![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 42. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2003, at 10:46:03
Dr. Bob,
I've had to think for some time about what to say, and how to say it. My anger has dissipated. I know what it is that troubles me so. When I registered at this site, I implicitly accepted certain rules which were to govern my conduct, the conduct of others, and *yours* as well. Refinements and adjustments and clarifications aside, those rules have been seriously compromised. That is unacceptable.
In your paper discussing Psycho-Babble, you have this to say:
"One of the primary functions of a group therapist, and one shared by a group host, is to manage the boundaries of the group. The primary boundary is who may stay and who must leave. In the case of Psycho-Babble, this is determined by whether the one rule, to be civil, is followed.
When posters are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by email, and that would have the advantage of being less embarrassing. If done with sensitivity, however, posting offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity "behind the scenes," and allowing others to contribute to the process."
See: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
The complete article can be downloaded in PDF format.I'm going to emphasize two points. 1. Civility is the only rule. 2. You imply that you believe that activity "behind the scenes" is detrimental, and is to be avoided.
If any decision is ever to be made that does not adhere to the publicly acknowledged rules, it is essential that others contribute to the process, or justice is not seen to be done. In fact, behind the scenes decision making is always a display of favouritism. Such ad hoc modification of the rules should never occur, if the rules are to be respected. Not only have you made an ad hoc decision that clearly violates standards expressed in the FAQ, you have modified a public ruling retroactively. It is an axiom that neither government nor the courts should ever be seen to act arbitrarily or capriciously. You have made two errors, and I am asking you to correct them both.
At the end of March, and during the first two weeks of April, there was significant drama enveloping the Babble community. Some of the
postings were so egregiously inappropriate that you have seen fit to simply strike them from the record. Entire threads have disappeared. I would make explicit reference to events at this point, but I cannot do so, as the evidence is gone.At this point, as an aside, I want to express that I am not in any way meaning to trivialize the emotional impact of the harm inflicted in such an assault, but I'm going to use a word now that is powerfully evocative.....
At that time, I was emotionally raped. My trust and faith that my boundaries would be inviolate has been stolen from me. I will never forget what happened, and the pain is with me still. It will not heal. I am scarred by it. I am forever changed by those events, and I cannot go back to 'before'. As they say in legal circles, "You can't unring the bell."
So, what do we do about it? Imperfect as they may be, we turn to the Rules. Unfortunately, once again, the details appear to have been stricken from the public record, but you have confirmed that a poster was given a block of 16 weeks duration. And, furthermore, that you secretly and arbitrarily reduced that to 12 weeks.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/266887.htmlOn the face of the facts alone, I am asking you to reverse that decision, as it was apparently made without precedent, and in the absence of any input from the group.
If you choose not to do so, I would then ask that you act both in accordance with the generally accepted rules governing parole, and the Rules expressed in your FAQ.
As you yourself suggest your willingness to accept parole as a concept ...then let's apply that concept forthwith.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/273007.htmlDinah:
> create specific criteria for eligibility for parole and include it in your blocking notice.Bob:
Parole is a good analogy. If anyone would like to suggest more specific criteria, I'm open to suggestions...
When a person obtains a reduced sentence, when they are paroled, it always carries with it one strict and inviolate provision. If you 'mess up', you go back and complete your sentence. Moreover, the authorities always tack on a penalty for whatever it is new that you did wrong. Clearly, "Finish the first sentence. Add the second sentence."The banned poster *did* violate parole, Bob. You don't even question that. And, in the same sentence, you reveal knowledge of a new violation of the rules.
From:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/266887.html"Also, I reduced her block at the time from 16 weeks to 12. Hmm, that expired on 7/2, but since she did take a new name, she was able to start posting again on 6/29...
Bob"
From the FAQ:
"If someone's blocked, they can still read what others post, since what's posted is public. If they try to get around being blocked by posting as someone else or having someone else post for them, I block the other posting name, too, and extend the duration of the block."I don't see *any* room for discretion here, nor have I ever seen you fail to apply that rule before.
