![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Robin David John on October 14, 2002, at 1:46:55
Dr Bob ...I was thinking this blocking stuff . I thought that Babble was to help folks and to support each other and to help you with research..I understand most of us have are ups and downs ..and have personality differences..Do you believe that blocking a poster for a long length of time is helping their situation or mental state that they may be in at the time of their posting??? I was wondering if we were to take a poll and see if one week was enough ( I think it is)..I relize that some folks might really step out of bounds in reguards to the guide lines ..we are all in need here for support ..naughty or nice ...I think that 2 weeks is enough punishment as we all struggle ..I really think that some of the folks that have been blocked , may have been for a good reason . ..But I am sure there must be a trigger that has caused them to express an out of the guide lines comment..I was wondering if maybe you were to ask them their insite as to their comments before you block ing them??,just too see where they are coming from. I'm sure some are really struggling and really need this site to get insite and possibly good support.
Thank you ...Robin
Posted by BeardedLady on October 14, 2002, at 7:38:40
In reply to Blocking time .Dr Bob, posted by Robin David John on October 14, 2002, at 1:46:55
Posted by judy1 on October 14, 2002, at 11:25:09
In reply to Blocking time .Dr Bob, posted by Robin David John on October 14, 2002, at 1:46:55
I feel Dr. Bob is being judicious in his use of 'blocking time'- the long periods went to those posters who were being extremely harmful to some of the participants here. If it's not particularly egregious and a one-time offense, Dr. Bob will sometimes ask a please restate (I've had one) before issuing a PBC. So I think there's plenty of warning in the set-up as it is now, and you have to admit it's been wonderfully quiet lately. take care, judy
Posted by oracle on October 14, 2002, at 11:40:19
In reply to Blocking time .Dr Bob, posted by Robin David John on October 14, 2002, at 1:46:55
Dr Bob ups the time blocked, 1 week, 2 week, ect.
if people cannot be civil. basic behavior modification. Over the life of this board it is clear that some will get blocked and come right back and be really bad. So raising the block time
works for me. I feel if you just block 1 week all the time, some will continue to harrass us.
Posted by Phil on October 14, 2002, at 12:17:27
In reply to Re: Blocking time .Dr Bob, posted by oracle on October 14, 2002, at 11:40:19
But I am sure there must be a trigger that has caused them to express an out of the guide lines comment..
A few posters come to the board with both barrels firing at anyone who challenges them. They will come back after 4 weeks and do the exact same thing.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 14, 2002, at 12:18:47
In reply to Re: Blocking time .Dr Bob, posted by oracle on October 14, 2002, at 11:40:19
>I feel if you just block 1 week all the time, some will continue to harrass us.
It's usually pretty clear which posters are harrassing and which are making an error in judgment. Sometimes the reasons for the block are not exactly clear, and neither the poster himself nor several other members of the board realize what was wrong with a post.
I have been blocked twice, but I'm not a person who deliberately starts trouble or says nasty things, nor do I harrass others. But I am human, and I make mistakes. Longer penalties for mistakes don't teach any lessons, especially when the mistakes are different each time.
Treating all things equally is not a fair practice. People aren't equal in any aspect of their lives.
Posters who are blocked and return long enough to be blocked again are few. Most of us, though, receive from and provide support to others.
beardy
Posted by oracle on October 14, 2002, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: Blocking time » oracle, posted by BeardedLady on October 14, 2002, at 12:18:47
> >I feel if you just block 1 week all the time, some will continue to harrass us.
>
> It's usually pretty clear which posters are harrassing and which are making an error in judgment. Sometimes the reasons for the block are not exactly clear, and neither the poster himself nor several other members of the board realize what was wrong with a post.
>
> I have been blocked twice, but I'm not a person who deliberately starts trouble or says nasty things, nor do I harrass others. But I am human, and I make mistakes. Longer penalties for mistakes don't teach any lessons, especially when the mistakes are different each time.
>
> Treating all things equally is not a fair practice. People aren't equal in any aspect of their lives.
>
> Posters who are blocked and return long enough to be blocked again are few. Most of us, though, receive from and provide support to others.
