![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 47 to 71 of 71. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 26, 2007, at 7:24:04
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers...., posted by gardenergirl on April 24, 2007, at 16:07:52
> > First one to push that DNP button gets all the power.
>
> If you let them. I believe it was zen who posted recently not to borrow anyone else's pain. I would add to that, don't hand them your power.If that principle was generally applied, this rule would have no basis for existence.
Lar
Posted by MCK on April 28, 2007, at 18:10:28
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on April 26, 2007, at 7:24:04
> If that principle was generally applied, this rule would have no basis for existence.
>Yeah
***And if no one disagreed there would be no wars either**What GG proposed was good advice it's not a rule.
Not everyone has the same ability to own their power, therefore some need protection.
Very few D.N.Ps are requested on this board and because twice (that I've seen) you've been reprimanded for not honoring them, yet each time you blamed not your behavior for the block, but the poster, or technicalities within the rule itself.
I find it near impossible, despite what you say, to ken you are fighting anyone's battle but your very own.
It's straightforward, if someone doesn't want you to post to them, have enough respect to leave them alone. It's not about what you can get away with according to the DNP book of rules, it's about respect. The result desired from a DNP request is clear and simple, and It's not about you.
Posted by Racer on April 28, 2007, at 18:50:15
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on April 28, 2007, at 18:10:28
> Very few D.N.Ps are requested on this board and because twice (that I've seen) you've been reprimanded for not honoring them, yet each time you blamed not your behavior for the block, but the poster, or technicalities within the rule itself.
> It's not about what you can get away with according to the DNP book of rules, it's about respect.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you need more information about the rules, please review the civility guidelines on the FAQ, located at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Dr Bob is always the final authority on this site, and he may choose to adjust this deputy action.
Racer, acting as deputy to Dr Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 29, 2007, at 6:08:54
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on April 28, 2007, at 18:10:28
>
> > If that principle was generally applied, this rule would have no basis for existence.
> >
>
> Yeah
> ***And if no one disagreed there would be no wars either**
>
> What GG proposed was good advice it's not a rule.What GG proposed was facile. It did not address the issue that even Dr. Bob has become concerned about.
> Not everyone has the same ability to own their power, therefore some need protection.
Actually serving as justification for my retort. Think about it. I've been supporting protection on both sides of the dispute.
> I find it near impossible, despite what you say, to ken you are fighting anyone's battle but your very own.
In the context of your series of posts to me, I cannot believe that a constructive dialog is possible. A selective recounting of history does not benefit me or this board. Please do not post to me any more.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2007, at 8:46:14
In reply to Please do not post to me » MCK, posted by Larry Hoover on April 29, 2007, at 6:08:54
If you feel it has not been honored, please contact administration.
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2007, at 8:49:22
In reply to Please do not post to me » MCK, posted by Larry Hoover on April 29, 2007, at 6:08:54
> What GG proposed was facile. It did not address the issue that even Dr. Bob has become concerned about.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
As clarification the second sentence would have been fine, in my opinion.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by zenhussy on April 29, 2007, at 11:00:04
In reply to Request noted » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on April 29, 2007, at 8:46:14
Posted by Declan on April 29, 2007, at 18:43:16
In reply to Please be civil » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on April 29, 2007, at 8:49:22
I can't imagine wanting to post to someone who clearly did not want to hear from me.
At the same time I'd rather just ignore other posters I couldn't stand.
But now that I think of it, there have been none of them.
Sometimes I have thought 'so and so is just a <whatever>' and of course I have felt angered, but I've never been able to see for myself the advantages that DNPs are supposed to bring.Maybe I'd rather keep the authorities out of my likes and dislikes (which anyway are a bit suspicious)?
Posted by zazenducke on April 29, 2007, at 20:53:38
In reply to DNPs, posted by Declan on April 29, 2007, at 18:43:16
Dr Bob has added a P for Please to the official notification to prevent hurt feelings.
I never got a PDNP. I think I would be glad to honour it.
I got a Please Don't Torture Me and I was happy to oblige.