Also from the FAQ:
"If I see a problem with something someone posts, I usually try to explain what it is I see as the problem. If it's the first time for them, I usually just ask them please to be more careful. If I've already done that, I may block them from posting for a period of time. How long? Usually I start with a week and double it each subsequent time."And, doubling is the norm.
So, applying general standards of parole, that poster should receive the following:
A block of four weeks and three days (the original uncompleted sentence), plus a minimum additional block of thirty two weeks (the normal doubling of the most recent penalty). I'd argue for triple time due to what can only be seen as an intentional circumvention of the rules, but I won't push that (this time).
Fair's fair, Bob. Rules are rules. At least, until such time as we all come to an agreement about what the rules are, or are not.
I'm not arguing that you ought not to have discretion. Nor am I arguing that the rules are written in stone. However, at the time the "offenses" occurred, the rules were clearly those that I have expressed in my post, not the ones you have demonstrated.
If the rules are to have any meaning, they must be consistent, overt (public), subject to public debate (preferably not on a case-by-case basis, but instead, in general terms), and fairly applied (to everyone the same way).
When law is written to suit the particulars of a specific case, it is invariably bad law. It seems unfair, because it is. It always exhibits bias.
If, after debate, we decide to change things in for the future, that's fine with me. However, changing the past is not.
This may be a deal-breaker for me, Bob. I'm serious.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2003, at 11:29:42
In reply to Dr. Bob, here's what I think, posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2003, at 10:46:03
My very sweet, honorable, and honored Lar.
As you might have noticed from my voluminous posts on the matter, I do agree with your principle. I *hate* behind the scenes goings on that seem to violate the very spirit of this place and appear on the surface to put Dr. Bob in a position of conspiring with some to fool the rest of us. I think it was *very* poorly done, and I hope Dr. Bob has learned the very lesson that he so eloquently wrote about and then dismissed himself.
And while I was terribly hurt for my friends who were hurt in the original incident, and there are sufficient posts to still document that. I still can't forget that the "suicide" post caused Phil to cry. I think that's my predominant memory of that period. But still, the who's and what's of this particular incident have never been my main objection, administratively.
I don't know if you watched the Cosby show, but there was an episode where Vanessa was hiding her engagement because she was afraid her professional parents wouldn't approve of her blue collar boyfriend. And her father told her that it had nothing to do with her fiance. He could be prime rib, but she had served it to them on a dirty garbage can lid by her means of introducing him to them, and that *she*, not his schooling, had influenced their view of the engagement.
Well, Dr. Bob served Kristen to us on a dirty garbage can lid. He did her no real favors.
My feelings about Dr. Bob's actions now being perfectly plain, I have to say this. I've been at Babble for a while now, and I can almost guarantee you that Dr. Bob will not do as you ask. Unfairness and subjectivity have always been part of the administrative process here, and Dr. Bob has reversed a decision only rarely. As he says, he's only human, he makes mistakes, and - as he might not add - he rarely corrects them. And overall I think he does an admirable job under difficult circumstances. Overall. And overall I stay here on Babble because of Bob, and what I percieve to be his efforts to do what is right, not despite him and his occasional failures.
So I beg you. Please don't make your decision based on Bob's. Please take time off if you need to. You are a good man, and you can do a lot of good on Babble. And if you don't mind me being personal, you could receive a lot on Babble too (other than the knowledge that you do good). You are always so willing to help others, and perhaps a bit unwilling to let others know if you need help.
The board is not Dr. Bob. It is me, and Susan J, and Fallsfall, and all the meds and alternative board people that I don't know that well, and so many many people who care about you as well as admire your knowledge.
Please, please don't leave over a principle. And this comes from one who *loves* principle. But there is more than one principle involved here, and my decision has been that this is not the most important one. The most important principle is the help and support I can give and receive here.
