![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 51. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
Dr. Bob and psycho-babble community,
[*note- I kindly request all general comments regarding the necessity of blocks, or blocks to specific posters, emotional and psychological sequelae of blocks etc. to another thread.]
I would like this thread to focus exclusively on the mathematics of the current block length system.
In addressing the problems of the exponential growth of block lengths, Dr. Bob instituted a new algorithm of block length determination.
I would like Dr. Bob to explain his reasoning on why it is necessary to round DOWN when determining the reduction in block length that is given for civil behavior since the previous block.
As I am currently prohibited from linking you to a post which contains incivilities, I am unable to link you to posts by Dr. Bob where he metes out the length of the block. (Isn't that droll?)
Instead, you will have to take for granted my honest copying and pasting from the block posts I will use as examples to illustrate a bias in how block lengths are determined.
**************
Example 1.previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 51 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: yes
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 51 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 5 weeks. If we apply that to her previous block, that takes her back to 0. And if we go from there, that's 1 week.
**********
Example 2.previous block: 8 weeks
period of time since previous block: 65 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: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 65 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 6 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 8 - 6 = 2 weeks. And if we triple that, that's 6 weeks.
*************
Example 3.previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 12 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: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 12 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to your previous block, that takes you back to 0. And if we go from there, that's 1 week.
***********
Example 4.previous block: 4 weeks
period of time since previous block: 18 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: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 18 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 4 - 1 = 3 weeks. And if we triple that, that's 9 weeks.
***************************
I believe that in the spirit of a supportive website, posters should be given as much credit as possible for their civil periods following a block. Of particular concern is when the previous block occured during the previous "exponential growth" block length algorithm period.
In example 1, a year has elapsed since a block. This is enough time to give the poster a "clean slate", or a zero, from which the current block will be added to.
In example 2, well over a year has passed since a block. However, 65 divided by 10 will be rounded DOWN, to be a reduction in 6 weeks. Since the post from over a year ago (which must have occured during the exponential growth phase) was 8 weeks, there is now a positive, non-zero number to be multiplied by the factor of three, yielding a lengthy block of six weeks. [one can only imagine how hard it would be not to be able to take one's medicine, talk with one's friends, or see one's therapist for six weeks!]
I feel it's important to recognize the impressive accomplishment of civil behavior for 65 weeks, and in rounding DOWN, Dr. Bob essentially says that five weeks of being civil is of no consequence.
In example 3, a poster's slate is wiped clean after 12 weeks of civil behavior. Interestingly, the previous block was only a week in length, and occured during the phase since the new algorithm had been implemented.
In example 4, a poster has been behaving civilly for 18 weeks. However, because the algorithm rounds DOWN, eight entire weeks of civil behavior are ignored (nearly half of the time elapsed since the previous block!)
I feel it's important to recognize the impressive accomplishment of civil behavior for 18 weeks, and in rounding DOWN, Dr. Bob essentially says that eight weeks of being civil is of no consequence.
Because this rounding DOWN occurs before the multiplication factor of three, Dr. Bob's algorithm suggests that 8ignored weeks x 3 = 24 weeks of being civil are of no consequence.
*****************I would like to call for review of these particular aspects of the new block length algorithm.
1) why round DOWN?
2) why penalize posters whose previous blocks were determined by the previous system (exponential block length increases)? Why should these posters be treated differently than posters who have blocks under the current system?
3) why is the reduction factor applied before multiplication?
4) why not issue a set of guidelines by which one's "record" can be wiped clean?
My modest proposal is that a block of 1 week be expunged from the records after minimum 5 weeks of civil behavior. 2 weeks = 10 weeks and so on.
Futhermore, I believe that a reduction in block length should be taken into account without rounding, and after multiplication.
Let's take Example 4. One possible algorithm for determining block length is as follows.
If we take a block length of 2 weeks (for being uncivil towards a particular individual or group) and add 4 weeks (the length of the previous block), we have 6 weeks.
Because your previous block occured 18 weeks ago, if we divide that by 10, that is a reduction of 1.8 weeks.
your block will expire in 6.0 - 1.2 = 3.2 weeks, or 22.4 days
Only at this final stage of calculation is it appropriate to round to the nearest significant unit, in this case days. (Dr. Bob, surely you haven't forgotten one of the basic tenets of the natural sciences? I wouldn't want my pdoc to round my weight to the nearest ton, then figure out the appropriate dose at that point!)