>
> beardyOracle again.....
Your points are well taken, and I tend to agree.
However, I suspect Dr Bob will plead "I can't read minds nor predict behavior"
Posted by mashogr8 on October 14, 2002, at 14:49:35
In reply to Re: Blocking time » oracle, posted by BeardedLady on October 14, 2002, at 12:18:47
Personally, I feel that a more than adequate job has been accomplished with the current method of blocking. Those that continually receive longer block after blocks seem to have a history of "Potentially inflammatory" or pretty harmful posts. A person can usually go back in the threads and see evidence of warnings.
At times, I have wondered about some blocks too. I don't always necessarily agree with the block, but I have just stated that and let it go. On the other hand, I have even felt that someone's post was harmful and found out there could be another interpretation or perfectly acceptable explanation of a post I felt was dangerous. (Usually, containing comments about suicide.) Sometimes there is an explanation or comment that presents the "thought" in a light that I had never considered. To me that is the value of having a professional monitor the board. Dr. Bob has training that I definitely do not have and his exposure to mental illnesses gives him a much greater perspective re postings than I have. (Once again, I offer you my thanks, Dr. Bob. I know this board and the people here who care so much and listen, frequently to the same thing over and over without ever giving up on anyone, has had a direct influence on my being alive today!!)
I wonder if you have some particular event or person in mind that is making you curious and hopeful about changing the system.
With so many people of different bckgrounds and philosophies of life as well as often not thinking as well as they might were they not ill, it must be extremely difficult to monitor for civility.
MA
Posted by BeardedLady on October 14, 2002, at 15:12:31
In reply to Re: Blocking time/rdj, posted by mashogr8 on October 14, 2002, at 14:49:35
> At times, I have wondered about some blocks too. I don't always necessarily agree with the block, but I have just stated that and let it go. On the other hand, I have even felt that someone's post was harmful and found out there could be another interpretation or perfectly acceptable explanation of a post I felt was dangerous. (Usually, containing comments about suicide.) Sometimes there is an explanation or comment that presents the "thought" in a light that I had never considered.
Your post could be used to support what I said! If it's tough for us to determine what someone else did wrong, how can we predict what we're saying isn't going to be misunderstood or misinterpreted? And how will blocking us for an even longer period of time teach us a lesson or even keep this from happening again with another poster or ourselves? And how does it help support us when we need it, especially when our intentions weren't to cause others harm?
> I wonder if you have some particular event or person in mind that is making you curious and hopeful about changing the system.
Yes. All the people who fit that description.
beardy
Posted by shar on October 16, 2002, at 22:21:22
In reply to Re: Blocking time, posted by oracle on October 14, 2002, at 14:38:51
> However, I suspect Dr Bob will plead "I can't read minds nor predict behavior"
>
And rightly so, because that is true.IMO, some of the longer blocks have provided needed relief from the uproar created by posters who were repeatedly disruptive, and those breaks allowed the board(s) in general to get back to "normal." Normal, imo, means posts tend to be generally civil, even when disagreements occur.
Shar
PS: this isn't directed specifically to Oracle, I am responding because the quote from the post caught my attention, and I am not criticizing Oracle or anybody for holding any opinion about anything anywhere, and I fully believe in and support the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution (freedom of speech) and am not trying to squelch further discussion or say anything bad about past discussion on this issue, nor do I have the intent in this post to present all possible viewpoints, it is only my opinion, and mine alone.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 23:12:14
In reply to Re: Blocking time, posted by shar on October 16, 2002, at 22:21:22
> PS: this isn't directed specifically to Oracle, I am responding because the quote from the post caught my attention, and I am not criticizing Oracle or anybody for holding any opinion about anything anywhere, and I fully believe in and support the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution (freedom of speech) and am not trying to squelch further discussion or say anything bad about past discussion on this issue, nor do I have the intent in this post to present all possible viewpoints, it is only my opinion, and mine alone.