We rail and rail against the fates (or Dr. Bob in this case) but in the end we can't change them. But we can stay and do what we need to do around them. But not stop railing of course. :)
Please reconsider, Lar. Bob's not going to do what you ask.
Posted by fallsfall on October 27, 2003, at 12:53:52
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, here's what I think » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2003, at 11:29:42
I think that Bob should do what Larry asks.
I agree that rules shouldn't be changed after the fact. When a rule is in force it is in force.
Larry lays the case out very clearly. The fact that she came back before her (shortened) sentance was up is a violation (and a serious one). I believe that she should serve the rest of her sentance.
This board needs to make decisions about rules for the future: Graduated incivility levels, lengths of blocks, paroles, more? There should be a reasonably thorough investigation into potential security enhancements (I can ask my friend who is a computer security expert for suggestions).
My observation from the past is that when posters have suggestions, they post the suggestion, and then if Bob is interested there may be some discussion or it may be summarily adopted or not. I think that since there are a lot of people who have ideas on these particular subjects it might make more sense to hold an online town meeting to try to come to a consensus. I think that the ad-hoc "let's discuss it in a thread" is not sufficient at this time.
Alternatively, one or a small group of posters could make a proposal and we could entertain discussion on the proposal.
Of course, Bob, this is your board and you could simply set and change the rules without our input. I always believed, however, that you were interested in what we thought. Let's have a real discussion, and then let's stick to the rules.
Fallsfall
Posted by ace on October 27, 2003, at 20:10:43
In reply to Dr. Bob, here's what I think, posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2003, at 10:46:03
>
> At the end of March, and during the first two weeks of April, there was significant drama enveloping the Babble community. Some of the
> postings were so egregiously inappropriate that you have seen fit to simply strike them from the record. Entire threads have disappeared. I would make explicit reference to events at this point, but I cannot do so, as the evidence is gone.
>
Can Larry or someone tell me what these posts pertain to?
Posted by jay on October 27, 2003, at 21:43:01
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, here's what I think » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2003, at 11:29:42
Dinah...I really understand what you are saying. I also get at where Larry is coming from. In fact, especially for the folks who have been around here for awhile and maybe have built up some integrity, I am quite easy to see where most folks are coming from. I believe every single ounce of blood and tears Larry put into his post. I guess what I have come to (maybe not so willingly...but out of resignation) is that this board isn't really about democracy, and I honestly don't mean that as an insult to Doctor Bob. The only way I can continue posting is to think.."Bob owns the board.."...and just really leave it at that. I've tried rationalizing a million other ways, but the above seems to be the only way to approach it. It's not to take away or add anything to a judgment of Doc Bob's character or whatever, it's just.."That's how it is..".
Yes, it may sound negative, or a bad way to approach life, but there seems no other way to bring some peace about our existence here.
In honesty,
Jay
Posted by Sabina on October 27, 2003, at 22:24:11
In reply to Dr. Bob, here's what I think, posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2003, at 10:46:03
I was going to post last week and just say, This is me, shaking my fists in the air in frustration. That's still probably the best and most succinct way to say where I'm at as regards this web site. I no longer feel safe and supported by the owner of this site due to the highly articulate and erudite points that Larry and others have made as well as the rambling items below from my medicated brain. In any case, I now primarily post only on the meds board and find emotional support in a separate venue. You say Babble, I say Rabble. Word.
I do not feel that it is “conducive to civic harmony and welfare” (from the FAQ) to allow posters to carry on with instigating rants and tirades that may not contain the word a** but whose very essence is highly disruptive to the spirit of the boards and often results in other, typically positive posters being blocked after having their buttons pushed relentlessly by someone who is allowed to cause unchecked discord with maddening rhetoric, circular logic, and generic, I-just-stopped-my-meds-and-now-suddenly-everything-makes-sense talk. When Dr. Bob deems it more important to protect me from exposure to the word a** than repeated, disruptive and instigating posts, that’s reason number one I no longer feel safe here.
