![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 72 to 96 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sooshi on January 12, 2004, at 20:41:09
In reply to Re: hmm, back to the drawing board? Dinah, posted by shar on January 12, 2004, at 12:50:15
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:57:39
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Phil on January 12, 2004, at 2:35:11
> What's right under her bitterness, Dr Bob? She is hurting, huh? You bet your [*]ss.
I'm sorry she's hurting, but I think it would be less supportive here if everyone who was hurting just posted whatever they wanted.
> This site should be run by a good psychologist and the staff of his or her choice. They should be aware of where people are mentally as much as possible.
As far as being aware of where people are mentally, remember, I'm not acting as anyone's therapist here.
Maybe one day hiring a staff will be an option. My idea, however, was that if people were supportive -- offered positive reinforcement, complimented each other, etc. -- then constant supervision wouldn't be necessary.
> All one has to do is look at the admin board to see this site has major continuing issues with your policies, your Imperialistic operating style, and your abrupt half answers.
This isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect. But power and authority are always issues in groups, especially large groups.
> Even cops have bosses that have to answer to voters come election time.
Every day is an election day here. People are always free to post elsewhere. This site can't be all things to all people.
> Get a governing board of 6 or so Babblers who can challenge you and win sometimes.
There may in fact be some sort of board sometime...
> I vote for time to end the dictatorship.
Please don't use language that could offend others or post anything that could lead others to feel accused. And please do rephrase something if I ask you to. The last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:58:23
In reply to Re: hmm, how about my other suggestion? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 11, 2004, at 8:52:14
> 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.
Are you suggesting that posts here be considered votes? Wouldn't that be more problematic than having an anonymous, randomly selected "jury"? I do already seriously review decisions, try to explain my reasons for them, and even consider changing them...
> Nearly everyone thinks Larry was genuinely trying to stick to the civility rules.
I appreciate trying, but dealing with intent is complicated, and even if it weren't, it could be disruptive if people tried to but didn't...
Bob
Posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 5:27:20
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:58:23
Dr Bob,
Personally I think the whole concept of blocks is wrong.
Although I do see that there are times when some posters may benefit from a forced "break" for a week or 2 at the MOST to calm down, think things over etc...so I guess there is some good arguments to be made in favour of SHORT blocks at times.
And there are a few cases where posters may need to be banned for say a year...like in a faked suicide (as opposed to discussing suicide ideation)..or repeatedly abusive posts. ..in these cases, I also think the offending posts should be deleted before archiving occurs. There are some derogatory attacking posts in the archives which, IMO, are not a credit to any board to display.IMO "blocks" may be harmful to posters who make slipups at the very time they need support the most...which is probably when thy are more likely to slip up. I have spent some time considering this, and I can really see NO benefit to anyone in the blocks.(other than discussed above). "Blocks" IMO are being metered out as a "punishment" ..as if the posters were say, lower primary school age. I say this, as by upper primary school we did have a right to state our own case in defense for consideration.
The "blocks" must be at the least hurtful and embarrasssing to some posters....especially when you consider it is done on a board that is so easy to google.What is worse is that there is no right of appeal.
In a law court at least the accused is given a chance to defend him/herself.
I took this heading to mean that Admin should perhaps be considered as a place where posters can freely say what they think..and be allowed to post to argue their defense after being "blocked"..there should perhaps be somewhere where posters can state their side openly to the board if they wish...perhaps before any final decision is made.Why I am against the whole concept of blocks is that they are really impossible to meter out fairly and considerately by any human (or even group of humans)..as noone is all seeing. They are ..as I know you understand, not a "black and white" easy call to make in most cases. Also I really cannot see any benefit of them..I'm sorry but I personally don't get any benefit from seeing someone blocked ..even if that person has upset me. To own the truth, the posts I find upsetting seem to fit your civility rules quite well.
I could suggest just having some guidelines ..like no language not used on prime time TV...and moderation by editing the posts if broken. (as is done in many other forums and seems to work effectively).
Also no personal attacks on other posters whether directly to another poster OR by posting negatively ABOUT another poster by name(especially when that poster is blocked and therefore has no way of defending him/herself).
