![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2006, at 19:41:40
In reply to Re: Behavior is separate from the whole, posted by madeline on June 21, 2006, at 17:47:28
Isn't it true that people are allowed to vent here? That's what Lar was doing and he didn't mention any names. Am I to assume I know who he's venting about cause I didn't know. Thought it was healthy for him to vent and get it out his system. He didn't hurt anyone. Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2006, at 20:00:20
In reply to Re: Behavior is separate from the whole, posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2006, at 19:41:40
> Isn't it true that people are allowed to vent here?
Not necessarily. From the FAQ: "Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place."
> He didn't hurt anyone.
That doesn't mean that civility rules don't apply, and there is evidence to the contrary anyway.
gg
Posted by Jakeman on June 21, 2006, at 20:08:14
In reply to Re: Behavior is separate from the whole, posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2006, at 19:41:40
Phillipa, The unlying message I get is that we are all supposed to be "nice" here. Dr. Bob has used the term "positive" in some discussions. This unreal expectation creates a dysfunctional environment, which I find ironic for a forum dedicated to mental health. I'm feeling real discouraged about all this.
warm regards, Jake
> Isn't it true that people are allowed to vent here? That's what Lar was doing and he didn't mention any names. Am I to assume I know who he's venting about cause I didn't know. Thought it was healthy for him to vent and get it out his system. He didn't hurt anyone. Phillipa
Posted by Racer on June 21, 2006, at 20:31:44
In reply to Re: Unbelievable. Just unbelievable., posted by verne on June 21, 2006, at 17:57:47
> Instead, if there's true harassment - such as, following another poster around in a clear attempt to torment them - administration should step in and take action.
>
> this is what I be thinking on the subject.
>
> verneWhile that seems like a very good idea, harassmant can be very subjective. Recently, I felt quite harassed by another poster here, and -- while a few other people brought it up to me -- it wasn't necessarily something that shrieked "HARASSMENT!" I may have felt uncomfortable about it -- OK, as it happens, I did feel uncomfortable about it -- but the other poster hadn't overtly broken any rules, and my discomfort really was my responsibility.
So, while the DNP volleys are distressing -- and sometimes unnecessary, in my opinion -- they may still be better than asking the administration here to step in on what might be harassment.
Besides, part of improved mental health is learning to deal with that sort of thing. Learning to say, "If I ignore it, it will stop," or "So'N'So's posts usually annoy me, so I won't read them," or even, "Today I really feel the need to make myself suffer, and so I will read all the posts on the Admin board in order to wallow in my own pain." (And no, that's NOT why I'm reading this thread...)
Anyway, I just thought I'd throw in another set of thoughts. Half formed, because my brain hurts, but thoughts of a sort nonetheless...
Posted by wildcardII on June 21, 2006, at 20:57:10
In reply to what??? 10 wks » Dr. Bob, posted by wildcardII on June 21, 2006, at 14:16:57
i have *attempted* to separate the issues throughout the entire thread and just do not see any way of justifying a 10 week block. maybe i missed something that others see but i'm not getting it. he complied w/ pbc's (from what i got) and cannot understand what was said/done so wrong that he's so severely punished....maybe that's b/c i disagree w/ blocks being given related in any way of past offenses???? everyone needs time to cool off now and then but 10 weeks is overkill imo...
Posted by sleepygirl on June 21, 2006, at 22:07:44
In reply to what??? 10 wks » Dr. Bob, posted by wildcardII on June 21, 2006, at 14:16:57
how much animosity may have been behind some less than "obvious" statements, not that it is my place to judge of course...
it is difficult, but yes I do believe the block is excessive
Posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 23:11:07
In reply to what??? 10 wks » Dr. Bob, posted by wildcardII on June 21, 2006, at 14:16:57
Sorry, I put this on the other board. I'm re moving it here, and hope my other message can be deleted by someone. Thanks, Jost
> >
> PS: I'm trying out a new system:
>
> previous block: x weeks
> period of time since previous block: x weeks
> uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes/no
> particularly uncivil: yes/no
> different type of incivility: /yesno
> clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: yes/no
> provoked: yes/no
> uncivil in multiple posts at same time: yes/no
> already archived: yes/no
>
>How does this formula work?
It seems that you take the previous block and subtract the weeks since that block; then you apparently take that and multiply by 2 (or so, depending on whether you end up with a 0, in which case you add a number-- how is that number calculated?)
And what about all the other aggravating/mitigrating factors? How do they affect the length or even application of a block?
Is there a FAQ where this type of detail is laid out?
Jost
PS I'm very very saddened by the unfolding of events in this last few days and weeks, as I read them. I don't know the people involved, but it is so very very sad.
I'm sure there is limited time and resources here for working with people through complicated and disruptive experiences with other members of the board. But I wish there were some other way of dealing with people who make a contribution, and whose pain spills over.