I feel that it was super shady that Kristen was granted early parole from behind the scenes. There are people, currently blocked, who were a POSITIVE presence on this board, who have never hurt people or misrepresented themselves, and who are greatly missed who would also benefit from such largesse. I support Larry in his view of this being a “deal breaker” for me just as I agree with Dinah that Dr. Bob will most likely remain behind the curtain and that is reason number two I no longer feel safe here. Like Jay said, it’s his site and he can do as he likes; but if he’s going to break his own rules then how can I continue to respect them or him?
Posted by Emme on October 27, 2003, at 23:24:17
In reply to Dr. Bob, here's what I think, posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2003, at 10:46:03
I’ve been watching and thinking. I’m steamed that a block time was reduced, apparently for the first time, without any discussion of a change in policy. Not to mention not doing anything about the poster returning under a new name before the time was up. And why this particular person?? That’s not to say that I haven’t ever thought that someone’s block was too long. And Sabina is right that it’s possible to be aggressive and instigating without breaking the civility rules). I have often disagreed with blocks. But at least when Dr. bob made a decision, the enforcement was consistent. Now he broke the rules that we all accept when we post here. We need to know under what circumstances a block time might be reduced if it’s going to become an option.
I actually don’t have strong feelings either way on the “wipe the slate clean” amnesty idea though I do appreciate Larry’s and Dinah’s feelings. I’m not sure it would solve anything, but I personally won’t feel any more angry if it does.. If it does happen, I really hope no one will leave on account of it. Dr. Bob made a really bad call. He’s human, he’s trying to keep up with a huge forum, he gets tired, he makes mistakes. What would really make me feel better would be if he owned it, gave us some assurance that he’d try to stay consistent, and worked with us to decide whether any policy changes are in order.
Emme
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 2:09:52
In reply to Dr. Bob, here's what I think, posted by Larry Hoover on October 27, 2003, at 10:46:03
> If any decision is ever to be made that does not adhere to the publicly acknowledged rules, it is essential that others contribute to the process, or justice is not seen to be done.
> If the rules are to have any meaning, they must be consistent, overt (public), subject to public debate (preferably not on a case-by-case basis, but instead, in general terms), and fairly applied (to everyone the same way).
I agree, it would've been better if I had announced the general block-reduction policy (and the specific block reduction). That was a mistake, sorry. Better discussion late than never?
> behind the scenes decision making is always a display of favouritism. Such ad hoc modification of the rules should never occur, if the rules are to be respected.
> When law is written to suit the particulars of a specific case, it is invariably bad law. It seems unfair, because it is. It always exhibits bias.
Policies tend to be prompted by specific cases. But hopefully are written in general terms...
> you have confirmed that a poster was given a block of 16 weeks duration. And, furthermore, that you secretly and arbitrarily reduced that to 12 weeks.
>
> I am asking you to reverse that decision, as it was apparently made without precedent, and in the absence of any input from the group.It was without precedent (was itself a precedent). And without input from the group. But in "general terms", I still think some sort of block-reduction policy makes sense.
> The banned poster *did* violate parole, Bob.
>
> > her block ... expired on 7/2, but since she did take a new name, she was able to start posting again on 6/29...I'm surprised that hasn't been commented on until now... Technically, yes, it was a "violation", but my inclination was to let it go because:
1. Usually, someone who's blocked tries to post, finds out they're (still) blocked, re-registers under a new name to get around the block, and posts. But that's not what happened in this case.
2. She was only off by a few days. I don't expect people to keep track of exactly how long they're blocked. I don't even keep a list myself anymore. It's all automated. But that automation isn't perfect.
> At that time, I was emotionally raped. My trust and faith that my boundaries would be inviolate has been stolen from me. I will never forget what happened, and the pain is with me still. It will not heal. I am scarred by it. I am forever changed by those events, and I cannot go back to 'before'. As they say in legal circles, "You can't unring the bell."I'm sorry you were so hurt. You may not be able to go back, but I hope you can go on. And remember, you can report an adverse event at:
https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/advent.pl
> This may be a deal-breaker for me, Bob. I'm serious.