I really can't see much difference between posting directly TO a poster about something you disagree with (which, to me, should be fine unless that person has requested that you do not post to him/her..even if it causes a poster to feel "put down" as someone disagrees with them)
OR posting what you disagree with about another poster to someone else or to the board in general...except, to me, this kinda lacks manners or something.
For instance you allow someone to request they not be directly posted to..and that is fine, but a poster may still post (negative)remarks about that poster..as long as it is not directly addressed to them... which defeats the purpose in a way.
Unfortunately I can see no easy way to implement an "ignore" on this style of forum.Also I think that no "education" ..at least of the medical drug/alternative type can be really made if posters are allowed to claim personal opinions and experiences as fact or even worse to be able to say things that appear false..
If this board is not to be "dangerous" in a medical sense..there needs to be moderation of incorrect content. This may be at least parially achieved by allowing other posters to question the content and ask for supporting studies, references etc...where it does seem a poster is making statements they may be misleading. This is a form of board self moderation...and yes it may involve the original poster feeling "put down" as people are questioning what they state...but if no timely official moderation of content occurs (and it doesn't)...readers may be hurt...perhaps seriously medically if some readers were influenced by incorrect content and questioning is not allowed/discouraged/ penalised in any way.
IMO..if the poster does repeatedly make statements which someone considers misleading then there does need to be a questioning for some evidence to back up their claims..until it is either produced or the poster corrects his statements and restates them as opinion or personal experience only.Personally I'd also would have liked the ability to edit posts until "archiving" occurs, at least on the medical "babble" and alter boards. Why? as this allows incorrect statements to be modified by the original poster ...so no blatantly misleading information is displayed at least on the archived boards. I guess this would depend on just what "education" the boards are trying to achieve?
I don't expect anyone to agree, but I hope some small part of my suggestions are helpful even if in only putting forward a differing point of view.
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2004, at 6:42:12
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:58:23
> Are you suggesting that posts here be considered votes?
Nope. It's always been my belief that the final decision should be yours and yours alone. It may not be perfect but I see it as better than any alternative I can imagine. I'm sorry that it makes life difficult for you. :(
> Wouldn't that be more problematic than having an anonymous, randomly selected "jury"?
I think both would be problematic, as you can see from my previous posts.
> I do already seriously review decisions, try to explain my reasons for them, and even consider changing them...
Yes, that's what I meant. I was just suggesting that you be more open to changing them if it was a close call, not a flagrant and obvious violation. But if you already feel you do the best you can at that, then I guess that is the best you can do. I'll say no more. At least till next time - grin. I'm afraid that's the best *I* can do. :)
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 7:55:49
In reply to Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 5:27:20
Just a quickie as I don't have the time or energy today.
But. When I "joined" PB, about 5, maybe nearly 6, years ago, there were no rules. there were no blocks, and little telling off.
But, the rules and blocks had to be bought in because come people were acting like the were primary schoolers.
if blocks were removed, this place would degenerate into what it was once heading to. And thatw as not nice. People here, who haven't been around as long as some people, claim to have read back, but I don't see how anyone could read 6 years worth of posts, and understand the feelings the were aroused at the time of those postings.
This board wasn't "born" with the rules in place, the rules have come around because of the behaviour of posters.
Nikki
Posted by Karen_kay on January 13, 2004, at 8:12:19
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » tealady, posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 7:55:49
People here, who haven't been around as long as some people, claim to have read back, but I don't see how anyone could read 6 years worth of posts, and understand the feelings the were aroused at the time of those postings.
*I claimed to have read some of the archived posts in admin. I never claimed to have read back 6 years worth.
What I find upsetting about this board is the unwillingness to accept "strangers." I post on here and try to be kind in most situations. Yes, sometimes I do fail, I never claimed to be perfect. But, how can you (not you as in anyone in particular, I'm not pointing fingers) expect this board to grow if you distrust new posters.
I realize there is a chance for blocked posters to come back under a new name and begin posting again. But, must the rest of us suffer because of the few?
I honestly feel that I have done my best to be supportive to posters on this board. And many posters on this board have welcomed me with open arms. But, there seems to also be an unwillingness to accept new posters by others. And this is discouraging and hurtfull. And I'm sure it isn't just to me.
I came to this board for support, just as I assume everyone else did. And I try my best to give support back, with humor, wit and personal stories. But it's really getting hard when I feel I'm not welcome by a majority of posters.
