![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 155 to 179 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by Brio D Chimp on June 12, 2004, at 18:58:38
In reply to re: hoover man's block reduced, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2004, at 9:21:21
> > I don't think a decision is absolutely necessary until the 4-week point.
>
> Which we're at now. Well, I've reduced it, let's see what happens next. Thanks for your patience,
>
> Boban apology, no tripling of the block AND a reduction in block time meanwhile NOTHING for anyone else
are some people more important than others?????????
whose turn is it now?
i dont think the answer to favoritism is to create a new favorite.
PS welcome back larry enjoy your new status
Posted by Brio D Chimp on June 12, 2004, at 19:08:43
In reply to Dr. Bob is a hypocrite, posted by Larry Hoover on May 13, 2004, at 10:23:57
>
> The inconsistent moderation of this site does not protect me, and lets others get away with more egregious acts of incivility against me, than I have *ever* expressed. References? Why, of course.
>
> The bottom line is that Bob treats me differently than he treats others. According to Bob,
>
>
> I take responsibility for my actions. No one has ever made me post a single word. If I post, and consequences arise, so be it. But I want you to take responsibility too, Bob.
>
> I want you to examine your bias.>I want you to stop playing favourites.
YEAH ME TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want you to acknowledge the harm done by your negligent moderation. I may be particularly vulnerable (That is mine to deal with. But, considering the population here, it's yours to deal with, too.), but your unfairness has hurt me deeply.
YEAH ME TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You ought not to treat me more harshly simply because I have asked you to treat us all the same.
THINK THAT'LL EVER HAPPEN???????????????
And you know very clearly what (and who) I'm talking about.
CONGRATSOS ON YOUR SPECIAL TREATMENT FROM BOB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AT LEAST BOB AIN'T LONELY
Posted by Brio D Chimp on June 12, 2004, at 19:30:45
In reply to re: questions » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on June 10, 2004, at 22:04:50
!
> I'm sorry that you don't have time to answer each poster's questions individually. I feel dis-respected by that. I've felt that before though so it's nothing new. To combine snippets from three different writers into one answer seems to me to be typical of someone not wanting to go to too much trouble concerning something that is important to this board. Here come the I messages. I think you're full of it, Bob. I feel that your arrogance concerning your position of being the "administrator" is going to be your downfall. I believe that you court the little kissy-kissy group and you are threatened by those who don't necessarily fall into line with them. I hope that I'm not perceived as being civil and I truly hope that you are offended. I've given some thought to it and had discussion with colleagues and you just aren't worth the energy this is taking. You did not learn one thing from the other incident...unless it was more ways to be evasive. For all the good people who've left this place, hold on, I'm coming. (Sam the Sham)
Posted by AuntieMel on June 12, 2004, at 21:19:31
In reply to re: hoover man's block reduced, posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2004, at 11:39:14
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:02:24
In reply to re: questions » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on June 10, 2004, at 9:01:16
> it's hard to spot "reading and re-reading" in action
Ah, OK, I can see that.
> when in the end other violations or prohibited language are so frequently still missed on a thread
Reading and re-reading some posts doesn't mean others won't be missed...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:08:19
In reply to re: questions » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on June 10, 2004, at 8:16:24
> By the way, your "research" using this site was rejected by the IRB, right?
Well, they didn't approve what I submitted, so as I've been saying, this site is not currently considered research. I'm disappointed, but some posters prefer not being involved in research...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:09:45
In reply to re: questions » fayeroe, posted by fayeroe on June 11, 2004, at 8:38:36
> I think you're full of it, Bob.
> I just have that gut feeling that one of your goals is to reduce people to your level
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 2 weeks, so this time I'm making it for 4.
If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
or email me, or post a follow-up here after your block is over.
> It's beyond the pale that you can't receive the people who have different views and approaches than yourself.
My philosophy is that civility is important. Unfortunately, that means this site isn't for everyone. But there are plenty of alternatives...
Bob
Posted by shar on June 13, 2004, at 19:38:36
In reply to re: blocked for 4 weeks » fayeroe, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:09:45
Posted by spoc on June 13, 2004, at 19:43:11
In reply to re: questions, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:02:24
> > it's hard to spot "reading and re-reading" in action... when in the end other violations or prohibited language are so frequently still missed on a thread
>
> Reading and re-reading some posts doesn't mean others won't be missed...
>
> Bob<<<<<< Oh, I guess we meant different things here. When you first wrote about this, I think you were responding to questions about whether or not you also disregard the good in a post when you've spotted a potential incivility. You stated that you do try to understand context, even if it means reading and re-reading. From that I gathered that it could be the thread you were reading (or sometimes re-reading), to understand the context.
