![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ace1 on August 2, 2003, at 1:29:52
Dr. Bob. This is Ace again. I got another email so I could get through. If you block me for a very long time for this I will no longer post on this board. But you just blocked me for 4 weeks (At a time when I need p-babble most) for saying a*s, when you said it's ok to say this word with an asterix.
Now, you said to me that IT IS FINE TO USE ASTERIX when using words like that- please read this thread- http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/225042.html
If you read that thread, it is the very evidence you said it is OK for me to use asterix if I use cuss words.
I feel so much for the people on this board. I see them as struggling in the same ship as me. I would never purposely try to offend them. I have seen many posts not censored with swear words and you overlook that, but you block me- and I'm going through hell at the moment at feel very hurt what you did to me- for using a minor cuss word censored.
So please tell me (if you don't further ban me) CAN I USE CUSS WORDS CENSORED OR NOT- YOU SAID 'YES' BEFORE BUT THEN BANNED ME, SO I DON"T UNDERSTAND THIS.
I like what your doing with this site. I have family members who are psychiatrists and they believe you are contemptable for running this site. But I defend you, and have even said I respect you for letting sufferers talk together. I'm not sure if you dislike me cause of my posts or not, but please tell me, so I will find another board to post at if you don't want me here.
Ace.
Posted by SLS on August 2, 2003, at 8:10:51
In reply to Dr. Bob- please read this now. This is not fair., posted by ace1 on August 2, 2003, at 1:29:52
> I'm a regular reader/poster on this board and I think I'll put my two cents in on this one. Believe it or not, politically I'm quite liberal but as an English teacher, I also consider myself a very conservative grammar cop. That means I don't hesitate to point out incorrect or inappropriate usage of certain words. I use plenty of four letter words myself when angry. On the other hand--you asked about others' opinions-- I happen to detest that expression that got Dr. Bob's hackles up. I'm not offended by it, but I think it's stupid and I wish people would stop using it. I do agree with you that being blocked for four weeks is quite harsh.
It does seem harsh.I sort of redirected this post from PB figuring that this is where it belongs.
This is a tough one. I'd like to remain as neutral as possible, especially because I don't have the energy to go back and review the history of the discourse regarding the civility of Andrew's posts. If Dr. Bob asked that the word in question not be used in a particular context, I guess blocking the poster is not without its merits. I sort of agree with Cubbybear that the expression Andrew used is crude and not terribly pretty. But, seeing as this word has multiple meanings, I guess it is not out of the question that Andrew was referring to kicking a donkey. Probably not, though. Without forewarning, I am sure there would have come an instance where I would have wanted to use the expression myself. I would not have thought it to be uncivil or unacceptably profane. I'm sure that I have used worse myself on this board in the past. Of course that is not a tenable argument for its continued use.
In my opinion, Psycho-Babble has seen an extremely civil, adult, and constructive discourse between its posters more recently. I would not want to see it decay into the chaotic bedlam that it once became prior to its active moderation by Dr. Bob. He has worked very hard to build these boards into productive and inviting places to interact. It took a great deal of time and effort to accomplish this, for which I am very grateful. I consider his judgment to be far better than mine. (Thank you, Dr. Bob).
I have never once seen an umpire reverse his call.
- Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 2, 2003, at 11:09:37
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob- please read this now. This is not fair., posted by SLS on August 2, 2003, at 8:10:51
Ah, but the umpire often refers onto the fourth official!! *winks*
That was a really great post Scott. People who ahve been here a long time, I think do tend to appreciate Dr Bobs efforts more as we have seen the board at its worst.
Nikki
Posted by Tabitha on August 2, 2003, at 11:12:34
In reply to Dr. Bob- please read this now. This is not fair., posted by ace1 on August 2, 2003, at 1:29:52
ace, dr bob put in the *** in his post that blocked you. In your original post you didn't use the ***. That's probably why he blocked you. Plus... if you want to discuss your block, you can email dr bob. His email is at the bottom of the page. You might get blocked again for posting here while blocked. Take care.
Posted by Emme on August 3, 2003, at 16:59:17
In reply to Dr. Bob- please read this now. This is not fair., posted by ace1 on August 2, 2003, at 1:29:52
I see ACE got banned for 4 weeks and looked at the related posts. I think 4 weeks is too harsh. I know that this is in accordance with Dr. Bob's rules. Maybe the rules should be changed.
Civility rules? Not a bad idea.
Temporary banning for being obnoxious? okay.