Sorry, you just hit a nerve. Maybe everyone should remember they were new once too!
Posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 8:56:53
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » NikkiT2, posted by Karen_kay on January 13, 2004, at 8:12:19
Hi Karen.
> What I find upsetting about this board is the unwillingness to accept "strangers."
Hmmm. I didn't know that's what new posters experience. Did you get this impression from the administration board, or from the other boards?
In the past, it seemed to me like this site made people feel welcome. Perhaps things have changed recently.
I, for one, would like to assure you that you are welcome. I have been following your posts, and I am VERY happy that you are here. I don't know about anyone else, but to me, you already feel like an integral part of the community. Please be patient. It is unfortunate that your first experiences here comes at a time when there is so much upheaval. I am not particularly comfortable with the way things are right now. I find your observations and insights to be particularly valuable at this time because you have arrived here so recently. I care a lot about this board, and would be grateful if you were to continue to help it through its growing pains and continued evolution.
Sincerely,
Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 10:57:12
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » NikkiT2, posted by Karen_kay on January 13, 2004, at 8:12:19
I can't talk for how other posters feel. I can only talk to how I feel.
For me, once bitten, twice shy. Once you've been hurt a few times, you become wary.
I'm sorry that I am not as welcoming of new members as others, or as much as I should be, but MY safety and well being is paramount to me. And if that means taking a long time to trust, so be it.
You get plenty of replies to your posts on PSB, so I can't see how you think people aren't accepting you.
I've just got to a point in my life where I am fussier over who I befriend I guess. I know that sounds terribly harsh, but its what makes me feel safer.
Or, would you prefer I end up opening and welcoming every new person, and end up hurt??
And yes, I remember I was new once. But I also can't wipe out 5 years of history that has made me the way I am.
Maybe you could also remember that there is history here that you don't know about / don't understand as you weren't here at the time.tealady wasn't suggesting moving forward, she was suggesting, bascially, moving backward. I was simply pointing out that history has shown that the "no block" way forward doesn't work.
Nikki
Posted by judy1 on January 13, 2004, at 13:40:31
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » tealady, posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 7:55:49
unfortunately I have a long memory too, and remember being hurt multiple times before rules were set- put in place, as you wrote, in response to the offending posters. I would hate to see those days return.
take care, judy
Posted by Karen_kay on January 13, 2004, at 14:51:47
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » Karen_kay, posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 8:56:53
I'm not saying everyone is unwilling to accept strangers, quite the opposite. What I am saying is that when posters frequently make accusations that "newbies" aren't what they seem it is quite hurtful, at least to me. I understand that others have been hurt, I truly do. And that is very unfortunate. But that gives other "newbies" the assumption that maybe they aren't welcome. Maybe it's my negative thought patterns? Unlikely. I suppose it's pointless to continue the discussion, as neither point of view will change. But, I assure everyone here that I've never posted under a different name. Should I feel that I'm being punished or that I'm somehow different because I didn't find this site sooner?
Another thing to remember is that this site wouldn't be nearly as fun or supportive without the "newbies." There is a pretty high turn-over rate.
And NikkiT2, It appears I had an insect in an uncomfortable position this morning. I assure you I found the foreign object and removed it. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you. I'm sorry that you have been hurt in the past. I'm not at all trying to tell you who you should or shouldn't talk to or what you should believe. It just hurts when you voice your opinion so loud sometimes.
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2004, at 16:21:47
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » SLS, posted by Karen_kay on January 13, 2004, at 14:51:47
Karen, I suppose this isn't very administrative. But I just wanted to say that no one who reads your post could possibly think you're an old poster with a new name. Your bright and refreshing voice is very uniquely your own.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 13, 2004, at 16:40:52
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » Karen_kay, posted by Dinah on January 13, 2004, at 16:21:47
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 20:34:52
In reply to Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 5:27:20
> I took this heading to mean that Admin should perhaps be considered as a place where posters can freely say what they think..and be allowed to post to argue their defense after being "blocked"..
After being blocked, they have to argue by email.
> For instance you allow someone to request they not be directly posted to..and that is fine, but a poster may still post (negative)remarks about that poster..
No, that wouldn't be considered civil.
> Personally I'd also would have liked the ability to edit posts until "archiving" occurs, at least on the medical "babble" and alter boards.