I would like to have a Please Don't Post About Me Without My Name for people who write open letters to the board about unnamed posters :)
Posted by verne on April 30, 2007, at 1:31:00
In reply to Re:PDNPs PDNTMs and proposed PDNPAMWMN, posted by zazenducke on April 29, 2007, at 20:53:38
I think I'm allowed to respond to a thread without addressing anyone. I'd rather not mention your name, yet may very well be responding to you. I see nothing terribly wrong with that.
Perhaps, this is time for a warm WWBD moment!
Verne
Posted by Bottomfeeder on May 1, 2007, at 19:45:14
In reply to Blocked » Happyflower, posted by Racer on April 23, 2007, at 0:48:01
Did I miss the post about how long Happyflower is blocked for? Hope you are doing okay HF and hope to see you back when your block is over. Take care.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 1, 2007, at 21:50:24
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Bottomfeeder on May 1, 2007, at 19:45:14
Dr. Bob only just came back to the boards today. He should set the length, but I don't know when he will. I think it's tentatively at 2 weeks now, though.
10derHeart, posting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Happyflower on May 4, 2007, at 19:52:12
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Bottomfeeder on May 1, 2007, at 19:45:14
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2007, at 15:50:51
In reply to Please be civil » Ralph.U.K, posted by Racer on April 24, 2007, at 14:58:56
> Dr Bob has final authority regarding all administrative actions on this site, and may choose to adjust any and all deputy actions.
When you're blocked, you're not supposed to post, so I'm going to block this name, consider the length of your previous block [tripled], and delete follow-ups to this post.
But please don't take this personally, 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, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceThanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2007, at 17:25:02
In reply to Please be civil » MCK, posted by Racer on April 28, 2007, at 18:50:15
> Dr Bob is always the final authority on this site, and he may choose to adjust this deputy action.
Sorry, but I've decided to make this a block instead.
previous block: [3] weeks
period of time (at that time) since previous block: 1 week
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 1 week, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's [3] - 0 = [3] weeks. And if we triple that, that's [9] weeks.
But please don't take this personally, 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, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceThanks,
Bob
Posted by karen_kay on June 17, 2007, at 19:46:10
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » MCK, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2007, at 17:25:02
Posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 19:12:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » MCK, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2007, at 17:25:02
This isn't related to these blocks, I haven't even looked at them yet. It's just an observation I've always wanted to make. (Maybe should have put it in its own thread.)
I don't think this line that always appears in the standard blocking formula posting makes sense, or at least in enough cases to leave it in for *every* block:
> clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
...because, it has been affirmed that once a poster has ever received a PBC, at any time -- could have been weeks or months ago or longer -- they can then be instantly blocked with no warning thereafter. It varies greatly as to whether a poster will in fact get a PBC or Please Rephrase before the block at hand.
Many seem to be under the impression that there is *always* a warning first *somewhere* -- on another of the boards if not the one the block occurred on -- very close to the time of any block for a person.
But since it has been confirmed that that is not always the case, I don't think it puts a fair light on things to leave in the block calculation line above, which makes it sound like in that case and every case each person DID have time to "not understand and make effort to reply." And for some people who have received multiple blocks with no more prior warnings, you would have to be forever re-using whatever their original reaction was to their original (or a distant) PBC, to fill in that answer. Just doesn't sit right by my logic...
Posted by karen_kay on June 18, 2007, at 20:22:54
In reply to Re: line from block formula that should be removed » Dr. Bob, posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 19:12:55
well then.....
i wasn't aware of that.. i always thought one was given a warning (pbc, please rephrase, ect.) on each thread before issued a block.
didn't that used to be the case?
severely confused!!!!
kk
Posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 20:52:57
In reply to is that the case now? » confuzyq, posted by karen_kay on June 18, 2007, at 20:22:54
Nope, always has been that way! That's another of the things that many historical admin protests have centered around, when unequal rules application is being alleged: How some get warning (after warning after warning, in some cases), but others... BOOM! outta nowhere (or at least far-away-where), if they've ever received a PBC.