Warn before banning? sounds good.But why not have the punishment fit the crime? In my opinion, the more severe offense is to direct snide, sarcastic or inappropriate comments *at* another poster. Just using a questionable word without directing it at anyone is a lesser offense. It might offend some people to see it, but it's not personal. So impose a lesser punishment - a shorter ban. Ace didn't direct his controversial word *at* anyone.
I know everyone wants to see consistency and objectivity in how the board is run. I don't think changing the rules to reflect the severity of the offense would present a problem if it's spelled out. Besides, some nasty things slip by from time to time as it is. So enforcement of the current rules is imperfect anyway. No offense to Dr. Bob and all his hard work - it just naturally comes with the territory of trying to oversee such a busy board.
My 2 cents.
Emme
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 3, 2003, at 17:26:53
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob- please read this now. This is not f, posted by Emme on August 3, 2003, at 16:59:17
Actually, despite my posts on PB, I'm starting to agree partially with some of what the opponents to this banning have to say. Perhaps it *would* be a good idea to have the punishment fit the crime? I.E. change the FAQ so that some offenses are listed as major and some as minor. Minor offenses would result in a block lasting the same period of time as the most recent block placed on the poster, while major offenses would keep to the current policies. What do you all think?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2003, at 6:38:39
In reply to Dr. Bob- please read this now. This is not fair., posted by ace1 on August 2, 2003, at 1:29:52
> I got another email so I could get through. If you block me for a very long time for this I will no longer post on this board.
Sorry, but when you're blocked, you're not supposed to post, so I'm extending your block to 8 weeks.
> But you just blocked me for 4 weeks (At a time when I need p-babble most) for saying a*s, when you said it's ok to say this word with an asterix.
But you didn't say it with an asterisk:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030728/msgs/247201.html
> I like what your doing with this site.
Thanks!
> I'm not sure if you dislike me cause of my posts or not, but please tell me, so I will find another board to post at if you don't want me here.
I don't dislike you, I just want it to be civil here. Best wishes,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2003, at 6:54:49
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob- please read this now. This is not f, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 3, 2003, at 17:26:53
> But why not have the punishment fit the crime? In my opinion, the more severe offense is to direct snide, sarcastic or inappropriate comments *at* another poster. Just using a questionable word without directing it at anyone is a lesser offense.
>
> I don't think changing the rules to reflect the severity of the offense would present a problem if it's spelled out.
>
> Emme> Perhaps it *would* be a good idea to have the punishment fit the crime? I.E. change the FAQ so that some offenses are listed as major and some as minor. Minor offenses would result in a block lasting the same period of time as the most recent block placed on the poster, while major offenses would keep to the current policies. What do you all think?
>
> Ame Sans VieI think it works more or less OK now, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement...
What about using Emme's system to differentiate, as Ame Sans Vie suggests, between two levels of incivility? Except with "minor" blocks following the current system and "major" ones double that?
Bob
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 4, 2003, at 7:35:53
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime, posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2003, at 6:54:49
Great idea! I actually like that idea better, personally. Keep up the good administrative work, we all appreciate it more than you'll know! :-)
Posted by Emme on August 4, 2003, at 8:31:10
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime, posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2003, at 6:54:49
> > But why not have the punishment fit the crime? In my opinion, the more severe offense is to direct snide, sarcastic or inappropriate comments *at* another poster. Just using a questionable word without directing it at anyone is a lesser offense.
> >
> > I don't think changing the rules to reflect the severity of the offense would present a problem if it's spelled out.
> >
> > Emme
>
> > Perhaps it *would* be a good idea to have the punishment fit the crime? I.E. change the FAQ so that some offenses are listed as major and some as minor. Minor offenses would result in a block lasting the same period of time as the most recent block placed on the poster, while major offenses would keep to the current policies. What do you all think?
> >
> > Ame Sans Vie
>
> I think it works more or less OK now, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement...
>
> What about using Emme's system to differentiate, as Ame Sans Vie suggests, between two levels of incivility? Except with "minor" blocks following the current system and "major" ones double that?
>
> BobHmm...call me a pushover, but I was thinking of a few little tweaks such as:
1. a warning and then uniform blocking of 1 week for simple use of a crude word *not* used in anger or aimed at anyone/everyone.
2. The current system of warning and then doubling the blocks for making sexually inappropriate comments, or making someone (or everyone) feel put down, or generally being mean in a more personal sort of way. That would be most of the current banning anyway.
3. Double the system for the rarer and really dangerous baddies such as methods for harming oneself, etc.
Simple and clear. What do you think?
