![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 12:24:15
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by special_k on April 11, 2006, at 20:08:25
>
>> IMO other people need to learn to handle their own responses. i'm not attacking accusing putting down (to the best of my knowledge).
>
You just said you were sometimes provocative,
you also said that sometimes it's difficult for people when they are going through psychiatric difficulties, I would assume that includes "handling ones own responses"How could you know why some people are hurt by what you say or do? Why do you think it's up to you to decide whether or not they are justified.
I've seen you post about being hurt by things.
Next time maybe I'll push your buttons about them and then when you're at your most upset, I'll tell you that, well, I was just being provocative, I admit it, then I'll tell you that I think you should learn how to handle your response.
WTF??
Why do you talk to others about being charitable?
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 15:02:04
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 12:24:15
I guess I'll just wait for Henrietta to pop in and give me a piece of her mind..
Posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 18:35:50
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 12:24:15
Ouch.
When I said I knew I was provokative (mostly over on politics) I was talking about pushing hard on political isses... Like about my belief that everyone has a right to life and their basic needs being met etc.
> >> IMO other people need to learn to handle their own responses. i'm not attacking accusing putting down (to the best of my knowledge).
And I'm not.
> You just said you were sometimes provocative,
Provoking people to THINK
> you also said that sometimes it's difficult for people when they are going through psychiatric difficulties, I would assume that includes "handling ones own responses"
Of course. But one is still responsible for ones own responses...
> How could you know why some people are hurt by what you say or do? Why do you think it's up to you to decide whether or not they are justified.
It isn't about whether they are justified or not (I personally think ALL emotional responses are justified).
I'm just trying to get at the point that if someone can come along to admin and say WAH! Someone posted this to me and I'm so upset and thereby get them blocked... Well... If you like that way of doing things you might like to play at psychcentral. You might be pleased to know they delete around half of my posts because the topics are considered unsuitable...
> I've seen you post about being hurt by things.
> Next time maybe I'll push your buttons about them and then when you're at your most upset, I'll tell you that, well, I was just being provocative, I admit it, then I'll tell you that I think you should learn how to handle your response.You do that Gabbi.
But I'll request you never post to me again.
There is indeed such a thing as being sensitive
Hence
PBSDo you really think I exhibit insensitivity in the way I talk to pepole?
I know someitmes I get carried away... But if they explain that to me then i backtrack - don't I? I apologise when other peoples feelings are hurt (even if i dont see that i've done anything wrong - ie if they have MISINTERPRETED what i said) i'm still sorry they are hurting.
don't i????
WTF
I don't know where this is coming from...
i don't wanna play here anymore :-(
Posted by Bobby on April 12, 2006, at 19:40:02
In reply to Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by Racer on April 4, 2006, at 19:44:04
Posted by Deneb on April 12, 2006, at 19:46:06
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » gabbi~1, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 18:35:50
> I'm just trying to get at the point that if someone can come along to admin and say WAH! Someone posted this to me and I'm so upset and thereby get them blocked... Well... If you like that way of doing things you might like to play at psychcentral. You might be pleased to know they delete around half of my posts because the topics are considered unsuitable...
That happened to me too. Over there, I'm not free to post my love for Dr. Bob, and about how I feel hurt over being blocked. People get upset or annoyed and then my threads get locked. :-(
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{special k}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
I don't think there is anything wrong with your posts and the way you express yourself. I really like your style and your logical and analytical thinking.
Deneb*
Posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 20:24:08
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 12:24:15
Okay... Deep breaths... Clash of the issues or something...
To clarify: It isn't about my thinking that peoples feelings are illegitimate or wrong or anything like that.
It is more that we need to watch out for ourself and let other people watch out for themself. In the sense that I am responsible for my posts, but I am not responsible for your posts.
If I post something nasty to you... Then I am accountable for my post. If you retaliate out of hurt... You are still accountable for your post.
Why?
Becuase the cycle has to stop somewhere.
People can get upset for a variety of reasons...
It is a hard call...
Sometimes people do get blocked for lashing out at others or whatever (as they should IMO).