I understand. And see that my whew! above was premature. I do hope you stay, but do what you think is best.
Bob
Posted by galkeepinon on October 28, 2003, at 3:32:18
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 2:09:52
Thank you for the email Bob, I hear you:)
>>>>>>You may not be able to go back, but I hope you can go on.
A M E N
>>>>>>but do what you think is best.
>
> BobYes, Larry, do what you think is best.
Posted by Emme on October 28, 2003, at 6:42:35
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Dr. Bob, posted by galkeepinon on October 28, 2003, at 3:32:18
I second that - thanks very much for the e-mail Dr. Bob.
Emme
Posted by Brio D Chimp on October 28, 2003, at 6:55:36
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Dr. Bob, posted by galkeepinon on October 28, 2003, at 3:32:18
I have been remiss in publicly acknowledging our correspondence having considered it a purely personal affair. But I am happy to say thank you dear in this public forum. Though you have made another misjudgement I believe you are not beyond redemption. I remain available to you at the usual address. Until we correspond again.
Brio
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 28, 2003, at 7:19:19
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, here's what I think, posted by ace on October 27, 2003, at 20:10:43
>
> >
> > At the end of March, and during the first two weeks of April, there was significant drama enveloping the Babble community. Some of the
> > postings were so egregiously inappropriate that you have seen fit to simply strike them from the record. Entire threads have disappeared. I would make explicit reference to events at this point, but I cannot do so, as the evidence is gone.
> >
>
>
> Can Larry or someone tell me what these posts pertain to?I wasn't going to mention anyone by name, or anything like that, but galkeepinon pretty much broke her anonymity below.
Last March 31, there was a suicide scare, after Kristen mentioned she had taken pills and didn't want to wake up. Many people mobilized as an emergency "task force" to try and track her down. The next day, it turns out she had got through the night.
About a week later, one member of the group, Sar, did commit suicide. There were a number of posts about the funeral and so on. It was a very difficult time.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020403/msgs/21572.html
On April 10, there was posting saying Kristen was in a coma in hospital. It appears that it was false statement, given the dialogue that followed.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030407/msgs/218095.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 7:58:54
In reply to Re: what happened a few months ago » ace, posted by Larry Hoover on October 28, 2003, at 7:19:19
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020403/msgs/21572.html
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030407/msgs/218095.htmlThose were two different years...
Bob
Posted by madwand on October 28, 2003, at 7:59:49
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, here's what I think, posted by ace on October 27, 2003, at 20:10:43
Hello Ace (and yes I really am going to get back to that other thread <g>),
Larry has provided you some links to the original events that drive many of the sentiments you have seen expressed. However, before forming a final opinion I would suggest doing a site search on "Galkeepinon" and what has come to the board from her direction since her return (and I mean posts not pertaining to this issue; i.e. particularly on the med board). BTW, one link that is also significant is her "come clean" post.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/265526.html
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 28, 2003, at 8:05:55
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 2:09:52
> I agree, it would've been better if I had announced the general block-reduction policy (and the specific block reduction). That was a mistake, sorry. Better discussion late than never?
>
> Policies tend to be prompted by specific cases. But hopefully are written in general terms...
>
> It was without precedent (was itself a precedent). And without input from the group. But in "general terms", I still think some sort of block-reduction policy makes sense."That was a mistake, sorry.", is all you have to say? It was a huge mistake, Bob. It may indeed make sense, but not when arbitrarily applied, and when applied in secret. There should be a court of appeal. Your ruling would fail. Period.
> > The banned poster *did* violate parole, Bob.
> >
> > > her block ... expired on 7/2, but since she did take a new name, she was able to start posting again on 6/29...