(Mostly this is when bob is active, to my recollection.)
Even if the same person does keep doing what is clearly a violation, I still think that including "didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no" in every block calculation post can be misleading, as it could be referencing a reaction the person did or didn't have months or years ago. Unlike the other lines of criteria in the block formula, which always do apply to that particular instance.
In cases where it's apparently been decided that no more warnings are deserved, that line should be removed or altered. Or just have "N/A" after it. (But we never do "give up" on anyone, do we? So let's not auto-insert that line which will make it look like once again, they could have learned/halted the escalation to block; could have "not understood and made effort to reply," but didn't.)
As far as the blocks on this thread, which aren't cases of the above (so why did I put this here, go figure!), normally I would have commented that it looks like there is now one more thing people can worry about being applied inequally: the possible length of time between transgression (in these cases, April) and reprimand coming down. Because til now, it has always been almost a de facto rule that if bob missed something uncivil, he would "leave the past in the past" and not revisit any situation beyond just days later.
But, I didn't say that, due to the new "notify" procedures and all that. Whereby bob & deputies must go through what could be tons of notifications about possible incivilities, then make determinations. I guess that's going to make the window of opportunity for reprimand a lot bigger.
Oh, here's a smiley so you know I'm a nice fun person... :0)
> well then.....
>
> i wasn't aware of that.. i always thought one was given a warning (pbc, please rephrase, ect.) on each thread before issued a block.
>
> didn't that used to be the case?
>
> severely confused!!!!
>
> kk
Posted by karen_kay on June 19, 2007, at 12:41:05
In reply to Re: is that the case now? » karen_kay, posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 20:52:57
1. youre' a nice, fun person (hence the smilie face ;) (i didn't doubt that at all dear. and please don't be offended by my loose use of the word dear, darling. i find it endearing and often wish more people would call me dear. i do have doe-like eyes, you know. now, off to more important things, though i must say my eyes are very important and i could go on about them all day long...
2. hmmm, i wasn't even aware of the fact that one could just *BAM* be blocked because they were warned back in 1874 to be civil, when referring to a certain political candidate as a jerk. that's interesting.
3. another hiss. and it's not directed at you. swear.... i'm finding that the saying 'ignorance is bliss' is so very true. then again, i don't mind it so much when i'm blocked, moreso i mind it when others are blocked.
i'd like to say thank you for bringing this to my attention, but as i said earlier, i'm starting to prefer ignorance, as well as hissing. my duckie taught me to hiss and i think there's something to that.
i hope this came out the way i intended it to. you're very helpful. i likie you. will you marry me? (there, that about sums it up, i think.) i hope you don't take anything i said as insulting, i didn't mean for it to come across that way. i've got a piercing that i fear is blocking a chakra (yes, i finally figured out how to spell it) and i'm ready to rip it out.
sincerely, dearly and almost weary,
kk
Posted by confuzyq on June 19, 2007, at 13:00:34
In reply to so, you're saying... » confuzyq, posted by karen_kay on June 19, 2007, at 12:41:05
(did not get a post notification this time, hmmm...)
> i'd like to say thank you for bringing this to my attention, but as i said earlier, i'm starting to prefer ignorance, as well as hissing. my duckie taught me to hiss and i think there's something to that.
>...oh am I ever with you there! If only I could stop lurking so I could start "blissfully ignorancing!!" I've actually blocked this site on my own computers several times, but drat, it's easy as pie to unblock it again, since obviously I knew how to block it in the first place.
> i hope this came out the way i intended it to. you're very helpful. i likie you. will you marry me? (there, that about sums it up, i think.) i hope you don't take anything i said as insulting, i didn't mean for it to come across that way.
>heck no! I take it as support, and thank you.
Have a happy one (or two, or three; but now don't go hogging all the happy ones)!