Editing has come up before, and I think that might be OK, at least until another post is added to that thread. But setting it up would be a big job...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2004, at 20:39:41
In reply to Re: Blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 20:34:52
>
> Editing has come up before, and I think that might be OK, at least until another post is added to that thread.That's only because you're a straightforward honest sort of guy, Dr. Bob. Without the Machiavellian mind to see where it could lead.
I myself could do tons of mischief with that option, were I so inclined, which of course I would not be. (Folds hands primly and smiles angelically.)
Posted by shar on January 14, 2004, at 0:00:53
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » SLS, posted by Karen_kay on January 13, 2004, at 14:51:47
> What I am saying is that when posters frequently make accusations that "newbies" aren't what they seem it is quite hurtful, at least to me.
KK,
I might feel the same frustration in your situation. In fact, the few forums in which I have been a newbie *have* tended to be somewhat distrustful at first. If I've made a post, it might get one or two responses. If I'm there more often, more people tend to respond.One of the unfortunate problems here is that your statement above is correct: "newbies" aren't what they seem--well, not always. I know it seems like painting everyone with a broad brush, but it is so easy for people to post under different names, I've begun to think I don't really ever know who I'm talking to.
Some people here seem to have a gift of recognizing people's posting styles and linguistics, phrasing, etc. and can identify ABC as being XYZ in a past life. I don't have that gift and have been caught off guard more than once in a negative way.
However, by and large, you are right when you say the "newbies" bring new life to the board--at least most of them do.
Another thing about having been a newbie here once, too, is that when I first came it was a much smaller group of people, so it seemed easier to get to know folks. There was only one board and we all posted there together. Now that PB's gone "corporate" we have more boards, more people, more turnover (I would guess)--it feels like a big city compared to what used to be a small town. There are pros and cons to each.
At any rate, I hope you've been reassured by the other posters who have commented on what a valued member of this community you are. I also consider you a welcome member here.
Shar
Posted by tabitha on January 14, 2004, at 0:33:26
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » SLS, posted by Karen_kay on January 13, 2004, at 14:51:47
Hi Karen. I'm glad you're here too. You've really livened things up on Social.
You know, some people might be suspicious because of all the name-changing, but there may be other factors at work. I'm just generally slow to get to know newcomers. I have to see someone's name around for a while, and read their posts for a while, until I even feel comfortable posting to them. Otherwise I just don't feel I have much to say. I probably got to know you faster than normal. I think that's because you post quite a bit. You'll be an oldbie in no time.
Or.. could it be you're discounting the positive? I tend to feel unwelcome if I don't get 100% acceptance. Once I had to make a list of posters that I thought liked me, ones I thought didn't like me, and ones that I thought were neutral. The numbers didn't support my feeling of rejection.
Just some ideas. You might be a lot more welcome than you think.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 14, 2004, at 8:20:43
In reply to Re: another idea » Karen_kay, posted by tabitha on January 14, 2004, at 0:33:26
It's not that I don't feel welcome, quite the contrary. I just have a feeling that if other "newbies" just happened across the Admin board (as well as the thought that maybe they aren't who they seem) as I did they may not feel so apt to stay. Thank you ALL for making me feel welcome. I assure you, I don't plan on going anywhere >)
Posted by jane d on January 16, 2004, at 0:44:13
In reply to Re: Administration as an appeals board/ Blocks » Karen_kay, posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 10:57:12
> And yes, I remember I was new once. But I also can't wipe out 5 years of history that has made me the way I am.
Nikki,
I also remember being new here, although that was long after you were an established poster. And even then I was probably less trusting of other posters than they appeared to be of me. I tend to take my time deciding about people, both here and in real life so I completely agree with you about being careful who you make yourself vulnerable to. As long as new posters are treated courteously and given a chance to be accepted over time I don't see what the problem is. And I think that's the way it works now. I think a little reserve works in everyones favor. Perhaps it takes a little time to be accepted but on the other hand you don't see people being wildly welcomed one day and attacked the next.> Maybe you could also remember that there is history here that you don't know about / don't understand as you weren't here at the time.