Sometimes people don't get blocked EVEN THOUGH others feel upset in response to the post?
Why do they feel upset?
A variety of reasons...
Sometimes personal sensitivity (I felt hurt when I read your post to me - but that is my personal sensitivity and I don't think you should be blocked or warned for what I said).
I don't think Deneb should be blocked or warned for talking about suicide or Bob or whatever she wants... So long as she isnt' accusing / attacking another... So long as she isn't joking about death... I don't see why people should be censored because others are upset - becaues others can be upset for a variety of reasons.Someone might feel very upset when they read about SI. With a trigger, without a trigger someone might feel very upset when they read about SI.
Does that mean people should be warned / blocked for posting about SI?
IMO no.
> You just said you were sometimes provocative,
Yes. That was a reference to some things I've been thinking about and posting about on other places on the boards... My conversation with pseudoname (about trying to change people's opinion). My ravings over on writing (that I'm sensitive about sure).
I like to provoke people into thinking and questioning. Yes I do. And sometimes people don't like that. It can be uncomfortable to question ones beliefs / have ones beliefs questioned. But I think it is a worthwhile thing to do... People don't have to read my threads / respond to my threads. I try and do this sensitively. Sometimes I'm not the best at that and I guess when I cross the line I get a PBS or whatever.
But should we go around making sure what we say doesn't lead to anyone feeling upset?
That would involve selling myself. Censoring myself. It would involve me shutting up about the things I most need to talk about.
Whatever.
I'm sorry Gabbi maybe we are talking about different things here.
I'm sensitive abotu the idea that I need a radical personality overhaul to be fit for human company.
Oh yes I am.
But I do appreciate that is my sensitivity... And I don't think people should be warned / blocked for saying they don't much like me or whatever.
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 20:38:20
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 20:24:08
Well, mostly it was when I read that you knew got people wound up that I got really angry.
Whatever, specific to politics maybe, maybe not..
It doesn't matter.
In some ways you are exquisitely sensitive to people. You're a bundle of contradictions. That's a quote, from a book, it was said affectionately in the book, and that's how I meant it.
The apology is hard, because I've read a couple of posts where you said that you that you tend to apologize when you don't mean it.
I agree with your clarification about the responsibility for emotions, yes. And I did misunderstand you because it was put right after you said you sometimes purposely got people wound up. I took it all as one subject.
Thanks for clarifying.
I am posting with P.M.S :D
I'm such a cliche it's embarrassing..
I should have like a little Fisher price babble board, for when I have P.M.S or a head cold.
Then I could just pretend post for a while.
Posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 22:41:52
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 20:38:20
> Well, mostly it was when I read that you knew got people wound up that I got really angry.
ah. i don't think i ever mean to hurt people. but yeah, provoke people to THINK i do think i try and do that - i don't try to provoke people to ANGER i don't think... sometimes i know people are likely to feel upset... re politics... i guess i think / feel that sometimes a little provoking (to THINK) is good for us (even if it does hurt a little) i don't know... i don't know what to say... but i don't mean to hurt :-( though sometimes when i'm in a state maybe i do a little :-( but then it is something i beat myself up over (really...) but i'm trying not to beat myself up :-( but maybe i should :-( i don't know... hard issue for me, i'm sorry :-(
> Whatever, specific to politics maybe, maybe not..yeah. thinking about civilians who are killed... people living on the streets... people living on welfare... it is hard yes. a little bit of hurt... the potential for lots of innocent lives to be saved... i don't know what to say... if people feel upset / pissed then they tend to tune out anyways...
> In some ways you are exquisitely sensitive to people.