>
> I'm surprised that hasn't been commented on until now...I only found out about it *last week*. You nearly struck the record clean, destroying all the evidence. I spent hours trying to figure out what really happened, so that I could make an informed comment.
> Technically, yes, it was a "violation", but my inclination was to let it go because:
>
> 1. Usually, someone who's blocked tries to post, finds out they're (still) blocked, re-registers under a new name to get around the block, and posts. But that's not what happened in this case.You know that, because?
> 2. She was only off by a few days. I don't expect people to keep track of exactly how long they're blocked. I don't even keep a list myself anymore. It's all automated. But that automation isn't perfect.
Here's what you said a few days ago:
"Those are two different situations. After something's been posted, if the issue is how civil I think it is, the poster's intent is not (much) an issue. Before it's posted, if the issue is how the poster should say it, their intent is very much an issue."Let's apply that concept, intent, to you and the Rules. It doesn't matter your intent, Bob, if your decision violated the Rules.
> > At that time, I was emotionally raped. My trust and faith that my boundaries would be inviolate has been stolen from me. I will never forget what happened, and the pain is with me still. It will not heal. I am scarred by it. I am forever changed by those events, and I cannot go back to 'before'. As they say in legal circles, "You can't unring the bell."
>
> I'm sorry you were so hurt. You may not be able to go back, but I hope you can go on.Your comment is both appropriate and well-meaning, but your actual conduct feels more hurtful to me than the original wound. It may be an unattainable objective, but people seek fairness. What you have chosed to do is not fair. It's only because someone with a little more knowledge of what really went on brought it to the light of day that we can even discuss it. Otherwise, someone would have got a deal that absolutely no one else had been offered, and all other participants in this forum would have been none the wiser. Simply saying "Let's talk about it now" is not an adequate response. You have seriously compromised the integrity of your position.
I have a suggestion for you. Write down a simple summary of the events as they occurred, and submit the scenario to a colleague for their assessment. And abide by their determination of what might be fair.
> And remember, you can report an adverse event at:
>
> https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/advent.plThat looks like a drug report form.
> > This may be a deal-breaker for me, Bob. I'm serious.
>
> I understand. And see that my whew! above was premature. I do hope you stay, but do what you think is best.
>
> BobThank you for your support. You know I will do what *I* think is best.
Regards,
Lar
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2003, at 8:56:35
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Dr. Bob, posted by galkeepinon on October 28, 2003, at 3:32:18
I'm glad you're feeling better, Kristen. Please forgive my post below. Obviously I was projecting a bit and gave unneeded advice from that position.
I was off my computer and hadn't checked the posting times.
I guess Dr. Bob *can* make it all better for you. :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 22:57:02
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on October 28, 2003, at 8:05:55
> > 1. Usually, someone who's blocked tries to post, finds out they're (still) blocked, re-registers under a new name to get around the block, and posts. But that's not what happened in this case.
>
> You know that, because?Because I have access to logs and stuff.
> It's only because someone with a little more knowledge of what really went on brought it to the light of day that we can even discuss it.
If you mean Galkeepinon, yes, she came forward with this.
> > And remember, you can report an adverse event at:
> >
> > https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/advent.pl
>
> That looks like a drug report form.That was the model...
> Thank you for your support. You know I will do what *I* think is best.
You're welcome, and best wishes,
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 7:35:43
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 22:57:02
> > > 1. Usually, someone who's blocked tries to post, finds out they're (still) blocked, re-registers under a new name to get around the block, and posts. But that's not what happened in this case.
> >
> > You know that, because?
>
> Because I have access to logs and stuff.
>
> > It's only because someone with a little more knowledge of what really went on brought it to the light of day that we can even discuss it.
>
> If you mean Galkeepinon, yes, she came forward with this.No, I'm referring to Dinah's post...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/266495.html
....and all that follows.
> > > And remember, you can report an adverse event at:
> > >
> > > https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/advent.pl
> >
> > That looks like a drug report form.