The block length would be
22 days.
What do posters and Dr. Bob think about this?
Thanks for your input
-Li
Posted by mike lynch on October 20, 2006, at 15:12:40
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
Posted by MidnightBlue on October 20, 2006, at 15:33:34
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
Li,
I think the whole thing is confusing. You are one smart girl. My brain is too foggy to figure out any of this. Too many years since college.......
MB
Posted by notfred on October 20, 2006, at 18:35:27
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
> Dr. Bob and psycho-babble community,
>
> [*note- I kindly request all general comments regarding the necessity of blocks, or blocks to specific posters, emotional and psychological sequelae of blocks etc. to another thread.]
>
> I would like this thread to focus exclusively on the mathematics of the current block length system.
>
> In addressing the problems of the exponential growth of block lengths, Dr. Bob instituted a new algorithm of block length determination.
>
The current system was implemented due to the discussions on this list. History tells us 2 things 1) Blocks are here to stay 2) The more complaints, the more rules we get to the blocking system.
Posted by notfred on October 20, 2006, at 19:53:55
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
Oh well, in for a penny in for a pound.
Li, I totally agree with you about the rounding.
I thought the rounding worked the same as it does
in math. 5 or 6 is the breakpoint at which you round up. Thanks for pointing that out.This seems to have an unfortunate effect. People who have remained civil for days ending with 5-9 are penalized more (they round down and loose more days) than people who have remained civil for
x days, where x is a number that ends in 0-4.
So people who have remained civil longer are assigned a greater penalty.
Posted by muffled on October 20, 2006, at 21:00:14
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
Ohhh!
VERY good Li.
Very logical etc. Bob'd proly like that!
Good for you!
I like it too.
More fair, IF you must be blocked,
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 21:26:39
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm?, posted by mike lynch on October 20, 2006, at 15:12:40
> People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
Hi Mike,
I find your response to my post offensive.Do you think my voice is unimportant?
If I thought I had zero chance of changing anything, I would not have spent so much time searching archives for four contrasting examples.
Perhaps I have little chance of changing Bob's mind, but I cannot admit that I do not hold out some small sliver of hope.
That hope is all we have sometimes. If you find the system hopeless, perhaps you should write your own thread about that, rather than question my ability to make a difference.
If nobody says anything? If we all hang our heads and accept the current mathematics, despite the idiosyncrasies I demonstrated?
Well, learned helplessness and detached acceptance of abuse are some of my past daemons. Part of my healing process is that I'm learning how to speak my own voice. It sounded to me that you may think my voice of no consequence, but it's all I have.
Sometimes it only takes one voice, Mike Lynch.
-Li
Posted by Toph on October 20, 2006, at 22:04:26
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
I would like to see a poll of posters to evaluate if having a complicated blocking algorithm: (yes or no)
a) makes the punishment system seem more fair
b) makes Bob appear more compassionate
c) encourages posters to be more civil
d) makes disciplined posters feel as if considered circumstances mitigated their punishment
Posted by ClearSkies on October 20, 2006, at 22:39:35
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm? » mike lynch, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 21:26:39
> > People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
>
> Hi Mike,
> I find your response to my post offensive.
>
I interpreted Mike Lynch's comment to be about the futility of trying to change the block system. I don't think he was intending to denigrate others' discussions and suggestion to improve it, rather, that these efforts haven't had much success in the past.ClearSkies
Posted by muffled on October 20, 2006, at 23:51:19
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm? » Lindenblüte, posted by ClearSkies on October 20, 2006, at 22:39:35
> > > People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > I find your response to my post offensive.
> >
> I interpreted Mike Lynch's comment to be about the futility of trying to change the block system. I don't think he was intending to denigrate others' discussions and suggestion to improve it, rather, that these efforts haven't had much success in the past.
>
> ClearSkiesWell right now I'm fighting a major anxiety attack and can't find my xanax and am trying to distract, but anyways I think in the time I've been here, which isn't long. I think the blockings have changed some. I think mebbe Bob is trying to cvome up w/something, and I think something mathmatgical like this will appeaL to him, HGowever I been wrong before.
