![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 0:39:54
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
> I believe some of the above posts are more unkind and more of a putdown than anything Zen has posted lately.
I'm aware that she has been supportive in the past, even to me.
>I find it interesting in researching people's posting histories, that many who have spoken out against Zen have at one time or another, done as much, if not more, actions that could be considered unkind or offensive (by an objective group) than Zen's posts were.
I feel like the above statement is being directed at me in some way(but then I always feel that way). Can you clarify?
>From reading Zen's posts for the past month or so, it is EASY to see that she is having a bad time right now. Does this excuse her (or anyone) else from repeatedly "breaking the rules"? No.
I hadn't read any of her latest posts, so I didn't know she was going through something at the moment. I just read the ones she wrote on the Administration board that were for Bob. I hope she is doing well. I didn't mean to come off as uncaring.
Elle
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 0:41:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 0:39:54
Posted by judy1 on January 10, 2004, at 14:56:35
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » 8 Miles, posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 21:34:52
As a poster who has been around for a while, I really appreciate the contributions you make Karen and the thoughtful way you word your posts. Hopefully I've never given off signals that I don't welcome new posters, in fact they keep the boards interesting. I couldn't agree more that the "responsibility lies as much with us...", I truly wish more felt that way.
take care, judy
Posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 19:43:01
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Karen_kay, posted by gabbix2 on January 9, 2004, at 23:02:10
(And I'll gladly take a PBC or block [am I due one??] for calling myself stupid, is that even uncivil to call youself stupid, Dr. Bob?)
But I just reread Gabbi's post and does this mean she's gone?
<<I've just seen things now on babble that bother *ME* enough that I've chosen to no longer be a part of it but I needed to say that before
I left>>>Gabbi, if you are still reading, I'm truly sorry you are gone :(
But, I have been reading old posts on Admin and these issues are not new ones. They've been around for quite some time.
Posted by shar on January 10, 2004, at 20:52:39
In reply to I think I'm stupid!, posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 19:43:01
of whether the issues should be addressed, having been around for a while.
> But, I have been reading old posts on Admin and these issues are not new ones. They've been around for quite some time.
.................you're not stupid, you came up to speed on admin very quickly!
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:13:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » gabbix2, posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 0:13:48
> From my stand point all I saw was an attempt to cause an uproar.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't jump to conclusions about them or post anything that could lead them to feel accused, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:18:38
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
> I'm beginning to think there should be a cap on number of weeks blocked.
>
> Shar> I agree with some of the things you have posted about there being a cap to the blockings.
>
> 8 MilesI've been wondering about that, too. But maybe a year? Which would apply to current blocks, too?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:20:41
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks, posted by 8 Miles on January 9, 2004, at 20:49:24
> I would suggest that it *might* be possible for Dr. Bob to set up a group of people ... I think this would remove, or at least greatly reduce the amount of perceived hostilities and the perceived subjective actions taken by these board's host, Dr. Bob.
The idea of involving other posters has come up before, but my concern has been that it wouldn't be supportive.
OTOH, there might be advantages, too... Maybe it could be done anonymously? And they could decide appeals rather than make initial decisions?
How large a group? Would they be chosen randomly? What if posters declined to participate? Would decisions need to be unanimous?
Bob
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 21:25:55
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:20:41
> The idea of involving other posters has come up before, but my concern has been that it wouldn't be supportive.
My concern is that is wouldn't be fair and that this appointed group of posters might be inclined to go "easy" on their friends. Don't you agree it would be difficult to be even-handed? I like the system the way it is.
Elle
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:35:16
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:20:41
My fear is that different posters would be treated differently - more by the group than by you, Dr. Bob. There are popular posters who would nearly always get pardoned. And I can think of a couple of posters that probably would get the opposite treatment.
People complain that you are partial, Dr. Bob. But I think your partiality is far less than that of the group as a whole. All you need to do is see the uproar when certain posters are blocked, and the decided lack of uproar when other posters are blocked, even when the direct offenses that led to the blocks are similar.
And lately there has seemed to be an even greater trend in that direction, where even lack of support of a popular poster is to some extent punished (for want of a better word).