:-)
i try. but yeah in 'some ways' and not so much in others... but i'm trying (maybe i'm very trying) but i am trying...> You're a bundle of contradictions.
yeah. depends what mood / state i'm in... i had a teacher at school who said i reminded her of this poem about the girl with a curl right in the middle of her forehead and when she was good she was really really good and when she was bad she was horrid. she meant that affectionately too... maybe there is some truth to that. :-( i don't know... :-(
> The apology is hard, because I've read a couple of posts where you said that you that you tend to apologize when you don't mean it.no. i mean apologies when i say them. i do. i can't quite remember the post you are talking about...
i think it goes like this...
i do have a tendancy to fall over myself apologising for my own existence (when i'm in a self-depreciatory mood)
when i'm in one of those spaces i'm not sure what i'm apologising for (unless it is my own existence)
i am always sorry when people feel hurt in response to something i've said...
because i really don't mean to hurt.
or if i do mean to hurt just a little bit...
when someone actually does feel hurt
then i feel horrified at what i've done.
but re: what i've said... sometimes i'm not sorry for what i've said. i'm sorry that people had the response they did to what i said. i never meant for them to respond that way. but that doesn't necessarily mean that i think i said anything wrong. that i wish i could take back hwat i said. that i wish they didn't feel upset - sure. but that i wish i'd never said it... sometimes not.if i post about SI and someone is triggered...
i'm very sorry they feel triggered :-(
but i don't necessarily wish i could take back what i said...does this make sense?
but...
probably should be getting back to topic...
YES i think that as blocks are increased for subsequent offences...
blocks should be reduced for periods of good behaivour.and that might be the best we are going to get out of bob for a while...
and there is the danger of posters becoming divided..
or talking about all kinds of other changes that aren't going to be happening any time soon...
so that we will go along like this for a while...
and nothing will change...
and the status quo will be preserved.that is how these conversations tend to go...
people get upset...
eventually it is better for bob to look like he is actually considering some change
(preferably one that posters will be divided on so he will never have to do it)
and the status quo is preserved...
sigh.
Posted by Deneb on April 12, 2006, at 22:57:40
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » gabbi~1, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 22:41:52
> YES i think that as blocks are increased for subsequent offences...
> blocks should be reduced for periods of good behaivour.I agree. There should be incentives for good behaviour, otherwise some people (like me) can only see year long blocks in their future...be banned. After a year long block subsequent blocks are also year long blocks and that person is as good as banned... No matter if I was civil for 5 years, if one day I made a mistake I would be banned for a year again and I don't think that's right.
Deneb*
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 23:49:00
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » gabbi~1, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 22:41:52
> ah. i don't think i ever mean to hurt people. but yeah, provoke people to THINK i do think i try and do that - i don't try to provoke people to ANGER i don't think... sometimes i know people are likely to feel upset... re politics... i guess i think / feel that sometimes a little provoking (to THINK) is good for us (even if it does hurt a little) i don't know... i don't know what to say...I do see your point, I don't agree. I've never been one to be provoked to think by someone pushing. I've seen people be passionate, and have good points, and changed my mind.
I've seen people be angry, and explain their thoughts in anger, and changed or expanded my thoughts.
I think for me, it's that when the student is ready the teacher appears. The teacher must be chosen.
At least, that's how it is for many, or I think most, unless they are the type who will follow a cult leader just because he's loud enough..I also think, that the people on politics especially do think, and made considered choices, just as yours are. Perhaps not in the way we like, or the way we and I do mean you and I are sure is correct. It doesn't however mean they are not consciously thinking.
I would take it as quite a heavy insult if someone thought they had to provoke me to think. And as human nature is, most likely instead of thinking about the topic at hand, I would look at the person being provocative and make sure they were absolutely consistant, and perfectly thought through themselves.
And as is the case generally what it does is magnify their flaws, you see their own foibles, as many as your own, simply different, it breeds malcontent I think.Providing alternate views, well that's another thing altogether.
but i don't mean to hurt :-( though sometimes when i'm in a state maybe i do a little :-( but then it is something i beat myself up over (really...) but i'm trying not to beat myself up :-( but maybe i should :-( i don't know... hard issue for me, i'm sorry :-(
>No, if you're aware and honestly trying not to that's what we all do, just in different areas.
Don't beat yourself up, and don't say "I'm trying I know I'm REALLY trying"
My mother used to say that to me, and it's a horrible thing to say about anyone, including yourself.
> > Whatever, specific to politics maybe, maybe not..
>
> yeah. thinking about civilians who are killed... people living on the streets... people living on welfare... it is hard yes. a little bit of hurt... the potential for lots of innocent lives to be saved... i don't know what to say... if people feel upset / pissed then they tend to tune out anyways...