Yeah well, i'l,l just keep rocking away
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by mike lynch on October 21, 2006, at 2:07:02
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm? » mike lynch, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 21:26:39
> > People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
>
> Hi Mike,
> I find your response to my post offensive.
>
> Do you think my voice is unimportant?
>
> If I thought I had zero chance of changing anything, I would not have spent so much time searching archives for four contrasting examples.
>
> Perhaps I have little chance of changing Bob's mind, but I cannot admit that I do not hold out some small sliver of hope.
>
> That hope is all we have sometimes. If you find the system hopeless, perhaps you should write your own thread about that, rather than question my ability to make a difference.
>
> If nobody says anything? If we all hang our heads and accept the current mathematics, despite the idiosyncrasies I demonstrated?
>
> Well, learned helplessness and detached acceptance of abuse are some of my past daemons. Part of my healing process is that I'm learning how to speak my own voice. It sounded to me that you may think my voice of no consequence, but it's all I have.
>
> Sometimes it only takes one voice, Mike Lynch.
>
> -Li
>
My post was more of a jab at the babble administration being unwilling to consider constant member complaints about the blocking policy, not your attempt to speak out about it. Sorry if it was taken the wrong way.
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 21, 2006, at 9:04:10
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm?, posted by mike lynch on October 21, 2006, at 2:07:02
> > > People have been complaining about the flawed block system for years. You really think your comments will change anything?
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > I find your response to my post offensive.
> >
> > Do you think my voice is unimportant?
> >
> > If I thought I had zero chance of changing anything, I would not have spent so much time searching archives for four contrasting examples.
> >
> > Perhaps I have little chance of changing Bob's mind, but I cannot admit that I do not hold out some small sliver of hope.
> >
> > That hope is all we have sometimes. If you find the system hopeless, perhaps you should write your own thread about that, rather than question my ability to make a difference.
> >
> > If nobody says anything? If we all hang our heads and accept the current mathematics, despite the idiosyncrasies I demonstrated?
> >
> > Well, learned helplessness and detached acceptance of abuse are some of my past daemons. Part of my healing process is that I'm learning how to speak my own voice. It sounded to me that you may think my voice of no consequence, but it's all I have.
> >
> > Sometimes it only takes one voice, Mike Lynch.
> >
> > -Li
> >
>
>
> My post was more of a jab at the babble administration being unwilling to consider constant member complaints about the blocking policy, not your attempt to speak out about it. Sorry if it was taken the wrong way.I apologize to you too, because I may have spoken hastily. When I said that I found your post offensive, that's not exactly right. I felt offended, but actually your post was not offensive.
Sorry about my incivility.
Sometimes trying to change things on babble feels like trying to parallel park a cruise liner. I totally understand the instinctive reaction of frustration at the "system". I think that's pretty justified.
Well, nice to meet you, Mike, even if it is under these less than ideal circumstances.
-Li
Posted by muffled on October 21, 2006, at 11:54:06
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm?, posted by mike lynch on October 21, 2006, at 2:07:02
Posted by Toph on October 21, 2006, at 13:30:46
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Toph on October 20, 2006, at 22:04:26
> I would like to see a poll of posters to evaluate if having a complicated blocking algorithm: (yes or no)
> a) makes the punishment system seem more fair
> b) makes Bob appear more compassionate
> c) encourages posters to be more civil
> d) makes disciplined posters feel as if considered circumstances mitigated their punishment
>I would have to respond with identical answers to all four.
Posted by damos on October 21, 2006, at 19:33:46
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
Hi Li,
Thanks for your post, it's much appreciated. It is a valuable contribution and I've more to say on the subject. Just wanted to say thanks and that I'm really glad we have people like you here. I'm up for some tilting at windmills if you are.
Hope al your works stuff went okay this week.
