![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 73. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by crushedout on December 10, 2003, at 23:50:59
I was blocked for a week supposedly because I criticized "Dr. Rod"'s tone in his posts on psychological babble. In fact, I was only reciting my previous criticisms of Dr. Rod, for which I had been warned, as a way to illustrate how I thought the PBC's were being administered unfairly, after Dr. Rod posted to Dinah in a way that apparently offended her, but then was not given a PBC despite this -- so , this time anyway, I actually was only criticizing Dr. Bob and not Dr. Rod.
If in fact I was blocked for repeating my criticisms of Dr. Rod (albeit only to illustrate the unfairness), I don't understand why I was, and Dr. Rod wasn't (despite the fact that several others seemed to also be offended by his posts), nor were the others who criticized him openly in a later thread.
Am I being crazy or was this unfair? Or is this not an appropriate thing to post about? I'm really just trying to understand. If you don't know what I'm speaking about, I apologize, and I can try to clarify.
I appreciate feedback so that I can learn how best to make use of this site without getting myself into hot water.
Posted by crushedout on December 11, 2003, at 0:17:18
In reply to does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by crushedout on December 10, 2003, at 23:50:59
One small correction: Dr. Rod was in fact blocked, but only for posting as a doctor without telling us what his credentials were after Dr. Bob asked him for them (if I recall correctly). But he was told he could post using a different alias and he was never asked to be civil, which was gave rise to my outrage.
> I was blocked for a week supposedly because I criticized "Dr. Rod"'s tone in his posts on psychological babble. In fact, I was only reciting my previous criticisms of Dr. Rod, for which I had been warned, as a way to illustrate how I thought the PBC's were being administered unfairly, after Dr. Rod posted to Dinah in a way that apparently offended her, but then was not given a PBC despite this -- so , this time anyway, I actually was only criticizing Dr. Bob and not Dr. Rod.
>
> If in fact I was blocked for repeating my criticisms of Dr. Rod (albeit only to illustrate the unfairness), I don't understand why I was, and Dr. Rod wasn't (despite the fact that several others seemed to also be offended by his posts), nor were the others who criticized him openly in a later thread.
>
> Am I being crazy or was this unfair? Or is this not an appropriate thing to post about? I'm really just trying to understand. If you don't know what I'm speaking about, I apologize, and I can try to clarify.
>
> I appreciate feedback so that I can learn how best to make use of this site without getting myself into hot water.
Posted by tabitha on December 11, 2003, at 3:47:57
In reply to does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by crushedout on December 10, 2003, at 23:50:59
I know it doesn't feel fair, but your block did seem consistent with the usual application of the rules here. Repeating a criticism of another poster after getting warned is a pretty sure way to get a block. Yes your words were repackaged as a complaint about the warning, but still, there they were again. Bob doesn't give much leeway after he's declared a remark to be uncivil.
The original warning also seems consistent with Dr. Bob's policy. When you are offended by a post, if you don't want to get banned, and don't want to stay silent, you have to state your reaction in a way that isn't a put-down of the other person or their post. For instance you can say 'I feel hurt by that remark' but you can't say 'that remark is condescending and offensive'. You have to get rid of all the judgement words, and you can't cheat and just say 'I feel that remark is condescending and offensive.' It doesn't matter if 20 people agree with you that the remark sounded offensive and condescending, Bob will still ban you. I've seen people here get in trouble for insulting posts that were ridiculously out of line. Bob has inflexibly refused to let anyone insult the insults.
There have also been prior cases where someone manages to offend people but doesn't get sanctioned. Bob seems to strictly judge use of language without assessing subtleties like an overall tone that some people hear as condescending. The fact that someone finds it offensive, or several people find it offensive, never seems to sway him in the least. He'll just keep banning the people who complain, if they aren't careful to phrase their remarks according to the guidelines.
Posted by NikkiT2 on December 11, 2003, at 8:18:08
In reply to does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by crushedout on December 10, 2003, at 23:50:59
I agree with Tabitha.. If you were warned about a certain paragraph, and then repeated it, it does seem a fair banning. It would look like you were ignoring his warning.
And I believe Dr Rod changed his name (and said he had, following the rules) and has since been blocked for another offence.
The rules may be very strict, and seem a little unfair at times, but in this case, you were warned, and still posted the same remark a second time.
Nikki
Posted by crushedout on December 11, 2003, at 13:16:19
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked? » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on December 11, 2003, at 8:18:08
Thanks, guys, for your input, and I appreciate your honesty. I also understand your points. But why weren't the others who criticized Dr. Rod also blocked? Was it because Dr. Rod *asked* what he was doing wrong? That would make sense, I suppose, as a distinction.I think I'm beginning to see how this works.
I think it's somewhat strange that Dr. Bob only looks at words and not tone, since he says you shouldn't say anything that might lead others to feel put down. That seems so broad that it should clearly have encompassed Dr. Rod's statements, especially since so many people clearly *did* feel put down. You see what I mean? But as long as I understand how the rules are being applied, I guess I can work with them.