I honestly don't know how these exchanges were evoked, but couldn't the people involved be put on moderation or something?
Or maybe some other intervention?
Jost
Posted by Jakeman on June 22, 2006, at 0:49:47
In reply to Re: what??? 10 wks, posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 23:11:07
Jost, very important and relevant questions. I hope you get a response.
Jake
> Sorry, I put this on the other board. I'm re moving it here, and hope my other message can be deleted by someone. Thanks, Jost
>
>
>
> > >
> > PS: I'm trying out a new system:
> >
> > previous block: x weeks
> > period of time since previous block: x weeks
> > uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes/no
> > particularly uncivil: yes/no
> > different type of incivility: /yesno
> > clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: yes/no
> > provoked: yes/no
> > uncivil in multiple posts at same time: yes/no
> > already archived: yes/no
> >
> >
>
> How does this formula work?
>
> It seems that you take the previous block and subtract the weeks since that block; then you apparently take that and multiply by 2 (or so, depending on whether you end up with a 0, in which case you add a number-- how is that number calculated?)
>
> And what about all the other aggravating/mitigrating factors? How do they affect the length or even application of a block?
>
> Is there a FAQ where this type of detail is laid out?
>
> Jost
>
> PS I'm very very saddened by the unfolding of events in this last few days and weeks, as I read them. I don't know the people involved, but it is so very very sad.
>
> I'm sure there is limited time and resources here for working with people through complicated and disruptive experiences with other members of the board. But I wish there were some other way of dealing with people who make a contribution, and whose pain spills over.
>
> I honestly don't know how these exchanges were evoked, but couldn't the people involved be put on moderation or something?
>
> Or maybe some other intervention?
>
> Jost
Posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2006, at 1:02:29
In reply to Re: what??? 10 wks, posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 23:11:07
Posted by wildcardII on June 22, 2006, at 1:24:37
In reply to what??? 10 wks » Dr. Bob, posted by wildcardII on June 21, 2006, at 14:16:57
that i am not putting the fault on Gabbi....there are always 2 sides to every story and there is much we do not know...just wanted to say that.
Posted by Declan on June 22, 2006, at 2:36:18
In reply to Re: Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. » verne, posted by Racer on June 21, 2006, at 20:31:44
Posted by Jakeman on June 22, 2006, at 19:55:49
In reply to About venting » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2006, at 20:00:20
>
> Not necessarily. From the FAQ: "Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place."
>Herein lies a problem with the FAQ. How are we supposed to interpret a statement like this? It is not clear, and worse, it is self-contradictory.
It's like saying "...different points of view are good and encouraged but don't do it here."
warm regards, Jake
Posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2006, at 20:58:06
In reply to Re: About venting » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on June 22, 2006, at 19:55:49
Or maybe it's saying, "There's lots you can vent about, but not necessarily about everything you may wish to."
But yes, given that it can be interpreted in mulitiple ways, it doesn't seem all that clear. What I get out of it more than anything else is that we are not free to say whatever we wish. There are limitations. I guess maybe that is there as a counter to anyone who might cry "Freedom of speech!" in response to blocks.
But that's my inference. Only Dr. Bob can say for sure what he meant by that.
gg
Posted by Jakeman on June 22, 2006, at 21:11:18
In reply to Re: About venting » Jakeman, posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2006, at 20:58:06
GG, I'm a big advocate of clear communication. I think the good Doc should provide clarification- revisions.
warmly, Jake
> Or maybe it's saying, "There's lots you can vent about, but not necessarily about everything you may wish to."
>
> But yes, given that it can be interpreted in mulitiple ways, it doesn't seem all that clear. What I get out of it more than anything else is that we are not free to say whatever we wish. There are limitations. I guess maybe that is there as a counter to anyone who might cry "Freedom of speech!" in response to blocks.
>
> But that's my inference. Only Dr. Bob can say for sure what he meant by that.
>
> gg
Posted by Jost on June 22, 2006, at 23:36:15
In reply to Re: About venting » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on June 22, 2006, at 21:11:18
Not meaning to be difficult here, Jake, but I'd respectfully disagree with gg when she says that only Dr. Bob can tell you what he meant.
This may sound kind of silly, and technical, but sometimes the person making the statement isn't the best interpreter of the statement itself. Not only for psychological reasons, but because making interpretations is a skill, and also a talent, and Dr. Bob may not be as strong as a reader (ie interpreter) as he is as a therapist or facilitator of an online interaction and support group (if that's the best way to describe this place). (Or he may be--I don't know---I'm not saying he isn't.)
He may actually be the Decider (to use a word), and in that sense is the final arbiter of which interpretations are going to be enforced (although that doesn't make them right actually).
