![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 98 to 122 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 2:26:31
In reply to but do you really think that? » verne, posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:33:32
> But...do you really, truly think this is the philosophy of Dr. Bob? Do you REALLY think that is how he wants the site to operate -- as a trap to catch people up and punish them? I just don't see that! I'm not trying to be sarcastic or "smart" with you. I really want to know if that's how you feel about this site...
>
> JenStarWould it matter if it wasn't? That's a real question.
I mean, if I had a ditch in my backyard that was covered with bramble, and leaves, and people kept falling into it and getting hurt, would it make a difference if I said "Well, that wasn't my intention, I just like how it looks and I'll keep it that way"
Posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 3:32:17
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
Hey Verne.
I think I get what you mean. I have a problem with rules that I perceive as arbitrary. I got into a lot of trouble at high school for infractions such as refusing to pull up my socks and tuck in my shirt and smoking (discretely) behind the shops when teachers would purposely hide behind rubbish skips etc to jump out and snap me. I didn't see what pulled up socked and tucked in shirts had to do with education. And I didn't see how it was their f*cking business if I was smoking, especially since I was 16 (legal age for that when I was a kid) and when I purposely went out of my way to be discrete so the other students didn't see me.
I got suspended from school a fair few times. For those kinds of infractions. So... The 'punishment' delivered for breaking their arbitrary f*cking rules was that I was excluded from being able to attend which DID interfere with my education. I organised a number of student protests :-) We weren't allowed to wear yellow doc martin laces in our shoes - but we got that rule changed. We weren't allowed to wear brown shoes (they were cooler than black at the time) - and we got that rule changed too.
I think...
There are times when civil disobedience is justified. By 'civil disobedience' I'm talking breaking the laws / rules in order to bring about a change in the rules. I think a lot of protest activities fit into this (tying yourself to a tree to prevent logging; hampering boat movements to prevent whaling; saying 'i won't stand up' in protest of race laws etc.
One of my office mates wrote a paper on civil disobedience (in the above mentioned sense) and he considered WHEN civil disobedience is justified and WHAT civil disobedience activities may be justified in what circumstances. One of the requirements... Was that more peaceful / lawful options are unavailable.
Here... We can talk about the rules and the consequences (or punishers if you like) for breaking the rules. We are able to discuss that.
At some other sites... Not so. If you question the rules; suggest alternatives; if you inquire about the rules and the rationalisations for them then your posts will be deleted from the forums and you can be blocked. I was blocked off another forum for posting about the rules after being requested not to. I considered that I was justified as it was a case of legitimate civil disobedience. I was blocked for 4 weeks as a consequence or punisher. I've had a while to reflect on my actions. I knew I would probably be blocked. My office mate thought that if you broke a law in protest then you had to accept the consequence (punishment) for doing so. If you trespass to protest then protest might be a case of justified civil disobedience but your country is also justified in prosecuting you for your civil disobedience. Because the laws of the country protect you (there are laws against other people stealing your property and killing you and your family members etc) and thus you have an obligation to your country to obey its laws. Sometimes there is conflict (and you are also justified in breaking the laws) - but one must also accept the consequences for doing so.That is not to say that one can't campaign and / or speak out against the laws. But it is to say that until they are changed... One is bound by them. We can speak out here. It might feel like bashing our heads against a brick wall sometimes. But I think... If people can suggest an alternative system... And can provide reasons for why the alternative system would be better / fairer etc then that does have some impact. When people just rail against perceived unfairness then it is hard to know precisely what people want regarding the precise changes that people are advocating for.
Blockings aren't forever. They max out at one year. Nobody is excluded forever (to the best of my knowledge). No matter what you have done you are welcomed back after one year. One year is a long time. But then some people do post some doozys... And some people don't seem to learn... Delivering a punisher leads to a decrease in problematic behaviours. From that individual and across the board. That has been shown empirically (though it is true by definition of 'punisher').
You are pretty good at figuring out the reasons for the PBC's / blockings at times. You helped me out a lot with my block over on politics a while back. I know blocks used to mortify me. I was really very upset. They took me back... Took me back to my childhood when my mother used to shut me in my room for days... Weeks... And I was only allowed out for school, bathroom, and dinner. Isolation. Especially on weekends and public / school holidays and the like. I really do have sympathy with how hard blocks can be.
But something is changing for me. I still take them seriously, don't get me wrong, but I'm not mortified by them anymore. I can still email people. I can still post at other message boards. I can still go outside and go for a walk and look at the sun :-) I can still read the posts on these boards :-)
I don't know.
I'm sorry to ramble...
Posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 4:07:54
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » verne, posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 3:32:17
Hi Alexandra,
How about you admit, "you don't know", and you do ramble? Imagine how free you will be!
love verne
Posted by crazy teresa on January 19, 2006, at 6:59:49
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » alexandra_k, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 4:07:54
Posted by Susan47 on January 19, 2006, at 8:40:10
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Susan47, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:15:58
> I guess I'm assuming that anyone so ill as to be totally unable to control their actions needs real life help.