>They do, and how many times can it be said, expecting a different answer. Some of those people though, 2 years from now, will read about it, in a different way, and think.. now I know what she was talking about.
Some won't. It's about timing, its about presentation. I think
> > In some ways you are exquisitely sensitive to people.
>
> :-)
> i try. but yeah in 'some ways' and not so much in others... but i'm trying (maybe i'm very trying) but i am trying...
>
> > You're a bundle of contradictions.
>
> yeah. depends what mood / state i'm in... i had a teacher at school who said i reminded her of this poem about the girl with a curl right in the middle of her forehead and when she was good she was really really good and when she was bad she was horrid. she meant that affectionately too... maybe there is some truth to that. :-( i don't know... :-(
>
> > The apology is hard, because I've read a couple of posts where you said that you that you tend to apologize when you don't mean it.
>
> no. i mean apologies when i say them. i do. i can't quite remember the post you are talking about...
>
Oh it was one to Racer on the admin board a while back, when you were talking about Socrates.
I'm glad that got cleared up too.> i think it goes like this...
>>
> if i post about SI and someone is triggered...
> i'm very sorry they feel triggered :-(
> but i don't necessarily wish i could take back what i said...
>
> does this make sense?Yes, that makes perfect sense.
I'm writing like a robot, because I dare not let any emotion free tonight.
Please don't take it as coldness : )
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 3:36:11
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 20:24:08
> Isn't the cooling off block now in effect? So that if someone has followed the rules for (insert number of months here) and the civility guideline breach wasn't incredibly egregious, they could be blocked for one week no matter how long they've previously been blocked for.
Right. But (a) it can get kind of black-and-white, for example, 1 week if it's been more than x months or 1 year if it's been more, and (b) "cooling off" implies they were hotheaded, but that isn't necessarily the case.
> 3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster)
I do kind of do that already. Grouping together, as above, different types of incivility.
> 4) Depending on circumstances, if someone clearly doesn't understand their PBC, makes an effort to reply that would ordinarily get them a block, but again, clearly doesn't understand what they've done wrong, a deputy ... or fellow poster ... can suggest they rephrase
> 9) If shorter blocks are given, it might be a good idea to briefly give the reason.
Maybe it would be good to be explicit about other reasons, too. For example, the extent to which they may have felt provoked, whether they were uncivil in a number of posts at the same time, whether their posts have already been archived, etc.
> 7) More deputy and fellow poster (and administrator) warnings on what look to be heated threads.
I agree, that's a way Babblers can look out for each other.
> 8) Additions to the standard language on those warnings, and on PBC's and posts that are reactive in nature, that posts be reported on Admin (with only a single line URL and a "Please review this") or by emailing deputies and/or Dr. Bob.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean there. Warnings are different than requests for review...
> 8) I don't think that every PBC or block needs a committee meeting, but perhaps an open minded discussion of longer blocks could be addressed by committee.
Sure, that's reasonable.
> 10) New posters should have added to their PBC's the consequences of further rule infractions, or a very specific link to the FAQ on that.
That's a good idea, too. Which I think you've been putting into practice yourself. :-)
> 6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted.
>
> DinahI like that idea a lot, those are really difficult situations for this community. However: if a number of people foul Poster X, does that necessarily mean it's Poster X who should be asked to modify their behavior?
Also, wouldn't the behavior to modify need to be specified? And if that were a reasonable request, wouldn't it be reasonable to make it a new rule and apply it to everyone? IMO, a new rule is more balanced. Poster X is asked to follow it, and those who commit technical fouls are asked to stop doing so.
--
> This is all so easy to resolve. Dr. Bob could hire an agency to develop a training program to teach the mods how to employ the blocking formulas
>
> greywolfEven better, everyone should understand the formulas! I'm not sure how efficient it is, but there's already a training program: FAQ + Admin. :-)
--
> suppose a poster with one PBC used a vulgur word without the asterisk, then negatively characterized another poster's post which was itself uncivil, then quoted uncivil material in their reply to someone, then mistyped and used another vulgar word accidentally. Under the old system, this person would be now be blocked for 16 weeks. Do we really need to be "protected" from this person for 4 months? It's not that simple. I can't imagine that each uncivil post could lead to an equivalent "amount" of harm. Viewing all uncivil posts as additive just seems too simplistic given the complexity of all the factors related to blocks.