>
> That was the model...You think I should report emotional reactions to posters?
> > Thank you for your support. You know I will do what *I* think is best.
>
> You're welcome, and best wishes,
>
> BobConsidering that I had posted *substantially* more ideas than those to which you have chosen to reply, I suppose I have been answered by you. Fine. We must now engage in Phase 2 and Phase 3 of this exercise.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 7:57:11
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 22:57:02
Although it has been mentioned many times in recent days, you have yet to tell us of the new criteria for amnesty, or parole, with respect to blocks. You see, I don't even know which term to apply. In amnesty, a sentence is stricken or formally reduced, whereas with parole, it is conditionally reduced, with the original sentence still on the books. What happens if a poster with amnesty or parole reoffends? Which "prior sentence" is used to determine the new block?
In the interest of fairness, it is important that we understand what happened a few months ago, when you reduced Krissy's block. As you say, a precedent was set, but we need to know about the circumstances. I'm not asking for anything confidential, but what exactly transpired?
Moreover, we need to know just how one goes about applying for a similar sentence reduction. What criteria will be applied? You have yet to post the details, or to amend the FAQ appropriately.
Moreover moreover, I am astounded that one full month after you have reduced a block, you entertained a full debate about graduated block penalties without revealing that you had *already* created another form of that.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/247518.htmlAt the end of the discussion, we had developed concensus for both double and triple blocks....
(you were arguing for double and quadruple....
> Perhaps it *would* be a good idea to have the punishment fit the crime? I.E. change the FAQ so that some offenses are listed as major and some as minor. Minor offenses would result in a block lasting the same period of time as the most recent block placed on the poster, while major offenses would keep to the current policies. What do you all think?
>
> Ame Sans VieI think it works more or less OK now, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement...
What about using Emme's system to differentiate, as Ame Sans Vie suggests, between two levels of incivility? Except with "minor" blocks following the current system and "major" ones double that?
Bob )
....but you didn't tell us you'd already created a 1.5 block multiplier (the net effect of your block reduction precedent).
I have no illusions this is a democracy, Bob. It is clearly a (benevolent?) autocracy. But it's time to put your cards on the table.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 8:21:14
In reply to Re: policies and hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2003, at 22:57:02
I know I am formally replying to Bob, but this part may well be nothing more than an exercise for fellow Babblers.
I fear that new precedent, that blocks are now conditional, has opened Pandora's Box. Although one may argue that Bob's determinations of incivility were imperfect, the system seemed to be one of black and white. A post was civil, or not. But here we go into shades of gray. Perhaps not, but it seems so to me.
It now seems that posting a couple of days before your block ends is acceptable. Or maybe not.
It now seems that posting under different names is acceptable. Or maybe not.
It now seems that lengthy blocks (considering that lengthy blocks imply numerous incivilities) may remain lengthy. Or maybe not.
Humans have a drive to develop fairness in their interactions. I think it's a universal trait. However, given our own unique manner in determining just what fairness is, we're left with drafting imperfect compromises, such as rules of conduct. You can't please everybody. Maybe you can't please anybody. But we still make rules.
It matters not what the rules are, exactly, there will always be those who will argue from either side, with respect to just exactly where the line between the two sides is placed. Clear and simple rules are far easier to apply than those with exceptions. You get into arguing about multiple lines at the same time; rules within rules.
I was striving to apply the KISS rule; Keep It Simple, Stupid. <that's not uncivil, I hope>
Rules mean more to certain psychological states than to others. They mean a lot to me. My childhood was not fair. And, I could never figure out the rules. I didn't know it was because there weren't any.
In adulthood, rules mean a lot to me. I don't play the game without first reading the rule book. I know that rules are arbitrary, often contradictory, perhaps even irrational. Doesn't matter to me. I want to know about every one.
We need to take the ambiguity out of our present situation, or this cannot be a safe place for me. I hope I'm not asking for too much.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2003, at 8:45:10
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 7:35:43
Just to be clear, I *never* have any knowledge that isn't on the board. I was basing my remarks on a post by Kristen on Social.