Also, in a practical sense, Dr. Bob can't be there when each of us is interpreting and expressing what we have to say in line with/or out of line with what the "being civil" rule means. So, we have to be our own best interpreters.
I personally think there are issues here that can't be teased out, and I also hope I don't fall afoul of the rule, in a moment of emotion or in expressing an idea that may be (in Bob's mind, ultimately) hurtful or too disturbing.
It's a matter of poise, I think. And we all lose our poise or balance when we're in the heat of the moment. And at that point, it can seem crucial, to express our thought, our feeling--even if later, we wonder what possessed us.
So Bob and the deputies are doing their best in a rather murky situation (again IMO) jto be fair, and protective-- but my or your lights may not be theirs. It's more a question of authority than true justice, and also just living with the uncertainty about exactly how an impassioned or disturbed/disturbing thought/feeling will fall on someone ( many someone else's) ear.
Jost
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 4:31:51
In reply to Re: About venting » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on June 22, 2006, at 21:11:18
> I think Larry Hoover is Babble Royalty (no sarcasm intended) and should *never* be blocked.
I think Larry would get lots of votes, but I'm the only one who can't be blocked.
> if there's true harassment ... administration should step in and take action. Leaving this to the posters encourages DNP *warfare* - dueling DNP's.
>
> verneIf each side issued a DNP, wouldn't that end any warfare?
--
> > PS: I'm trying out a new system:
> >
> > previous block: x weeks
> > period of time since previous block: x weeks
> > uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes/no
> > particularly uncivil: yes/no
> > different type of incivility: /yesno
> > clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: yes/no
> > provoked: yes/no
> > uncivil in multiple posts at same time: yes/no
> > already archived: yes/no
>
> How does this formula work?
>
> It seems that you take the previous block and subtract the weeks since that block; then you apparently take that and multiply by 2 (or so, depending on whether you end up with a 0, in which case you add a number-- how is that number calculated?)"New" means not completely worked out yet. But the general idea is:
new block = (old block - time off for civil behavior) * multiplier
time off = weeks since previous block / 10
multiplier
= 1 if provoked
= 3 if toward a particular individual or group, particularly uncivil, or in multiple posts
= 2 otherwiseAnd first blocks (or blocks when the number to be multiplied is < or = 0) are 1 week.
> I'm very very saddened by the unfolding of events in this last few days and weeks, as I read them. I don't know the people involved, but it is so very very sad.
I agree.
> I honestly don't know how these exchanges were evoked, but couldn't the people involved be put on moderation or something?
That's been discussed, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/596986.html
> Or maybe some other intervention?
>
> JostI'm open to suggestions...
--
> > Or maybe it's saying, "There's lots you can vent about, but not necessarily about everything you may wish to."
>
> I'm a big advocate of clear communication. I think the good Doc should provide clarification- revisions.
>
> JakeThese deputies, they translate very well. :-) Is her restatement clear enough?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 4:31:57
In reply to Re: what??? 10 wks » wildcardII, posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2006, at 15:49:51
> Why are people trying to ruin to love of Lar and Amy.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 23, 2006, at 7:40:25
In reply to Re: About venting, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 4:31:51
>
> ...I'm the only one who can't be blocked.
>Oh, I can block you Bob.
Posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 8:17:33
In reply to Re: About venting, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 4:31:51
I believe as you consider Larry to have been provoked the correct multiplier would be one and the block would be 5 weeks. Please recalculate. Naturally I oppose all blocks and think it would be more compassionate to simply delete several posts on the relationship board. Thanks
>
> previous block: 6 weeks
period of time since previous block: 13 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: yes
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 13 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 6 - 1 = 5 weeks. And if we double that, that's 10 weeks.
>
> new block = (old block - time off for civil behavior) * multiplier
>
> time off = weeks since previous block / 10
>
> multiplier
> = 1 if provoked
> = 3 if toward a particular individual or group, particularly uncivil, or in multiple posts
> = 2 otherwise
>
> And first blocks (or blocks when the number to be multiplied is < or = 0) are 1 week.
>
> > I'm very very saddened by the unfolding of events in this last few days and weeks, as I read them. I don't know the people involved, but it is so very very sad.
>
> I agree.
>
> > I honestly don't know how these exchanges were evoked, but couldn't the people involved be put on moderation or something?
>
> That's been discussed, see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/596986.html
>
> > Or maybe some other intervention?
> >
> > Jost
>
> I'm open to suggestions...
>
> --
>
> > > Or maybe it's saying, "There's lots you can vent about, but not necessarily about everything you may wish to."
> >
> > I'm a big advocate of clear communication. I think the good Doc should provide clarification- revisions.
> >
> > Jake
>
> These deputies, they translate very well. :-) Is her restatement clear enough?