Posted by Karen_kay on December 11, 2003, at 16:55:54
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked? » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on December 11, 2003, at 13:16:19
I'm chewing my nails here... I posted something that may cause me to be reprimanded. I believe it is my first offense, so I should get a warning. I don't think I would cause anyone to "feel" put down but the subject and tone of the post led me to cry, something that I really don't like to do. It was very similar to an earlier post to Dinah. Hmm... and it made me think about some things that I am really questioning in my life right now. I "found" it to be highly offensive and it "hurt" me quite deeply. How exactly do you handle posts like that? You can't just ignore them, can you? I suppose maybe you can let someone else take the lead but still it doesn't seem quite fair that something can hurt you like that and just close it out and "continue on".........
Posted by zenhussy on December 11, 2003, at 17:16:20
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by Karen_kay on December 11, 2003, at 16:55:54
Karen_kay,
I do not in any way mean to trivialize what you are expressing. I don't have anything to offer other than a quote that I have repeated to myself millions of times over the past fifteen years.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. ---Eleanor Roosevelt
In fact you can even order a poster of this great woman with that quote on it. I find her rather scowly in this pic though so I'm not sure it would be helpful after all. ; ) http://www.booksmatter.com/bx1419.htm
kindly,
zenhussy (who is currently repeating that quote to herself over recent flub up)
Posted by Dinah on December 11, 2003, at 18:18:50
In reply to does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by crushedout on December 10, 2003, at 23:50:59
It's sometimes hard to make heads or tails of Dr. Bob's decisions, although I know he tries his best. But everyone is correct. Repeating something you've been PBC'd for is a sure block.
I'm sorry about your block. Especially since I think it was set up by Dr. Bob's actions. But that happens on occasion. Not even Babble is perfect. But it's pretty good.
Posted by Dinah on December 11, 2003, at 18:23:24
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by Karen_kay on December 11, 2003, at 16:55:54
It's not easy. I find it easiest to just withdraw from the situation, which I think you did. Counting to ten or twenty never works for me. I just get more upset as I count. I think Dr. Bob has some tips in the FAQ's.
I'm sorry you were hurt. :(
Posted by tabitha on December 11, 2003, at 19:13:41
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked? » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on December 11, 2003, at 13:16:19
> I think it's somewhat strange that Dr. Bob only looks at words and not tone, since he says you shouldn't say anything that might lead others to feel put down. That seems so broad that it should clearly have encompassed Dr. Rod's statements, especially since so many people clearly *did* feel put down. You see what I mean?
Yes I do. There are many types of verbal put-downs that are more subtle than direct insults, but rather have a sort of hidden implication that is insulting. An old book called "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense" listed many varieties. I honestly don't understand why Bob doesn't flag more of the subtle put-downs. Some have theorized that he's dense and just doesn't see them. When I'm feeling positive about the site I think maybe he's just giving the poster the benefit of the doubt, since it's hard to be 100% sure the hidden implication is there. Or maybe it's just a time constraint-- easier to flag the obvious trigger words and not wrangle over the somewhat questionable. Or maybe his mind really is a mystery. He doesn't help us out by explaining much of his reasoning.
Posted by tabitha on December 11, 2003, at 19:25:07
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by Karen_kay on December 11, 2003, at 16:55:54
Karen, it's hard to know what to do with reactions like that. It's acceptable to just post about how upset you feel, as long as you're careful not to say anything too critical of the post that upset you. Personally I don't feel right exposing all my hurt feelings in that case. What if they were actually trying to hurt me? Then I've just rewarded them by showing how effective it was. Of course you do get some comforting replies, so it's a trade-off.
Posted by Dinah on December 11, 2003, at 19:32:32
In reply to Re: does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked? » Karen_kay, posted by tabitha on December 11, 2003, at 19:25:07
Wish I could achieve it.
Posted by tabitha on December 11, 2003, at 20:21:04
In reply to Re: I admire your restraint. Very wise. » tabitha, posted by Dinah on December 11, 2003, at 19:32:32
Posted by crushedout on December 11, 2003, at 21:47:05
In reply to Re: I admire your restraint. Very wise. » tabitha, posted by Dinah on December 11, 2003, at 19:32:32
I feel understood and supported, and also understand better how not to get into hot water now. It was very helpful.I could have written the same thing (although I probably should have written it here instead of on psychological babble) without repeating my criticisms of the poster, and then I probably wouldn't have gotten into trouble. It appears I was wrong in thinking that I was being punished for criticizing Dr. Bob, since that seems to be pretty kosher. :-) If not, then I guess we're all gonna get in trouble! ;)
Posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 1:34:26
In reply to does anyone else think i was unfairly blocked?, posted by crushedout on December 10, 2003, at 23:50:59
Posted by crushedout on December 13, 2003, at 2:33:34
In reply to yes (nm), posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 1:34:26
wow, thanks. i wasn't expecting that. i feel better now.
Posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 17:28:21
In reply to Re: yes » kara lynne, posted by crushedout on December 13, 2003, at 2:33:34
Good. I wanted to say something from the very beginning but I'm sorry to say I succombed to the futility and inequity of the situation. For the life of me I cannot even find one sentence that qualifies you for a block.
Posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 17:35:19
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 17:28:21
Reading all of the above I guess there was some sentence you were pbc'd for that you repeated and that's why you were blocked. I didn't know that, nor do I know the sentence. I wanted to ask at the beginning specifically why you were blocked, for the exact words. Then I might understand better.
But I don't think it would change that I felt it was unfair.
Posted by crushedout on December 13, 2003, at 21:40:10
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 13, 2003, at 17:35:19
hmm, well, here's a question: if i repeat it here, do i risk getting blocked *again*? the last time i repeated it was simply to illustrate another point (the unfairness of dr. bob's blocking practices) and still i got into trouble.see how tricky this is?
> Reading all of the above I guess there was some sentence you were pbc'd for that you repeated and that's why you were blocked. I didn't know that, nor do I know the sentence. I wanted to ask at the beginning specifically why you were blocked, for the exact words. Then I might understand better.
>
> But I don't think it would change that I felt it was unfair.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 1:52:26
In reply to Re: yes, posted by crushedout on December 13, 2003, at 21:40:10
I guess you could just point me to the post with the words that got you pbc'd, and then where you repeated them.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 3:04:38
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 1:52:26
oh my. i just went back to find my original pbc and realized that i had posted to someone *else* whose posts i found offensive. i mixed the two posters up. this is embarrassing.i dunno if that changes your evaluation. here's a link to my most recent post, for which i was blocked.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031123/msgs/285693.htmlsorry for being a flake. i'm not usually like this, i swear.
> I guess you could just point me to the post with the words that got you pbc'd, and then where you repeated them.
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 12:18:47
In reply to Re: yes, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 3:04:38
No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:40:16
In reply to Re: yes, posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 12:18:47
well, my outrage was toward dr. bob, and although to be perfectly frank, he was very opaque in explaining to me why i was blocked (both online and off), it seems that part wasn't what did it. i think it was my assertion that the poster's posts had been offensive and making inappropriate assumptions about people. now, one question that folks haven't addressed is why *i* was blocked and others weren't, when in a later thread, people kind of let him have it way more than i did (you guys know what i'm talking about? i think the thread started as "mind's eye" or something). perhaps the distinction was that he *asked* for the criticism when they did it.
i'm certainly not advocating for those others to *also* be blocked, since i agreed wholeheartedly with what they wrote. i'm just trying to understand why *i* was blocked and they weren't.
my previous pbc was for a much more glaring violation, now that i look back at it. but i was new at the time and didn't understand the rules at all.
here it is, if you must see it (i'm a little embarrassed by it, because i may have been overreacting, but also please remember i was new):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031011/msgs/268926.html
(i can't believe i'm laying out my crime history for all to see! i hope this can't be used against me in a court of law.)
> No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
>
> I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
Posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
In reply to Re: yes » kara lynne, posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:40:16
i also for the life of me cannot understand why the poster that offended me (and so many others) was never told to be civil. i think that really makes no sense. especially since he attacked dinah directly, accusing her of "grumbling and obligatory thinking," whatever that means. to make yourself vulnerable on this site and then be criticized directly by someone that doesn't even know you seems like it should violate the rules.right now i'm so mad at dr. bob that i can't bring myself to respond to his email asking me if he was "missing something." hello. yes, he was.
> well, my outrage was toward dr. bob, and although to be perfectly frank, he was very opaque in explaining to me why i was blocked (both online and off), it seems that part wasn't what did it. i think it was my assertion that the poster's posts had been offensive and making inappropriate assumptions about people. now, one question that folks haven't addressed is why *i* was blocked and others weren't, when in a later thread, people kind of let him have it way more than i did (you guys know what i'm talking about? i think the thread started as "mind's eye" or something). perhaps the distinction was that he *asked* for the criticism when they did it.
>
> i'm certainly not advocating for those others to *also* be blocked, since i agreed wholeheartedly with what they wrote. i'm just trying to understand why *i* was blocked and they weren't.
>
> my previous pbc was for a much more glaring violation, now that i look back at it. but i was new at the time and didn't understand the rules at all.
>
> here it is, if you must see it (i'm a little embarrassed by it, because i may have been overreacting, but also please remember i was new):
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031011/msgs/268926.html
>
> (i can't believe i'm laying out my crime history for all to see! i hope this can't be used against me in a court of law.)
>
> > No need to be embarrassed, it gets confusing sometimes. Yes, I saw that post. While I don't think it was block-worthy it seems to be a typical example of a post that will inevitably get blocked: a reasonable reaction to feeling insulted, eg. But what had you said before that that warranted your pbc? Because in that post I still don't understand the specific crime--that you found something 'outrageous and offensive'?
> >
> > I'm just wondering what rule was violated.
>
>
Posted by kara lynne on December 14, 2003, at 13:22:07
In reply to one more mini-rant (please bear with me), posted by crushedout on December 14, 2003, at 12:47:44
"grumbling and obligatory thinking,"
That got to me too! I don't know why that wasn't addressed.
As for being embarrassed, I still wouldn't be. You were new and didn't know the drill. And as you can see, we're all still trying to figure it out.
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.