>
> ggBut you'd agree that it would be reasonable for the period of protection for that poster to be longer than that for a poster who posted just one of those posts? It's just how much longer that's the question?
--
> I like to provoke people into thinking and questioning. ... And sometimes people don't like that. ... But I think it is a worthwhile thing to do... ... I try and do this sensitively.
>
> But should we go around making sure what we say doesn't lead to anyone feeling upset?
>
> That would involve selling myself. Censoring myself. It would involve me shutting up about the things I most need to talk about.
>
> I'm sensitive abotu the idea that I need a radical personality overhaul to be fit for human company.
>
> special_kIt's impossible to make sure no one feels upset. At the same time, it can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place. If you're already trying to do that sensitively, aren't you already censoring yourself to some extent? Without having had a radical personality overhaul?
Bob
Posted by ClearSkies on April 13, 2006, at 7:38:42
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 3:36:11
...but every time I look at this thread, I read the post headings as
"the blocking police".
Now ain't that a hoot.CS
Posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2006, at 8:19:11
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 3:36:11
> > Isn't the cooling off block now in effect?
> Right. But (a) it can get kind of black-and-white, for example, 1 week if it's been more than x months or 1 year if it's been more, and
Um, what? I don't follow that at all. 1 year if it's been more than what?
> > 3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster)
>
> I do kind of do that already. Grouping together, as above, different types of incivility.That's great. But not having that information myself makes it hard to make decisions about what to do with incivility. I suppose I will adopt the "when in doubt, PBC" versus block someone when I know they've been blocked or PBC'd before.
> > suppose a poster with one PBC used a vulgur word without the asterisk, then negatively characterized another poster's post which was itself uncivil, then quoted uncivil material in their reply to someone, then mistyped and used another vulgar word accidentally. Under the old system, this person would be now be blocked for 16 weeks. Do we really need to be "protected" from this person for 4 months? It's not that simple. I can't imagine that each uncivil post could lead to an equivalent "amount" of harm. Viewing all uncivil posts as additive just seems too simplistic given the complexity of all the factors related to blocks.
>
> But you'd agree that it would be reasonable for the period of protection for that poster to be longer than that for a poster who posted just one of those posts? It's just how much longer that's the question?I don't know that I'd agree. Suppose these posts happened about 3 or more months apart? Is that different from happening all in the span of a month of posting (between blocks)? I guess I'm looking at the above types of "infractions" as less potentially "harmful" to the community than posts which accuse or put down another poster, or beliefs others hold, etc. Those seem to have a greater likelihood for potential harm than someone mistyping "p*m p*ms" as "p om p*ms" (typed intentionally to demonstrate the point). But then, as we've already discussed, I think the cap on blocking length should be cut down to 4-6 weeks max except in certain outlier situations, which would then require a judgement call and an explanation, imo.
gg
Posted by Dinah on April 13, 2006, at 8:21:15
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 3:36:11
Thank you, Dr. Bob, for giving my post the time for thought.
> > Isn't the cooling off block now in effect? So that if someone has followed the rules for (insert number of months here) and the civility guideline breach wasn't incredibly egregious, they could be blocked for one week no matter how long they've previously been blocked for.
>
> Right. But (a) it can get kind of black-and-white, for example, 1 week if it's been more than x months or 1 year if it's been more, and (b) "cooling off" implies they were hotheaded, but that isn't necessarily the case.Ok, it could be renamed. :) Perhaps an evolving policy, referred to and refined as circumstances apply? It's always hard to understand those things out of context anyway.
>> 3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster)
>
> I do kind of do that already. Grouping together, as above, different types of incivility.Well, even after years of watching you administrate, you still can surprise me. I didn't realize that your spreadsheet (or perfect memory or whatever it is) was so nuanced.