I would rather have someone who isn't one of us make the moderating decisions. Even if they aren't always perfect. Otherwise I fear it could lead to the tyranny of the majority.
I suppose that if it were an appeals process, that would make it a bit better. But would two posters really get the same treatment in an appeals process? I can't see any way of being more direct without naming names, which would not be at all supportive on either side.
How about, as an alternative, that you make yourself more open to considering reversing your decisions based on the reactions on the board. And those reactions could be one or two, or a score. But be more open to considering that you could have made a different decision.
Then everyone could continue to have a say.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 10, 2004, at 21:47:54
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 21:35:16
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 22:24:16
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals » Dr. Bob, posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 21:25:55
> My concern is that is wouldn't be fair and that this appointed group of posters might be inclined to go "easy" on their friends.
>
> Elle> My fear is that different posters would be treated differently - more by the group than by you, Dr. Bob.
>
> DinahThose are good points. OTOH, this country does seem to get by with juries...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2004, at 22:26:00
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 22:24:16
>
> Those are good points. OTOH, this country does seem to get by with juries...
>
> BobOTOOH, juries are comprised of individuals who do not know the defendent. Anyone with a personal relationship would be excluded.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 22:43:04
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 22:24:16
> > My concern is that is wouldn't be fair and that this appointed group of posters might be inclined to go "easy" on their friends.
> >
> > Elle
>
> Those are good points. OTOH, this country does seem to get by with juries...
>
> BobYes, we do get by with juries, but by law, jurors can't have any type of relationship with the person they are passing judgement on, as this would cause a conflict of interest. It's pretty clear that all of the people who post here have a relationship with eachother, which would cause a huge lack of objectivity.
Elle
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 11, 2004, at 5:25:18
In reply to Re: group of posters to decide appeals » Dr. Bob, posted by Elle2021 on January 10, 2004, at 22:43:04
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 8:52:14
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on January 11, 2004, at 5:25:18
Administration is ideally suited, and already does, work as a sort of appeals recommendation board. How about you use it as such and seriously review your decisions when people think you've made an error. If you think it was a close call, you could reverse your decision. If you don't, you could explain why in greater detail.
Nearly everyone thinks Larry was genuinely trying to stick to the civility rules. How about considering, just considering with your wise mind, that it might be ok to reverse the block and give a please rephrase. (And I still think the same applies to Dena - who didn't even receive a block for the same reason as she usually does).
Admitting that perhaps you weren't wrong, but that there might be room for alternate interpretations, would be something for you to be proud of I think.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 9:37:55
In reply to Re: hmm, how about my other suggestion? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 8:52:14
I agree with that sugestion 100%! (It does beg the question though: What would influence the decision to reverse blocks? Would the amount of upheaval be the sole factor, the posters who point it out, ect... Then again, if he doesn't reverse a block is he going to be considered a tyrant and unfair, or showing favortism towards other posters for turning more blocks over then others. It could just open a new can of worms.... (Sorry, just thinking out loud. It's qute possible this isn't the case.)
I do have to agree that Larry was not trying to be uncivil, in fact I think he was trying his best to stay within civility guidelines.
Posted by fallsfall on January 11, 2004, at 10:03:41
In reply to Re: hmm, how about my other suggestion? » Dinah, posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 9:37:55
Any reversals (or refusals to reverse) would need to be open and clear. I also think that any change in action would need to occur quickly (within a week). These guidelines *might* help avert situations such as our recent "block reduction" controversy.
... It is also possible that if we were allowed to "vote with our fingers" like this that those who "lost" would feel *more* disenfranchised because their views were voiced, but not agreed with.
Posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 10:09:09
In reply to Re: hmm, how about my other suggestion?, posted by fallsfall on January 11, 2004, at 10:03:41
Well, Dr. Bob has already been known to reverse a decision upon further reflection. And heaven only knows we have been known to give our opinions on his decisions. So I'm not proposing anything new. I'm just proposing that Dr. Bob use the option more often, in particular when it was a close decision - as in a poor choice of words rather than calling someone a f**** a*****.
He even at one point had a survey on his admin decisions on Yahoo, but I don't think it got a lot of response?