Posted by scratchpad on June 19, 2007, at 14:50:20
In reply to so, you're saying... » confuzyq, posted by karen_kay on June 19, 2007, at 12:41:05
From what I've seen - and no, I'm not together enough to be able to whip out an http quotation, but if someone has been blocked for a particular offense in the past; and they come back from that block and repeat that same type of offense, then they can be blocked again without a warning PBC.
Like, they are doing it on purpose, and they know what they are doing (this being inferred).
This is my understanding, and not policy as I have ever seen it stated anywhere. Just what I've seen. I think of it as having drawn a line in the sand, and the person comes back to the playground just to cross that very same line.I hope you are now as enlightened as I am.
sexie pie
Posted by confuzyq on June 19, 2007, at 17:46:59
In reply to Re: so, you're saying... » karen_kay, posted by scratchpad on June 19, 2007, at 14:50:20
> From what I've seen - and no, I'm not together enough to be able to whip out an http quotation, but if someone has been blocked for a particular offense in the past; and they come back from that block and repeat that same type of offense, then they can be blocked again without a warning PBC.
>No, not necessarily returning from a block, anytime...
From:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/701122.html> Is it true that technically, once a person has received one PBC *ever,* they may be blocked immediately with no warning from then on. And that this does in fact happen.
> muffled
>> It's true, that sometimes happens. People should take that first warning seriously.
(Bob)
-----------------------------> Like, they are doing it on purpose, and they know what they are doing (this being inferred).
> This is my understanding, and not policy as I have ever seen it stated anywhere. Just what I've seen. I think of it as having drawn a line in the sand, and the person comes back to the playground just to cross that very same line.
>I just think the block formula line "did not understand and made effort to reply" should be removed or changed in those cases. Like "N/A: sufficient prior warnings received." Or maybe "No, in multiple *previous* instances." So it doesn't give the false impression that that time also, they had time to reply and possibly stop the block too.
Just a technicality but an important one I think. While it may be true that that person has had chances, even many, to learn and not repeat the behavior again; it is not necessarily true that in the case at hand, they "made no effort to reply"/rephrase/amend. Because the first sign of admin discontent/action in these cases is the block itself.
Actually you had a great suggestion on the same thread linked to above, but bob didn't go for it:
> I think it would supportive for the community as a whole to have the previous requests to be civil linked in the blocking post.
>
> ClearSkies>> I see what you mean, but I'd be concerned about embarrassing them. If they want, they can ask...
(Bob)
For clarity, it is this blurb I'm referring to, in which all other data does apply to *only* the case/block at hand, except that one line I have the technicality/logic/accuracy problem with:
previous block: [x] weeks
period of time (at that time) since previous block: x week
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: y/n
particularly uncivil: y/n
different type of incivility: y/n
**clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no**
provoked: y/n
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: no
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2007, at 2:03:22
In reply to Re: line from block formula that should be removed » Dr. Bob, posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 19:12:55
> the block calculation line above ... makes it sound like in that case and every case each person DID have time to "not understand and make effort to reply."
Sorry, I see how that could be confusing. That line is there because sometimes a poster posts something uncivil, receives a PBC, and -- because they don't understand what was uncivil about their original post -- responds with an uncivil reply. Usually an uncivil reply to a PBC would lead to a block, but not necessarily in that case.
"No" means it's not that kind of situation. It doesn't mean they received a PBC and didn't reply.
Bob
Posted by confuzyq on June 20, 2007, at 8:24:14
In reply to Re: line from block formula, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2007, at 2:03:22
Thanks for the clarification but wow! I would have never gotten that from those words. Seems like there are clearer ways it could be phrased, but, maybe it doesn't stand out to others the way it did to me.
> > the block calculation line above ... makes it sound like in that case and every case each person DID have time to "not understand and make effort to reply."
>
> Sorry, I see how that could be confusing. That line is there because sometimes a poster posts something uncivil, receives a PBC, and -- because they don't understand what was uncivil about their original post -- responds with an uncivil reply. Usually an uncivil reply to a PBC would lead to a block, but not necessarily in that case.
>
> "No" means it's not that kind of situation. It doesn't mean they received a PBC and didn't reply.
>
> 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.