> > 8) Additions to the standard language on those warnings, and on PBC's and posts that are reactive in nature, that posts be reported on Admin (with only a single line URL and a "Please review this") or by emailing deputies and/or Dr. Bob.
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean there. Warnings are different than requests for review...Sorry, I jumped topic I suppose. I meant that until you create the report this post button, that people should be encouraged to just simply report a questionable post by email or simple URL on Admin rather than respond protectively, or angrily. Because I don't hear about some situations until after they're very large situations, while if someone drops me an email or mentions it neutrally on Admin, I could see it earlier. Just trying to keep some situations from getting to be very large.
> > 10) New posters should have added to their PBC's the consequences of further rule infractions, or a very specific link to the FAQ on that.
>
> That's a good idea, too. Which I think you've been putting into practice yourself. :-):) Wasn't sure you'd approve. Glad you do.
> > 6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I like that idea a lot, those are really difficult situations for this community. However: if a number of people foul Poster X, does that necessarily mean it's Poster X who should be asked to modify their behavior?
>
> Also, wouldn't the behavior to modify need to be specified? And if that were a reasonable request, wouldn't it be reasonable to make it a new rule and apply it to everyone? IMO, a new rule is more balanced. Poster X is asked to follow it, and those who commit technical fouls are asked to stop doing so.I know that we differ on this topic, and that you prefer to develop general rules in response to specific situations, while I'd prefer you keep the flexibility to recognize it when you see it, and just ask to cease and desist any particular thing without creating a rule about it. Perhaps it's the mom in me and the teacher in you. I know that even the best of people can find ways to violate the spirit of family rules without technically violating them, and that sometimes it's ok to just ask "Could you please stop that" without adding it formally as a rule. Especially since sometimes context counts. I mean, you can't make a rule about looking at someone, but sometimes you can say stop looking at someone for the time being.
Posted by Dinah on April 13, 2006, at 8:23:27
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 13, 2006, at 8:21:15
Ok, that last example probably came as a result of being an older sister...
Posted by special_k on April 13, 2006, at 13:05:53
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 3:36:11
> > I like to provoke people into thinking and questioning. ... And sometimes people don't like that. ... But I think it is a worthwhile thing to do... ... I try and do this sensitively.
> > But should we go around making sure what we say doesn't lead to anyone feeling upset?
> > That would involve selling myself. Censoring myself. It would involve me shutting up about the things I most need to talk about.
> > I'm sensitive abotu the idea that I need a radical personality overhaul to be fit for human company.
> It's impossible to make sure no one feels upset.
Yup. And it is pointless to try because people will have their idiosyncratic sensitivities.>At the same time, it can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
Charming. Thanks for that. I guess I need to be prepared to spend 1/3 of my salary for that. Well thanks very much. Nice you would prefer me to shut up though. Thanks for that... Well there is something nice about being honest I suppose...
> If you're already trying to do that sensitively, aren't you already censoring yourself to some extent? Without having had a radical personality overhaul?
No. I don't consider being sentitive to others / taking others into account to be censoring myself. I consider that being sentitive to others / taking others into account... Changes the nature of the experience somewhat.
But of of course... Helping others... The real aim of the site... And once you have shown you are capable of that...
Well thanks very much...
It is things like that that gets me wondering about the ethics of the site...
But maybe I should just keep that thought to myself?
Whatever...
Posted by special_k on April 13, 2006, at 13:12:52
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by special_k on April 13, 2006, at 13:05:53
Because that is what i find here.
I try and talk to others (and yeah I'm a lot misguided at times) but I try and talk to others...BUT WHO TALKS TO ME???????????
Who talks to me about what is troubling me the most?
Oh yeah... It is about supporting others and going through stuff again and again that they could find in the archives if they could be bothered searching.
Who helps ME?
I try and help others. I do.
But who helps ME?
Yeah well whatever... Catering to the masses and all... Whatever... DOn't get me wrong, I've gotten help here via people who care but re the issues who helps me?
Oh yeah... That is what therapy is about.
Well nice for some I suppose.
Why not just make credit cards part of using the site and then the purpose is clear enough...