Posted by chemist on June 13, 2004, at 19:58:33
In reply to re: hoover man's block reduced, posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2004, at 11:39:14
nice to have you back, lar! all the best, chemist
> > > I don't think a decision is absolutely necessary until the 4-week point.
> >
> > Which we're at now. Well, I've reduced it, let's see what happens next. Thanks for your patience,
> >
> > Bob
>
> This a test of the Hoover broadcasting system. It is only a test. Do not be alarmed. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
>
> Lar
>
Posted by spoc on June 14, 2004, at 7:22:59
In reply to re: blocked for 4 weeks » fayeroe, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:09:45
... I know that by design, you were not surprised by your block. And had already self-blocked. But wanted to say hi and hope to see you again someday! Take care!
Posted by Brio D Chimp on June 14, 2004, at 17:49:34
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on May 15, 2004, at 14:40:44
Why was I blocked for 24 weeks for asking someone if this incident was true and this poster is allowed to post that it was a fact without any action from you? Do you not think the the person about whom this "fact" is stated might feel accused???????????????
Brio (I ain't no kissy kissy chimp) D Chimp
> Dr Bob.. I do think this one is unfair.. In my eyes it wasn't a joke or sarcastic, but simply stating a fact that we all know to be true.
>
> remember, you don't block for intent, and the words themselves are nothing but fact.
>
> Nikki
Posted by Brio D Chimp on June 14, 2004, at 18:40:54
In reply to Re:Think it's just Troublemaker Showcase Theater:) (nm) » gardenergirl, posted by spoc on June 9, 2004, at 10:57:30
possibly this might make someone or everyone in this thread feel accused. Why no triple block BOB?????
Brio
I ain't no kissy kissy chimp
Posted by TeeJay on June 14, 2004, at 20:37:33
In reply to re: blocked for 4 weeks » fayeroe, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2004, at 19:09:45
> > I think you're full of it, Bob.
>
> > I just have that gut feeling that one of your goals is to reduce people to your level
>
> Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 2 weeks, so this time I'm making it for 4.
>
> If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> or email me, or post a follow-up here after your block is over.
>
> > It's beyond the pale that you can't receive the people who have different views and approaches than yourself.
>
> My philosophy is that civility is important. Unfortunately, that means this site isn't for everyone. But there are plenty of alternatives...
>
> BobI really see little point in anyone replying to one of your bans by e-mail........you didnt even have the courtesy to reply to my e-mail after you banned me!
Oh and if that remark makes you feel put down or accused, then perhaps you could look inwardly as the actions were YOURS, I'm merely quoting FACT, not expressing an opinion.
TJ
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2004, at 21:23:02
In reply to re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by TeeJay on June 14, 2004, at 20:37:33
> you didnt even have the courtesy to reply to my e-mail after you banned me!
Sorry, was it from the email address you currently have registered? I'm not always able to get to email right away, but I can't even find one from you. I did recently lose some... Could you send it again? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 15, 2004, at 5:48:16
In reply to QUESTION for BOB, posted by Brio D Chimp on June 14, 2004, at 17:49:34
If you want me blocked, just tell me and I will walk away.. I don't have the energy to care anymore
A kissy kissy Nikki
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2004, at 5:59:51
In reply to Re: QUESTION for BOB » Brio D Chimp, posted by NikkiT2 on June 15, 2004, at 5:48:16
> If you want me blocked, just tell me and I will walk away.. I don't have the energy to care anymore
Hi Nikki.I don't think it is productive for you to invest yourself in a conflict that drains you of so much energy and is of so little consequence. Please save your energy to continue posting here regularly. I would feel deprived were you not to.
xxx kissy kissy
- Scott
Posted by TeeJay on June 15, 2004, at 18:55:18
In reply to re: my e-mail » TeeJay, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2004, at 21:23:02
Thanks for the reply bob.
Its not worth resending now, you banned me, I served my ban and the subject now wouldnt be worth discussing from a productivity point of view. (not even sure which mail addy i used to subscribe to be honest)
I'll just skulk off to my "home" on the alternative board as I really find the admin board a seriously "negative place" and only come here to support Lar as I feel his input is worth fighting for.
Regards
TJ
Posted by lil' jimi on June 18, 2004, at 2:29:17
In reply to re: hoover man's block reduced, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2004, at 9:21:21
Please excuse my absence .... I was unavoidably detained .... Sorry for the interruption ....