>
> I suppose there could be disagreement on that point.
Anybody who is always in control of their actions is pretty much, in my book, almost perfect.
Posted by Susan47 on January 19, 2006, at 9:07:35
In reply to Re: Posting with civility, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2006, at 22:25:57
> > Certain civlity rules make sense
>
> OK, so it's just the details that there's disagreement on. :-)
>
> > who are we to judge, though, what's good for someone in pain?????
>
> Civility is more likely to be good for them than incivility?
>
> BobIn general civility is good for all of us, so I'd have to agree with you. But when someone is in pain, sometimes the occasional slip, IMO, doesn't deserve a block but is gained in any case. Sometimes a warning would be more appropriate.. but once you're blocked, you're blocked and there's nothing you can say or do to change that. It's like being incarcerated without the last call to your lawyer. It's not very civil.
Posted by wildcard11 on January 19, 2006, at 10:59:37
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » alexandra_k, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 4:07:54
Posted by JenStar on January 19, 2006, at 11:03:00
In reply to Re: but do you really think that? » JenStar, posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 2:26:31
I admit your question is interesting, but first I'd really like to see how Verne feels about what I wrote (or how you feel, for that matter!) Do you think Dr. Bob really INTENDS thi site to be a sticky trap to catch people? I don't think so, and I'm interested in hearing what other people thing.
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on January 19, 2006, at 11:05:36
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
hi Verne,
Again, I'm not trying to be "smart" here; I'm just curious. What do you think would be a better solution - no blocks at all, ever, for anything? Or a committe to vote on blocks? Do you think that the tone and feeling of the site would change if there were no blocks, and people were allowed to post whatever they felt?thanks,
JenStar
Posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:31:17
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 18:28:42
I mentioned having a tolerant therapist to demonstrate patience and support as beneficial not to suggest the Psycho-Babble is therapy, for clearly it is not. It can, of course, be therapeutic, at least I feel PB has been for me at times. I guess I was just saying that it bothers me when it is harmful like others have suggested and all who have been here long enough witness from time to time. It is just plain ironic that a place purporting to be supportive is punitive to people who have emotional problems. Maybe it is unavoidable, but let's not deny that people are harmed here emotionally. I struggle with the justification that it is for their own good. I fear that Psyco-Babble is not a place where a healthy mix of people with emotional/psychiatic problems can congregate, but rather one that systematically excludes those who cannot adapt to rigid civility rules in favor of a more "stable/conforming/less pathologic" cohort. Maybe its just the social worker in me who has had to put up with a lot of abuse from clients in my work. I couldn't help them all, but having thick skin has allowed me to help some who took a while to trust someone who claimed to be there for them. Most of the time they had been let down by someone making such a claim in the past.
Posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:34:37
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 19:59:17
Posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:47:45
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:31:09
> I disagree that people do not have the capability of controlling their responses, especially over the internet, where there is the ability to step back, rephrase, retype. Whether people WANT to control themselves or put the necessary effort into it is another issue, though.
>
Maybe I should define the problem this way, clearly some of the difficulties some have had on this site comes from their expressions of thought and emotion that are manifestations of their psychiatric problems, wouldn't you agree? I think it ironic that these people are then punished on a mental health support forum. It is ironic, isn't it Jen?
Posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 11:52:42
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » verne, posted by JenStar on January 19, 2006, at 11:05:36
I guess I'll try to respond before I'm blocked or fall off my chair.
I'd rather see someone blocked for a week 52 times than someone blocked for a year at a time. And removal of posts is another option.
I also don't think notification is required. If post removals and short blocks were done without the usual hoopla and fanfare, I think the site would run smoother.
I'm exhausted. I need a break. See you after my banishment.
Verne
Posted by wildcard11 on January 19, 2006, at 12:02:21
In reply to Another PWD Nite » JenStar, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 11:52:42
Posted by wildcard11 on January 19, 2006, at 12:07:36
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
>>>I don't think he's cryptic or coy, just dumb.
I love you to death but disagree w/ this. I do not agree w/ the blocks all the time but Dr.Bob (and no I'm not trying to kiss your *ss) is obviously a very intelligent person to have accomplished what he has. Just my opinion.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 18:23:15
In reply to Re: Support » JenStar, posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:47:45
> > I disagree that people do not have the capability of controlling their responses, especially over the internet, where there is the ability to step back, rephrase, retype. Whether people WANT to control themselves or put the necessary effort into it is another issue, though.
> >How could anyone know that? Do you mean that if someone is in a manic state or having a delusion, for example, that if they just stopped a minute, and put effort into it, they would percieve things differently?