Take good care okay,
Damos
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 22, 2006, at 8:29:32
In reply to Re: Block length algorithm poll, posted by Toph on October 21, 2006, at 13:30:46
> > I would like to see a poll of posters to evaluate if having a complicated blocking algorithm: (yes or no)
> > a) makes the punishment system seem more fair
yes It "seems" more fair, but on closer examination has flaws that need to be addressed (i.e. the rounding errors that may potentially be multiplied several times over!)> > b) makes Bob appear more compassionate
no comment.> > c) encourages posters to be more civil
block is a block. I try to be civil independent of external sources of punishment. I am plenty capable of punishing myself.> > d) makes disciplined posters feel as if considered circumstances mitigated their punishment
The current blocking system does not accomplish this.
> >
>
> I would have to respond with identical answers to all four.
>If forced to respond yes/no, I would respond "no" to all of the above.
good questions.
-Li
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 22, 2006, at 8:41:43
In reply to Re: Biased block length algorithm? » Lindenblüte, posted by damos on October 21, 2006, at 19:33:46
> Hi Li,
>
> Thanks for your post, it's much appreciated. It is a valuable contribution and I've more to say on the subject. Just wanted to say thanks and that I'm really glad we have people like you here. I'm up for some tilting at windmills if you are.Your welcome, Damos. When you are ready to say your stuff, you SHOULD! Our benevolent dictator seems to be open to hearing pleas, if not immediately acting on them.
I may or may not continue trying to tilt windmills. I'm kind of sensitive, so if I feel that the Admin board is getting too hot, I'd rather duck out for a day or a month.
I was just struck by this particular bias in the blocking system that seemed so arbitrary, counter-conventional etc. It seemed very un-pdoc-ish, and I felt the need to bring it to Dr. Bob's attention (as well as the rest of the community who hve to oblige by Dr. Bob's block length calculations.
> Hope al your works stuff went okay this week.
One of the glories of doing 5 days worth of work in 2 days is that the other 3 days are spent exhausted, stressed out, on vacation lol. No, in all seriousness, yesterday evening and this am is the first time I feel "like myself" in a week or more. I realize now that a regular, reasonable, predictable schedule is VERY important for my mental stability. (Cat helps too)
-Li
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
In reply to Biased block length algorithm?, posted by Lindenblüte on October 20, 2006, at 14:24:37
> My modest proposal is that a block of 1 week be expunged from the records after minimum 5 weeks of civil behavior. 2 weeks = 10 weeks and so on.
>
> Futhermore, I believe that a reduction in block length should be taken into account without rounding, and after multiplication.Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round. But 10 felt to me like a good number to divide by. And reducing after multiplying would mean less of a reduction, are you sure that's what you want to propose?
> Let's take Example 4.
>
> If we take a block length of 2 weeks (for being uncivil towards a particular individual or group) and add 4 weeks (the length of the previous block), we have 6 weeks.That's adding, not multiplying...
Bob
Posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 13:09:50
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round.
So how about rounding up at either 5 or and above or 6 and above ?
Posted by gardenergirl on October 22, 2006, at 18:45:17
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 13:09:50
Posted by muffled on October 22, 2006, at 23:16:28
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 13:09:50
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 7:54:13
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
> > My modest proposal is that a block of 1 week be expunged from the records after minimum 5 weeks of civil behavior. 2 weeks = 10 weeks and so on.
> >
> > Futhermore, I believe that a reduction in block length should be taken into account without rounding, and after multiplication.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round. But 10 felt to me like a good number to divide by. And reducing after multiplying would mean less of a reduction, are you sure that's what you want to propose?
I would like to reduce block length. I'm not exactly sure why a block longer than a few weeks is necessary. I certainly find it hard to justify a block that lasts months. It seems awfully harsh and punitive, and not at all in the spirit of a supportive website. I guess I don't really like multiplication at all.> > Let's take Example 4.
> >
> > If we take a block length of 2 weeks (for being uncivil towards a particular individual or group) and add 4 weeks (the length of the previous block), we have 6 weeks.
>
> That's adding, not multiplying...
>
> BobGood noticing, Dr. Bob.
Can you please address the issue of BIAS in terms of ROUNDING ERROR?
notfred's suggestion, of rounding "up" for 5 and above (as per scientific convention) seems to eliminate a lot of my concerns.
-Li
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 10:43:09
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 7:54:13
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 10:45:30
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 7:54:13
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 23, 2006, at 11:10:28
In reply to Who votes for a block cap at say 4 wks max????? (nm), posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 10:45:30
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.