>
> Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 23, 2006, at 9:07:37
In reply to Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 8:17:33
> I believe as you consider Larry to have been provoked the correct multiplier would be one and the block would be 5 weeks. Please recalculate.
Well, I don't know how Dr. Bob defines "uncivil in multiple posts at same time", but considering there were two PBC's and a Please Rephrase within a very short period of time, I expected that this criterion would be a "yes". If that's correct, then that would require recalculating, too. But as I said, I could be interpreting that differently than Dr. Bob.
Posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 10:26:30
In reply to Re: Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » zazenduck, posted by gardenergirl on June 23, 2006, at 9:07:37
> > I believe as you consider Larry to have been provoked the correct multiplier would be one and the block would be 5 weeks. Please recalculate.
>
> Well, I don't know how Dr. Bob defines "uncivil in multiple posts at same time", but considering there were two PBC's and a Please Rephrase within a very short period of time, I expected that this criterion would be a "yes".Actually Bob said no to that criterion if you recheck the original post. I think same means since the last warning not within a short period of time.
Of course he can do anything he wants to.
I believe the most compassionate thing would be to delete posts which reveal personal information about other posters without that poster's consent.....this would of course include your "mistake" on the thread above about Estella's block. I was dismayed by your choices and the consequences of those choices for others who are not allowed to post at this time.
Was there a reason you didn't sanction yourself for revealing that ? You know I am opposed to blocks and wouldn't support that. If Dr Bob blocks you I shall protest. I was wondering about your reasoning if you would care to share.
I don't think there was any intent to harm in your post. But I think it is invalidating to judge others' intent and apply sanctions based on intent. I also think it is impossible unless you are a mind reader.
This doesn't mean that I think you are a bad person or that I do not like you.
>
>
Posted by gardenergirl on June 23, 2006, at 14:24:22
In reply to Re: Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » gardenergirl, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 10:26:30
>> ...I expected that this criterion would be a "yes".
>
> Actually Bob said no to that criterion if you recheck the original post.Ummm....yeaaah, (she says in her best Lumbergh-esque voice). He did mark that one no. That's a rather important element to the development of my comment.
>I was dismayed by your choices and the consequences of those choices for others who are not allowed to post at this time.
As was I when said poster brought it to my attention.
> Was there a reason you didn't sanction yourself for revealing that ?
Given that there are competent others who could sanction me if appropriate, I see no need to take on a dual role regarding my post.
> This doesn't mean that I think you are a bad person or that I do not like you.
Well, I'd make a kissy face, but I don't know you well enough. ;) So I'll just say ditto.
gg
Posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 16:15:45
In reply to Re: Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » zazenduck, posted by gardenergirl on June 23, 2006, at 14:24:22
> >> ...I expected that this criterion would be a "yes".
> >
> > Actually Bob said no to that criterion if you recheck the original post.
>
> Ummm....yeaaah, (she says in her best Lumbergh-esque voice). He did mark that one no. That's a rather important element to the development of my comment.
>
Sorry I'm lost. Which comment are you talking about?Were you all ready aware of Bob's post that said no to the multiple uncivil posts when you wrote the first post?
And how was it a rather important element ?
I can't understand what you mean. Sorry I don't know who Lumbherg is and I am unable to decipher your tone or message. Could you try again please?Thanks
Posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 19:56:23
In reply to Re: Sorry I don't understand, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 16:15:45
But he did say yes to particular individual for 3. I missed that.
So I believe he must have subtracted 1 from 3 to get 2.I didn't realize you were saying you thought Bob had made a MISTAKE about the multiple posts. I thought you meant you had expected it but Bob didn't do it. Good Questioning of Authority there GG!!!!!!!!!!
I hope you weren't making fun of me. That would make me feel sad. Thanks for not making kissy faces at me. That's frowned on in my culture. I appreciate your sensitivity.
YOU CAN BLOCK ME ANYTIME YOU WANT TO
No reason needed. No hard feelings :)Your friend
Zazenduck
> > >> ...I expected that this criterion would be a "yes".
> > >
> > > Actually Bob said no to that criterion if you recheck the original post.
> >
> > Ummm....yeaaah, (she says in her best Lumbergh-esque voice). He did mark that one no. That's a rather important element to the development of my comment.
> >
>
> Sorry I'm lost. Which comment are you talking about?
>
> Were you all ready aware of Bob's post that said no to the multiple uncivil posts when you wrote the first post?
>
> And how was it a rather important element ?
>
>
> I can't understand what you mean. Sorry I don't know who Lumbherg is and I am unable to decipher your tone or message. Could you try again please?
>
> Thanks
Posted by gardenergirl on June 24, 2006, at 3:29:00
In reply to look at me !look at me! I figured it out!, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 19:56:23
Lumbergh is the character played by Gary Cole. He had a rather distinctive way of speaking.
Great movie.
gg
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.