I don't.
I don't necessarily agree that the board is equipped to handle the most extreme cases, because we are mentally ill, and many have had abuse in their past, we have our own issues.
And for people who don't want a moderated board, there are many where on is able to say anything you want. I would appreciate a little lenience though and flexibility because of the fact that we struggle.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 20:09:04
In reply to ROFLOL! (nm) » verne, posted by crazy teresa on January 19, 2006, at 6:59:49
wow
If we want dr Bob to cut us some slack, maybe we could extend it to each other too?
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 20:24:04
In reply to Re: ROFLOL! verne » crazy teresa, posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 20:09:04
as I am far from perfect and don't know the details I shouldn't have said anything. I apologize for butting in like the bossy girl in elementary school (you know.. *HER*)
I always react to those sideways comments, and I shouldn't.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 0:43:41
In reply to Another PWD Nite » JenStar, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 11:52:42
> once you're blocked, you're blocked and there's nothing you can say or do to change that. ... It's not very civil.
>
> Susan47> I guess I was just saying that it bothers me when it is harmful like others have suggested and all who have been here long enough witness from time to time. It is just plain ironic that a place purporting to be supportive is punitive to people who have emotional problems. Maybe it is unavoidable, but let's not deny that people are harmed here emotionally. I struggle with the justification that it is for their own good. I fear that Psyco-Babble is not a place where a healthy mix of people with emotional/psychiatic problems can congregate, but rather one that systematically excludes those who cannot adapt to rigid civility rules in favor of a more "stable/conforming/less pathologic" cohort. Maybe its just the social worker in me who has had to put up with a lot of abuse from clients in my work. I couldn't help them all, but having thick skin has allowed me to help some who took a while to trust someone who claimed to be there for them. Most of the time they had been let down by someone making such a claim in the past.
>
> TophIt bothers me when someone's blocked, too. Of course that can hurt. But the idea isn't that it's for their own good, but for the good of this community as a whole. Civility in this sense has to do with "civic harmony", not individual welfare.
IMO, different types of groups can accommodate different mixes of people. A large open online group has limitations. Groups that meet in person have limitations, too. There's a difference between a therapist putting up with abuse and other group members doing so.
Any system with rules excludes those who can't or won't adapt to them. Or who are "nonconformist", if you want to put it that way.
Why might someone who's been let down in the past "abuse" others?
--
> I'd rather see someone blocked for a week 52 times than someone blocked for a year at a time. And removal of posts is another option.
>
> VerneI'd rather see 1 uncivil post on a board than 52. Removal of posts without blocking of posters?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 0:44:50
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
> I don't think he's cryptic or coy, just dumb.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I'm going to block you from posting for 3 weeks again.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:02:01
In reply to Cyber-love is real, isn't it? (nm) » Susan47, posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:34:37
Posted by Toph on January 20, 2006, at 9:35:34
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2006, at 0:43:41
>
> It bothers me when someone's blocked, too. Of course that can hurt. But the idea isn't that it's for their own good, but for the good of this community as a whole. Civility in this sense has to do with "civic harmony", not individual welfare.
>
> IMO, different types of groups can accommodate different mixes of people. A large open online group has limitations. Groups that meet in person have limitations, too. There's a difference between a therapist putting up with abuse and other group members doing so.
>
> Any system with rules excludes those who can't or won't adapt to them. Or who are "nonconformist", if you want to put it that way.
>I try to use analogies for effect but you can always pick apart an analogy. There are naturally limitations in individual therapy as when I wanted to have my serum lithium at .5 and my shrink said he wouldn't treat me unless I was around .7. The same applies in social work, when someone threatens me I stop attempting to help them no matter how sypathetic I may be of their situation. Years ago in a Day Hospital my experience with a group theraeutic milieu showed me that the group tolerated well an member acting in an uncivil manner unless it involved a personal attack on an individual member who was injured (psychicly) in some way. Not that there weren't limitations on concuct in the group, i.e. sex between group memners could lead to expulsion. I guess what I'm suggesting is that you may be overestimating the group's need for protection, Bob, especially in some of the more trivial/benign civility infractions that you administer. But I confess, that's why I'm not a teacher, I couldn't manage a group as effectively as I can individual encounters. I don't envy your position here.
Toph
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:22
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on January 20, 2006, at 9:35:34
No. He's not overestimating it.
He may be providing an environment that self selects for those who wish to be in an environment with more protection.
But I post here *because* of the protection. Others may choose not to post here because of the protection, it's true. But isn't that's why there are different environments?
Posted by wildcard11 on January 20, 2006, at 9:53:58
In reply to Re: people are harmed here emotionally » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:22
Posted by crazy teresa on January 20, 2006, at 11:08:44
In reply to Re: ROFLOL! verne » crazy teresa, posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 20:09:04
You've lost me.
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.