And then the limits are clear enoughWhatever.. f*ck that ... Had enough now.
Well thanks very much.
Posted by special_k on April 13, 2006, at 20:19:27
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 3:36:11
at about six in the morning
<cringe>
bowing out now...i have trouble with the notion of censoring expression...
i mean i understand that some things are inappropriate (in the sense that you would get blocked for them...)
but...
i try not to dwell on uncivil thoughts :-(
and you can rephrase them...sorry.
Posted by special_k on April 13, 2006, at 22:39:29
In reply to Re: guess who was posting while drunk..., posted by special_k on April 13, 2006, at 20:19:27
okay so last one...
last one...i do worry (a lot) about whether i should just shut up.
about politics...
(but there is a politics board so you would think...)
about what i say more generally...yeah probably should
there is probably a middle ground...i don't know what to say.
i know that it has been suggested that people here should all be in therapy or whatever.
yeah i guess there are limits to what you can say...
to what you can say without that biting you really...i struggle.
i do,mostly about shame...
but i don't know what you are talking about.
save the philosophy for IRL...
maybe that is it.
i don't know.i don't know what to say.
but i've been spinning...
for the last couple months.and while i like to think that the boards help
help people through rough times
maybe they don't
i'm always amazed with some people...
when thy get unwell they withdraw...
i get the opposite thing going on.in ways my thing is worse...
because i mess things up
i tihnk i should just go away
i don't know
Posted by Deneb on April 13, 2006, at 23:03:51
In reply to Re: guess who was posting while drunk..., posted by special_k on April 13, 2006, at 22:39:29
I tend to post more when I'm not doing well too.
I wish I could help you better.
You help me a lot. I wish I could do more to help you.
((((((((((((special k))))))))))))))
Deneb*
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2006, at 0:41:26
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 13, 2006, at 8:21:15
> > it can get kind of black-and-white, for example, 1 week if it's been [less] than x months or 1 year if it's been more
>
> Um, what? I don't follow that at all. 1 year if it's been more than what?Sorry, that was a typo, plus my "x" = Dinah's "(insert number of months here)".
> not having that information myself makes it hard to make decisions about what to do with incivility.
I understand, getting deputies that information would be an issue, too.
> > you'd agree that it would be reasonable for the period of protection for that poster to be longer than that for a poster who posted just one of those posts? It's just how much longer that's the question?
>
> I don't know that I'd agree. Suppose these posts happened about 3 or more months apart? Is that different from happening all in the span of a month of posting (between blocks)?Whatever the time period, 4 posts during it would be different than 1, right?
> I guess I'm looking at the above types of "infractions" as less potentially "harmful" to the community than posts which accuse or put down another poster, or beliefs others hold, etc.
>
> ggI agree, there are differences. So how much longer would be the question. Would you like to propose a grouping of types of infractions based on potential harmfulness? :-)
--
> until you create the report this post button ... people should be encouraged to just simply report a questionable post by email or simple URL on Admin rather than respond protectively, or angrily.
Encouraged how? People are always encouraged to respond civilly...
> sometimes it's ok to just ask "Could you please stop that" without adding it formally as a rule. Especially since sometimes context counts. I mean, you can't make a rule about looking at someone, but sometimes you can say stop looking at someone for the time being.
>
> DinahWhat about making a rule about looking at people in certain contexts? And why would it be better for the person doing the looking rather than the people being looked at to modify their behavior?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 14, 2006, at 7:12:30
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2006, at 0:41:26
You clearly weren't the older sister.
You'd understand if you were ever an older sister.
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 14, 2006, at 11:12:36
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 14, 2006, at 7:12:30
"This is my side of the back seat and this is your side..
"Okay"
"Take your pinky off my side!"
Posted by AuntieMel on April 15, 2006, at 9:51:54
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2006, at 0:41:26
This sounds a lot like the 'point system' I started talking to you about ages ago.
I still haven't fleshed it out.....
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2006, at 19:19:54
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on April 15, 2006, at 9:51:54
> This sounds a lot like the 'point system' I started talking to you about ages ago.
You were ahead of the curve! :-)
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.