This is one area I don't entirely agree with you on. You said in an earlier post that people didn't read all the archives but I think you underestimate how impressed some of us were when we found this site already running and with years of wonderful archives of posts (including yours) to read. I know I went thru them all within weeks of finding the site and other people have told me that they did the same. If you are reading the posts in order you get a very good sense of the interactions between people and the little flare ups. I did this something like 3 years ago - it would definately be much harder to do today but I'd probably still be excited (all right - obsessive) enough to do it again and I'm willing to bet that plenty of new posters still are too.
This is one of the reasons I oppose editing posts and I'm glad that only the bare minimum are deleted. Unlike on other boards if you want to badly enough you can go back and see what was going on 2 or 3 years ago. Anyone who wants to can see exactly what has happened here to make people jumpy if they choose to look and I think this is one of the things that will help the board in the long run. We won't be divided into those who "know the secrets" and those who never can. I've seen that kind of thing implied on other sites and my response has been to leave immediately. This way I think everyone can stay on equal footing.
Jane
Posted by crushedout on January 18, 2004, at 13:11:42
In reply to Re: cap on blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2004, at 21:18:38
I think a year's too long. I think the cap should be more like three months. Obviously, that would involve reducing the current scheme of increases.
> > 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 Miles
>
> I've been wondering about that, too. But maybe a year? Which would apply to current blocks, too?
>
> Bob
Posted by sienna on January 18, 2004, at 20:15:20
In reply to Re: cap on blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on January 18, 2004, at 13:11:42
I agree a year is too long. 3 months seems more reasonable. I think if you are going to block someone for more than a few months, you might as well just ban them.
sienna
Posted by crushedout on January 18, 2004, at 20:18:11
In reply to Re: cap on blocks » crushedout, posted by sienna on January 18, 2004, at 20:15:20
Posted by icarus on February 8, 2004, at 15:14:19
In reply to Re: blocked for 24 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on January 8, 2004, at 19:08:31
> > That's the biggest load of bs to ever come out of your mouth Dr. Bob. I cannot believe you enforce your rules so willy nilly.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 12 weeks; this time I'm making it for 24.
>
> Bob
"Our most powerful instinct, the tyrant in us, subjugates not only our reason, but also our conscience." F.N.
Posted by icarus on February 8, 2004, at 17:17:19
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 2:57:39
> > (Phil:) All one has to do is look at the admin board to see this site has major continuing issues with your policies, your Imperialistic operating style, and your abrupt half answers.
>
> (Dr.B:) This isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect.No, it's not easy. But that's no excuse for not admitting you were wrong or fixing your mistakes. Frankly, you're a bad model.
>(Dr. B:) But power and authority are always issues in groups, especially large groups.
>
And again, ironically: an "abrupt half answer".
It seems that Dr. Bob feels it is necessary to assert his authoritative opinion on the topic of authority.> >(Phil:) Even cops have bosses that have to answer to voters come election time.
>
> (Dr.B:) Every day is an election day here. People are always free to post elsewhere. This site can't be all things to all people.
>Voting with one's feet is not a good answer. The philosophy of this board's administration promotes a social cowardice that is unhealthy.
Face it, Dr. Bob: you've created an unwieldy monster. The horns can be cut off but they keep growing back. Your only options are to harness the beast or climb a tree.
>
> > (Phil:) I vote for time to end the dictatorship.
>
Actually... a dictatorship might be more consistent. In fact, if Dr. Bob declared this a dictatorship I'd be much happier participating. At least then I would know what to expect. But this tyrannical attitude towards partial moderation just doesn't work.
Frankly, I think that if this is not treated like "online group therapy" with a full-time therapist moderator, then users should learn to accept the fact that this is not a safe place to huddle. It is a real social environment where there are risks, consequences, and thus opportunities to learn. And a part of that learning should be how to deal with "uncivilities" without big brother stepping in (sometimes, when he has time and inclination) to treat them like children.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2004, at 3:46:14
In reply to A few more words on tyranny... » Dr. Bob, posted by icarus on February 8, 2004, at 17:17:19
> Frankly, you're a bad model.
>
> this tyrannical attitude towards partial moderation just doesn't work.Please don't post under more than one name at the same time:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#names
Especially not to post something that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
> this ... is a real social environment where there are risks, consequences, and thus opportunities to learn.
If you have any questions about this or comments about posting policies in general, or are interested in learning alternative ways to express yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
email me, or redirect a follow-up here after your block is over. Thanks,
Bob
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.