My in absentia conditions were better than tolerable. I have been blessed with supportive, loving friends, some of whom have posted valiantly here against all odds. I remain deeply grateful for their affection and thoughtful kindness ... And their beautiful compliments of which I am less than worthy. Thanks, guys.
... I should always be appreciative of the great blessing of their companionship among my many advantages I have in this world ... I should always be thankful, period.No unmuzzled attack dogs were involved. I am mindful of this only because I had thought that unmuzzled attack dogs would have never been involved anywhere. Therefore I am grateful I am here but horrified about those there. And there, but for the grace of God ... ...
In this way, I can have few complaints. Nevertheless, I do have a few observations I feel a need to share with my fellow posters.
While I was sitting in the corner with the Dunce Cap on, I was instructed to contemplate my sins and ... ... Oh, that wasn’t here ... ... my childhood perhaps.
The pB Universe is not the outside universe. Psycho-Babble offers tremendous advantages due to this. Credit goes to Dr. Bob for taking this advantage for our benefit. I have been a beneficiary of pB’s helpfulness and I thank Dr. Bob for that: Thanks, Dr. Bob.
To recapitulate this thread as I see it:
A) Blocks have an essential role for pB. It would not be reasonable for them to be eliminated. This is not an issue.
B) The Reducing of Blocks happens,
although the application of and process for Reducing Blocks remain to be annunciated.
C) Larry Hoover’s block has been reduced and he is now back to posting and that is a very good thing, albeit long past due.In Dr. Bob’s pB Universe "civil" is epitomized by this phrase:
"Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down."
This is an axiom and a constant. And this is a good thing for pB. Fundamentally all blocks come from the enforcement of pB’s “civil” axiom.I feel (I-statement) that there remains the perception of inconsistency in the enforcement of “civil” which enables a sense of unfairness and a disregard for some of our valued posters (I do not refer to myself here... others).
I have received some insights from my ponderings and in discussions with friends about the nature of these inconsistencies.
One of the challenges of the “civil” axiom is that it is always unequivocal and there are to be no appeals from any violations. It holds a position on the same ontological level as the speed of light in the real universe or as the force of gravity on the earth. In each case, arguments do not matter.
As a consequence of this, (it is now easy to see) Honesty and Justice are going to be subordinate to "civil".
'Easy to see', I say because it is easy to imagine perfectly justified and totally honest things that would not be "civil" nor even civil.In my case-in-point, it is never going to be "civil" to refer to putative perpetrator's perpetration of their crime(s), because it can't be done without the perpetrator(s) possibly feeling accused and since they could be lead to feel accused, it is forbidden. Guilt, confession, factuality have nothing to do with it. They are immaterial and they offer no cause for redress. Even to recognize and validate another person's victimization is virtually impossible.
Under these circumstance we are forced to forget, if not forgive, "those who have trespassed against us".
(Bringing to mind the anti-retaliation clause of the Lord's Prayer.) Since reaction, any response, let alone retaliation are impossible, we must post without any reference to assault(s) to ourselves. It amounts to a form of enforced Gandhi-like Golden Rule ... ..."Thou shalt not accuse nor put down Others."
Well, everybody already knew all that of course, but putting it in this light makes it perfectly clear how and where I violated the commandment and it makes sense and that's cool.
Especially because, to me anyway, this emphasizes the email-it-to-Dr. Bob option: Any, and Every, thing that needs to be said that crosses the "civil" line, or might even get close, I’ll just email Dr. Bob the whole package in living color, leave it on his door step and dispense with it, knowing I can never post about it.
One insight I got from my ban was that Dr. Bob believes it would encourage incivility to dignify an uncivil post with his reply. I found this nowhere in the FAQ and it failed to be intuitively obvious to at least some posters, although it does make its own sense and is not unacceptable. Separately, I could imagine that it might be helpful if posters could be informed of time frames for an administration response, if only provisionally or even very speculatively. It is imaginable that some posters could feel disempowered and disrespected by an apparent lack of consideration due to an absence of time frame information. Even wild guesses would be better than letting posters feel disregarded.
Inconsistencies in Enforcement of “Civil”
Inattention may account for some inconsistencies due to our moderator being a mortal. These are easily understood and to be dispensed with in this discussion since they are unintentional, unavoidable and mostly correctable. Of more substantial interest is how we can see variations in the enforcement of “civil” even in cases where it is clear that the administration has been attentive and involved.
One of the expectations of consistency is that the same violations of “civil” reap the same sanctions. Failures of this expectation appear due to unfairness. Experience shows that the same violations almost never yield the same sanctions. Yet examination reveals this is as it should be.