:-)
Bob
Posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 7:38:29
In reply to Re: PS, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 23:12:14
> > PS: this isn't directed specifically to Oracle, I am responding because the quote from the post caught my attention, and I am not criticizing Oracle or anybody for holding any opinion about anything anywhere, and I fully believe in and support the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution (freedom of speech) and am not trying to squelch further discussion or say anything bad about past discussion on this issue, nor do I have the intent in this post to present all possible viewpoints, it is only my opinion, and mine alone.
>
> :-)
>
But is this really necessary? Can't we all just agree that what we say is our own opinion, since it is? Do we really have to go to the trouble of putting a disclaimer on every opinion we have?beardy
Posted by IsoM on October 17, 2002, at 13:34:15
In reply to Re: PS, posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 7:38:29
I agree with Beardy. It would probably be much better to put 'claimers' on that which is factual - preferrably backed up with a few reference links.
Failing that, IMO at the beginning of each posts that is just our views would alert the reader. But unless it becomes a new rule, I doubt anyone would bother sticking to the routine so hence back to what Beardy said:
"Can't we all just agree that what we say is our own opinion, since it is?"
Posted by judy1 on October 17, 2002, at 17:37:36
In reply to Re: PS about disclaimers, posted by IsoM on October 17, 2002, at 13:34:15
My reaction to Shar's disclaimer was out and out laughing (as I suspect was Dr. Bob's). I don't think anyone expects someone to go to that extreme a degree when expressing an opinion. just my opinion:-)- judy
Posted by shar on October 17, 2002, at 18:30:52
In reply to Re: PS about disclaimers, posted by judy1 on October 17, 2002, at 17:37:36
Posted by Phil on October 17, 2002, at 19:22:52
In reply to Glad it brought you a LOL....8-) (nm) » judy1, posted by shar on October 17, 2002, at 18:30:52
I laughed out loud too. It was even funnier that a disclaimer even gets challenged here. It's a joke!
Posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 19:39:27
In reply to Re: Glad it brought you a LOL....8-) » shar, posted by Phil on October 17, 2002, at 19:22:52
Sorry, but it wasn't the first time Shar's post contained a disclaimer, and I guess I just didn't get the joke. Sorry I missed it.
beardy
Posted by mair on October 18, 2002, at 21:45:54
In reply to challenging a disclaimer » Phil, posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 19:39:27
Like Beardy, it wasn't at all obvious to me that this was supposed to be funny. If memory serves, Shar has posted several similar disclaimers, and I haven't been able to tell whether she was poking fun at those who have expressed confusion in the past about what is and what is not appropriate speech, or whether she thinks that the pattern of Bob's monitoring decisions really have brought her to a place where she feels she needs to post these disclaimers to avoid his sanctions.
Mair
Posted by shar on October 20, 2002, at 4:05:17
In reply to Re: challenging a disclaimer, posted by mair on October 18, 2002, at 21:45:54
> Like Beardy, it wasn't at all obvious to me that this was supposed to be funny. If memory serves, Shar has posted several similar disclaimers, and I haven't been able to tell whether she was poking fun at those who have expressed confusion in the past about what is and what is not appropriate speech,
.....the disclaimer was serious in that I meant what I said. It might be considered somewhat humorous because it was slightly exaggerated in depth and breadth. It would be very unlike me, in my own humble opinion, to poke fun at people because they expressed confusion.
> or whether she thinks that the pattern of Bob's monitoring decisions really have brought her to a place where she feels she needs to post these disclaimers to avoid his sanctions.
>
> Mair......posting that disclaimer served the purpose of notifying another poster that I was not aiming at him/her in my response, and let other readers know that this was just my own opinion I was expressing and that I was not trying to present all points of view, only my own subjective one. A disclaimer from me is generally an attempt to head off misunderstandings and clarify the intent of my post.
My sense of humor is so dry it is, at times, nearly undetectable.
Shar
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 20, 2002, at 15:57:12
In reply to Re: challenging a disclaimer » mair, posted by shar on October 20, 2002, at 4:05:17
Well your disclaimer gave me a really good laugh!!! haven't grinned like that for ages!! :o)
Nikki xx
This is the end of the 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.