Posted by fayeroe on January 11, 2004, at 13:43:23
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » mair, posted by Elle2021 on January 9, 2004, at 15:13:29
> I wasn't that shocked when Zen got blocked. I was actually surprised it hadn't been done sooner. In my opinion, she had been posting Bob's weaknesses and this boards weaknesses for quite some time, and doing it somewhat harshly.
> Elle
>
> > My heart sank when I saw this block even if it didn't shock me. I echo what shar wrote about caps and doubling. Sometimes the length of these blocks just seems so draconian.
> > Mair
>
>
It seems that the emperor has no clothes and pointing that out doesn't sit well. I come back occasionally and read posts and after seeing that Larry Hoover was blocked and now ZH, I still support self-blocking. It worked for five of us and we support each other very well through e.mail. I will state that I see the problem as a control issue. And I question why more boards are added when the ones that were here for so long can't be taken care of properly. Sick people need care. Egos be damned!
Posted by 8 Miles on January 11, 2004, at 15:52:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » 8 Miles, posted by Karen_kay on January 9, 2004, at 21:34:52
It would be nice to have a "post checker tool" like a spell check tool!
8
Posted by 8 Miles on January 11, 2004, at 16:39:54
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Elle2021, posted by fayeroe on January 11, 2004, at 13:43:23
Interesting. I did not anticipate that my post would stir up this much conversation and discussion. As such, I guess this suggests that there are indeed a wide variety of thoughts here. Many of you had some ideas that in combination could be a good proposal for appeals and resolutions. Thinking back on my "counsel" suggestion, I agree, as Dr. Bob pointed out, it would be hard to know how or who to select as the jury. As far as the consistant level of objectivity that a council could have, I found it interesting how several of you took my opinion for a "jury-like" council to be a WORSE idea than having Dr. Bob have to peruse 100s of posts on so many boards daily to discover who has made some posting violation. Let's consider a jury. According to Webster, a jury is: a body of persons legally selected and sworn (problem there) to inquire into any matter of FACT (more problems) and to give their verdict ACCORDING TO EVIDENCE (final nail?). So, a jury, per se (by definition) would not work. A COUNCIL (not counsel as I now see) however, is defined as: a group elected or appointed as an advisory or legislative body. WOULD be an appropriate board for consideration. OK, I acknowledge (easily) that this would NOT be a quick or simple thing to organize. But let's continue to think of ways that we can 1. help monitor each other 2. help take some of the presure off of Dr. Bob. I think that we owe it to ourselves (and him) to be able to do both of these things. I know the debate will continue. I do not think I have all of (or the final) answers. Just trying to help the best I am able.
Take care.
8
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 17:38:53
In reply to Wow! Such diverse opinion!, posted by 8 Miles on January 11, 2004, at 16:39:54
Just trying to help the best I am able.
* IMHO, I think that's what everyone is trying to do. Maybe a council for blocks which last an extended period of time would be a good idea. Having a council look at a questionable post, where the poster was blocked for say a period of a week wouldn't do much good, unless the block was reversed and the next block was for a week.
The question of how to pick the council:
You could always just let Dr. Bob pick the council, but that could lead to a discussion of favoritism.
It could be comprised of original posters (or "older", not to say anyone's old of course) but that could leave relatively newer posters feeling that they don't have as much of a say.
Everyone could just vote on who they think should be on the council, but couldn't that make it a popularity contest?
What about drawing names out of a hat? It would be fair, but somehow doesn't seem to be the best solution.
Could just start a thread and discuss who should be on the council, if one comes about, and go from there. That seems logical.Oh, and your comment about the spell-checker. Does anyone use that? Well, I notice I seem to have the most spelling errors. Thanks for not bringing it up, though it slaps me in the face every time I read my own posts. Maybe I should try to use it every now and again :)
Posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 17:40:18
In reply to Re: Wow! Such diverse opinion!, posted by Karen_kay on January 11, 2004, at 17:38:53
Posted by Elle2021 on January 11, 2004, at 21:13:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Elle2021, posted by fayeroe on January 11, 2004, at 13:43:23
> I still support self-blocking. It worked for five of us and we support each other very well through e.mail.
I'm glad that works for you guys.
Elle
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.