How does Dr. Bob's "civil" engineering mechanize?
How does pB operate this "civil" thing?The picture I get is that in the "civil" universe every poster has their individual "civil" rating. A poster’s history determines their rating and details of a poster's history with a specific subject impacts the poster's rating with that subject. As a poster’s rating decreases their latitude is decreased as sanctions’ severity increases. Dr. Bob shortens the leash of "civility" on posters' as their "civil" rating declines. For instance, this is the explanation of how I got banned rather than a ‘Please Rephrase’ or ‘Please be Civil’. My history includes warnings and my rating had decreased beyond these possible milder rebukes. So we should not expect the same sanctions for the same violations especially from the same poster. And given the different histories of different posters, we should not expect the same sanctions from different posters committing similar violations, or even theoretically identical violations. These variations in enforcement may appear as unfairness, but turn out to be, many times anyway, appropriate to the situation and the poster. And they have been for me personally.
Further complicating the assessment of the level of consistency of “civil” enforcement are the infractions committed against Dr. Bob. He simply does not maintain the “civil” standard for attacks against himself and such attacks are not comparable to other incidents about "civil". Some posters could be excused for having their consistency/fairness calibrations throw off more than a little by this glaring, if charmingly self-effacing, inconsistency.
Cumulatively, these “civil” enforcement variations reveal patterns in what could appear to be random, or worse, deliberate inconsistencies. These patterns provide useful explanatory details to the picture of pB "civility". This model puts perspective on the inconsistencies which diminishes their perception as arbitrary inequities and unfairness.
I think we might reasonably expect some folks to comb through the archives and more current posts and sense these variations and draw less than informed conclusions. The more open these issues can be, the more information that can be shared, the less folks will be able to reach adverse conclusions.
I can admit (since it is too obvious to avoid now) that this absence of value for Honesty and Justice triggered my (self-righteous) indignation and got me my boost way up on that proverbial high horse, quitoxically bent on defending Truth and Justice. When, in fact, "civil" had slain them both long ago.
And it turns out that for pB this is not a bad thing. Being supportive all but negates being adversarial anyway.
Communication (among posters anyway) is favored over debate.The brutal truth (about people) is nearly always uncivil.
The truth is like any other powerful tool: it can be used as a weapon.
So it stands to reason that the ethical person uses the truth with forethought and discretion, at least one who intends no harm. Similarly, a “civil” poster must be discrete.This is how full-time honesty finds its limitation. It is immoral.
One of the ancient Greeks offered the example where the mad man comes to your door armed, enraged and asking where your friend is, and you know. Telling the truth is not always moral if one wants to do no harm.These are the thoughts I needed to share.
take care,
~ jim
Posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 12:15:02
In reply to re: thoughts (completely too long), posted by lil' jimi on June 18, 2004, at 2:29:17
Very well written. It is interesting that you can see logic in your own block when that logic escaped many of us.
I think this exercise has pointed me in a different direction. As argument became synonomous with tilting against windmills, I have decided, not without great difficulty, to use it as a life lesson, and can now use babble as a way to experiment on some things for myself.
How often have we heard that the trick to sucessful arguing is to put things in terms of your own feelings? That combativeness will cause the other party to become defensive? That this defensiveness defeats our purpose of making a point? With force civility rules, we have a good chance to practice these skills before foisting them on friends and family.
So, to put a positive spin on it:
The brutal truth (about people) is nearly always uncivil.
>> but the simple truth doesn't need to be
The truth is like any other powerful tool: it can be used as a weapon
>> but it doesn't have to be.Welcome back - you are a shining star on a foggy night.
Mel
Posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 13:35:44
In reply to re: thoughts (not too long for me) » lil' jimi, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 12:15:02
....but everything's relative.
Dang, dang, dang! All new entries sound so good that I kind of wish I could just live up to the fiction that I can put something behind me so well that nothing could spur me to comment more. But alas, that's just not me I guess.
So, with loads of due respect, I just wanted to add that from my vantage point, the issue was not whether it is safe to deliver truths. That the essence (I always was here for the larger picture) was the very variance in interpretation of what passed and didn't pass itself; occurring in patterns either for or against; and not always related to any identifiable degree of offense or nature of offense. And that whether someone had received previous admonishments or even numerous previous admonishments did not consistently get used as the foundation for future administrative actions. That of course there will be some degree of oversight and some degree of inconsistency, as administration is not performed by a computer program. But that the degree of variance could be seen to be considerably greater than that explainable by chance.