Emme
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 4, 2003, at 8:45:50
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime » Dr. Bob, posted by Emme on August 4, 2003, at 8:31:10
Though I totally respect Dr. Bob's judgment, perhaps this calls for a poll?
Posted by Dinah on August 4, 2003, at 8:58:01
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 4, 2003, at 8:45:50
I'm afraid this isn't a democracy. :)
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 4, 2003, at 9:09:02
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime » Dr. Bob, posted by Emme on August 4, 2003, at 8:31:10
> Hmm...call me a pushover
OK, "You're a pushover." <Spock eyebrow>
>but I was thinking of a few little tweaks such as:
> 1. a warning and then uniform blocking of 1 week for simple use of a crude word *not* used in anger or aimed at anyone/everyone.
A "flat rate" plan. Sounds good to me.
> 2. The current system of warning and then doubling the blocks for making sexually inappropriate comments, or making someone (or everyone) feel put down, or generally being mean in a more personal sort of way. That would be most of the current banning anyway.Sounds fair to me.
> 3. Double the system for the rarer and really dangerous baddies such as methods for harming oneself, etc.
>
> Simple and clear. What do you think?
>
> EmmeI agree.
Lar
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2003, at 9:24:54
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime » Dr. Bob, posted by Emme on August 4, 2003, at 8:31:10
I really like you idea Emme.. it really makes sense.
I'm kinda stuck on the whole banning issue.. I can understand why some people get upset about it, but this place is a much nicer place to be with the civility rules than without.. your ideas seem to strike a good balance
Nikki
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 4, 2003, at 9:35:10
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Dinah on August 4, 2003, at 8:58:01
lol, you're right. I'm pretty new to the administrative side of things.
Posted by Ron Hill on August 4, 2003, at 10:18:47
In reply to Dr. Bob- please read this now. This is not fair., posted by ace1 on August 2, 2003, at 1:29:52
Andrew (Ace - The Nardil World Champion),
> If you block me for a very long time for this I will no longer post on this board.
Please come back in eight weeks. We need your input.
Life seems very unfair at times, and sometimes it is unfair. Be well during your absence and we'll talk to you in eight weeks.
-- Ron
Posted by stjames on August 4, 2003, at 12:00:39
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime » Dr. Bob, posted by Emme on August 4, 2003, at 8:31:10
> 2. The current system of warning and then doubling the blocks for making sexually inappropriate comments, or making someone (or everyone) feel put down, or generally being mean in a more personal sort of way. That would be most of the current banning anyway.
Like when someone calls a poster retarded,
no matter how they spell it ?
Posted by shar on August 4, 2003, at 19:30:46
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime, posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2003, at 6:54:49
I think there would be twice as many discussions on how unfair blocks are: one set for why a block should have been Level I instead of Level II (with Level I being for the really bad stuff), and another set of discussions about why a block should have been Level II instead of Level I.
Those would be added to the routine discussions of why blocking is unfair in general, inhumane, etc.
While it might be nice to have a codified set of offenses, with amounts of time per offense, it's probably not feasible to have a Dr. Bob's PBC Code of Criminal Procedure (or Penal Code, if you want).
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2003, at 23:06:37
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime » Dr. Bob, posted by shar on August 4, 2003, at 19:30:46
> I think there would be twice as many discussions on how unfair blocks are: one set for why a block should have been Level I instead of Level II (with Level I being for the really bad stuff), and another set of discussions about why a block should have been Level II instead of Level I.
>
> Those would be added to the routine discussions of why blocking is unfair in general, inhumane, etc.I'm fully aware there might be more discussions :-) but (1) there should at least be fewer about the punishment not fitting the crime and (2) with time there might be more consensus (or at least predictability). So if there's a reasonable way to expand to two levels or something, it might be worth trying...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2003, at 12:55:00
In reply to Re: have the punishment fit the crime, posted by Dr. Bob on August 4, 2003, at 6:54:49
[from http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/253239.html]
> I remember a discussion about possibly changing this algorithm, was it changed? I'm sorry if I missed it (but the FAQ still has what I quoted above.)
Yes, I'm trying out a change. With the "major" block multiplier 1.5 times the "minor" block multiplier, as opposed to double it, which I was thinking of before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/247960.html
I've updated the FAQ:
> Usually I start with a week and double it each subsequent time. If the post is uncivil toward a particular individual or group, I may triple it instead.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceBob
Posted by fallsfall on August 23, 2003, at 22:30:58
In reply to Re: Math, posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2003, at 12:55:00
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.