I could just wrest the controls from Bob's hands and say "Ok! You just sit right here & be still while I get this thing set up for you - and then I'll give it back with the instructions!" No doubt I'm not the only one here who thinks they could set up a better system that would work 'right'.
But here we are. We've got what we've got. I really do think my thoughts about how to put a Council in place are more in tune with the Community than Bob's desire to have campaigns and elections. I even think my idea is truer to Bob's goals than his own idea ;-) But I don't have those controls. All I can do is keep saying what I keep saying, and hope that eventually he gives it a chance. And I hope sooner rather than later.
Solstice
Posted by 10derheart on December 13, 2010, at 14:15:44
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:37:48
>>They would have the ability to release a block if they vote by majority to do so. They would NOT have to get Bob's permission, or wait for him to 'reappear.'
So Dr. Bob has specifically agreed he will grant all Council members access to the admin (software) tools the deputies had/have access to? Since that is the only way to "release" a block without waiting for him?
Just wondering, curious....
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:25:21
In reply to Re: clarity??? » Solstice, posted by 10derheart on December 13, 2010, at 14:15:44
> >>They would have the ability to release a block if they vote by majority to do so. They would NOT have to get Bob's permission, or wait for him to 'reappear.'
>
> So Dr. Bob has specifically agreed he will grant all Council members access to the admin (software) tools the deputies had/have access to? Since that is the only way to "release" a block without waiting for him?
>
> Just wondering, curious....
I know nothing about how any of it works. All I know is that my understanding of what he's said is that he would grant the power to Council to vote and to by majority, lift blocks before they are due to be up, and they can do that with or without conditions. He did stipulate that there be a minimum time served before the block can be lifted.Since he also suggested that Council should, amongst themselves, choose one of themselves to 'interface' (his word) with him - maybe there would be a 'Council leader' who has the access needed to release a block? If there's a leader, maybe there should be a 'vice-leader' in case the leader is out-of-commission and a block needs to be released?
Anyway - my understanding is that Council would not need his permission (that's the power he's turning over), and they would have the ability to release the block.
Sol.
Posted by 10derheart on December 13, 2010, at 18:36:09
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:25:21
To be continued...I'm sure. I don't suppose the details or logistics are that important to anyone else. I'm just a practical thinker sometimes. It just occurred to me when you (or muffy or someone...) mentioned the time lag of things that if the technical ability is withheld...it wouldn't do much good and have much impact to be able to shorten blocks. So I was wondering if that had come up in the chat I was unable to attend.
Thanks....:-)
Posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 19:44:23
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:25:21
Civility transgressions come in several different flavors:
1. Insults and hurtful comments to or about fellow posters
2. Insults and hurtful comments to or about Bob.
3. Insults and putdowns of third parties - one of the funniest
examples of this was when Bob read "Bush running the country"
as "Bush ruining the country" and issued a block which he later
revoked with a good spirit.As that example demonstrates, errors do occur. Often, when the civility rules are broken, it is very clear that hurt has been intended, for example when swear words are used. However, at times there is a real difference between how the poster intends a comment and how it is received.To give a hypothetical example, a poster might say, "you sounded awfully professorial there." The person receiving this statement might take it as a sarcastic putdown, when it was intended to be a playful, innocent comment. In cases like this, there isn't a clear-cut right and wrong. Until now, Bob has been the only person with the power to decide what counts as a civility transgression. The Council will have the power to shorten blocks with or without conditions, such as an apology. What about the cases in which Bob's view of what is a transgression is different from most everyone else? Can a block be rescinded if the Council thinks that no incivility has occurred?
A few weeks ago, I think Bob offered at one point to reduce blocks by 10%. (posters who replied asked for a greater reduction, and the idea was apparently dropped) I haven't seen any recent mention of block length reduction, or a reworking of the formula for determining block length.
Are these things being discussed?
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.