Now, ok, like Jimi said, I *can* see where the subject matter being handled at the time of his block could be seen as hazardous under the principles he has just espoused. And in that way, that it could be concluded that that kind of thing is best avoided. But that is only one of many types of subjects or purposes being engaged in at the times blocks or reprimands are handed down -- or aren't, inexplicably. Sense can be made there but not so easily elsewhere; and trying to deliver a truth to someone -- brutal OR simple -- is not always involved at all.
Ya know, you'd think there would have been a psychological study by now on the effect of randomness on the efficacy of punishment! ;- ) <----- <if I could change the font, that wink would be much bigger>
Know that I was encouraged by the recent evidence that change is possible (while I would enjoy hearing something about what, if any, general impact it will have, because that has implications too. But I'm just not curious or motivated enough to ask). And I appreciate the apologies given in some senses. So I don't want to take away from any of that and I'm even satisfied to say that I'll have faith for now that something did happen here and things will indeed get more consistent. But I just wouldn't feel quite right leaving this at having been a matter of realizing what the causative factor almost always is, and the simplicity of now being able to avoid it. I think there was more to it than that.
Happy Friday everyone. :- )
Posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 16:17:38
In reply to re: thoughts (not TOOOOO long for me either.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 13:35:44
There has been a study of randomness of punishment. My childhood.
I think one of the larger points made by Jimi was that a poster's larger "civility history" seems to be considered in dealing out punishment. Of course every "rule" has an "exception" but it looke to me that there is a general trend to give some benefit of the doubt to folks that are generally supportive - at least when the letter of the law is broken but not the spirit of the law.
Again there are exceptions to every rule, but it also seems to me to be a trend that posters who are generally argumentative get punishment of some sort as soon as the letter of the law is broken.
Posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 17:48:48
In reply to re: thoughts (not long at all.....) » spoc, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 16:17:38
I'm still just scatching my head a bit (because I thought we were surmising most of this time that that is how it *should* be but often or "patternistically" wasn't, including the incidence of not being sanctioned; and the role of previous sanctions, etc.), but the good news is it doesn't really itch anymore!
One thing that did occur to me is that while I only discovered this place in March, I became more than anything a voracious archive reader. SO -- I am reading things in a very condensed fashion and as such they may have more of an impact and/or appear more prevalent than the actual pace at which they are typically seen. Indeed, the kinds of things I have been referring to in this thread are not much related to what I've seen since I got here (although my way of reading the current board actually has me skipping most of it). I also saw that starting in April and continuing for a few months is the slowest annual traffic time at PB. The archives from when the population was denser show many more positing that some kind of pattern exists. So that had an effect; and maybe I further assumed that many of them finally left disheartened, when it could be largely just related to the season and natural turnover.
Archive reading is piecemeal, unless one reads across all boards from each given time frame, which I don't. And in the archives it is easier to latch onto and selectively hunt down supporting data. Could be several or all of the above factors that resulted in me seeing things however I did, that magnified what in reality may be less common than it seemed. I wouldn't want to do that, and apologize for any extent to which I might have. :- )
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2004, at 19:56:07
In reply to re: thoughts (completely too long), posted by lil' jimi on June 18, 2004, at 2:29:17
> I have been blessed with supportive, loving friends, some of whom have posted valiantly here against all odds. I remain deeply grateful for their affection and thoughtful kindness ... And their beautiful compliments of which I am less than worthy.
Isn't this a great group of people? :-)
> I have received some insights from my ponderings and in discussions with friends
>
> it is easy to imagine perfectly justified and totally honest things that would not be "civil" nor even civil.
>
> It amounts to a form of enforced Gandhi-like Golden Rule
>
> "Thou shalt not accuse nor put down Others."
>
> putting it in this light makes it perfectly clear how and where I violated the commandment and it makes sense and that's cool.I really appreciate your reflecting on all this and sharing your insights, thanks.
> I could imagine that it might be helpful if posters could be informed of time frames for an administration response, if only provisionally or even very speculatively.
That's a good point. I'll try to respond within a couple days? But I get tied up sometimes, and run into technical difficulties sometimes, and need time to think about it sometimes. If you don't hear back from me, bug me about it?
Welcome back,
Bob
Posted by gabbix2 on June 18, 2004, at 20:32:36
In reply to re: thoughts (not long at all.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 17:48:48
No need to apologize Spoc, many very supportive valuable posters did leave disheartened, and upset with what they percieved and still percieve as erratic and prejudicial judgements. I'm hoping that this latest turn of events shows that things are changing for the better, but for a lot of people, me included, it's too late to feel part of the community anymore.
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.