I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being a deputy brings *absolutely* no additional information, and Dr. Bob's interactions with me are as elusive as they are with everyone else. :)
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 9:25:54
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2003, at 8:45:10
> Just to be clear, I *never* have any knowledge that isn't on the board. I was basing my remarks on a post by Kristen on Social.
>
> I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being a deputy brings *absolutely* no additional information, and Dr. Bob's interactions with me are as elusive as they are with everyone else. :)I didn't know how you knew.....you didn't say. Thanks for clearing that up. It was your post that informed me that something was up, and Bob's later in the thread, that expressed exactly what transpired. That's how I found out.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 17:11:25
In reply to Re: policies and hurt » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on November 3, 2003, at 9:25:54
> You think I should report emotional reactions to posters?
I think emotional reactions could count as adverse events...
> Although it has been mentioned many times in recent days, you have yet to tell us of the new criteria for amnesty, or parole, with respect to blocks.
There aren't any new criteria. Not yet, anyway...
> You see, I don't even know which term to apply. In amnesty, a sentence is stricken or formally reduced, whereas with parole, it is conditionally reduced, with the original sentence still on the books. What happens if a poster with amnesty or parole reoffends? Which "prior sentence" is used to determine the new block?
I guess I was thinking the unreduced one, so it would be more like parole?
> In the interest of fairness, it is important that we understand what happened a few months ago, when you reduced Krissy's block. As you say, a precedent was set, but we need to know about the circumstances. I'm not asking for anything confidential, but what exactly transpired?
I think that's already been discussed. Do you have any specific questions?
> Moreover, we need to know just how one goes about applying for a similar sentence reduction.
There's no formal application process.
> you didn't tell us you'd already created a 1.5 block multiplier (the net effect of your block reduction precedent).
Doing something to change the net effect is different than using a new multiplier in the first place...
> I fear that new precedent, that blocks are now conditional, has opened Pandora's Box... here we go into shades of gray.
>
> Clear and simple rules are far easier to apply than those with exceptions.
>
> Rules mean more to certain psychological states than to others. They mean a lot to me. My childhood was not fair. And, I could never figure out the rules. I didn't know it was because there weren't any.
>
> In adulthood, rules mean a lot to me. I don't play the game without first reading the rule book. I know that rules are arbitrary, often contradictory, perhaps even irrational. Doesn't matter to me. I want to know about every one.
>
> We need to take the ambiguity out of our present situation, or this cannot be a safe place for me. I hope I'm not asking for too much.I like things clear and simple, that's why the system was the way it was before. But sometimes ambiguity has advantages that outweigh its disadvantages.
I try to be as fair (and as predictable) as possible, but I can't always anticipate what's going to happen, so I need to be able to be flexible, too. Again, I'm sorry this time I flexed without letting everyone know.
I hope this can be a safe place for you. But I know it does have its limitations and can't be for everyone. Best wishes,
Bob
Posted by sienna on November 4, 2003, at 19:03:54
In reply to Re: ambiguity, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 17:11:25
i defnitely agree its been discussed but we are still after all this time failing to see what happened to bring about a reduced sentence.
Here are some specific questions and it would be nice if all were answered.
1. What did KrissyP do that led you to reduce her block?
2. What can other people do to reduce their blocks?Sienna
*****************************************> In the interest of fairness, it is important that we understand what happened a few months ago, when you reduced Krissy's block. As you say, a precedent was set, but we need to know about the circumstances. I'm not asking for anything confidential, but what exactly transpired?
I think that's already been discussed. Do you have any specific questions?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2003, at 20:46:23
In reply to Re: ambiguity » Dr. Bob, posted by sienna on November 4, 2003, at 19:03:54
> 2. What can other people do to reduce their blocks?
I'd rather not give out step-by-step instructions. I hope you understand...
Bob
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.