![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 92. Go back in thread:
Posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 18:28:14
In reply to Re: finally... » cloudydaze, posted by Dinah on July 30, 2006, at 9:05:35
> > I like what laima said about people speaking up when they are offended. I would like to know if I offend someone! I think that people should speak up, and be trusted to speak up. That would be a good rule - if you're offended, speak up. But of course be "civil".
>
> You might like that. Not everyone does, and not everyone responds in a positive manner. Sometimes it leads to escalating situations in which more and more posters are drawn in, and the board erupts.***Could someone who was offended, say, report it to you, another deputy, or dr bob?
But they are supposed to respond in a positive manner, are they not? Isn't this the whole idea? Wow, it seems like we're being so "protected" from each other, even though it may be entirely unnecessary. Has anyone ever asked posters how they'd feel if they were trusted to report things that offended them? I wonder if I'm the only one who feels that this might work...
I'm not saying scrap the system, I'm suggesting we encourage the "growth" or improvement of it....and the babble community.
I think that it is so sheltered here...maybe relaxing the reins a little would allow for us to grow as people? I understand that Dr bob wants this to be an encouraging environment, but I think it could be more so. I don't find it encouraging right now...to me it feels like I have "big brother" breathing down my neck.
>
> Moreover, trying to stay civil when you are trying to express that you are offended and in response to someone's less than pleased reaction to that can be quite difficult.***yes it can be difficult. Should we be sheltered from all things difficult? I think not. I think that people should practice responding in a "civil" manner to things they might not find so "civil" - it's good practice for real life issues. People in real life are not always "civil" to one another. Here at Babble, things are more civil than real life, but I'd rather not have it forceably civil to the point of being insincere. I think doing this is counterproductive. I don't know about anyone else, but when I reach out for advice or support, I want to feel like people mean what they say - I'd rather have them say something a bit provacative to me then to have them say something nice that they don't mean.
>
> You may not agree, and that's fine. But if you assume that if no one says they are offended, it means no one is offended, well... that is not my own experience here as a poster or as a deputy.
>***I do not, and that's fine with me too :)
I do think that people need a bit more responsibility than they are sometimes given (and a bit more credit, too).> Neither is an anywhere near majority response of being pleased when someone tells someone else they are offended at their post.
***huh?
Not sure what you are getting at here. Were you referring to what I said about wanting to know if someone is offended? I never said I'd be "pleased" that someone was offended, however, I would like to know who was offended and why, so I can prevent it from happening in the future. We all need to practice communicating with each other. If a deputy jumps in and says "such and such was uncivil" it is much less useful and helpful to me than if the offended said "such and such offended me". I would not take offense to someone who is offended. Rather, I would try to clarify my words and intentions, and clear up any misunderstandings (which gets harder to do if someone jumps into the conversation). Sometimes, deputies or Dr bob jumping in and making remarks triggers uncivil behavior. IMO There are a few conversations I followed that seemed to be going just fine until it was interrupted, and people got steamed. I wonder if Dr bob thinks that people can't (or shouldn't) work out their own problems sometimes....
Posted by sunnydays on July 30, 2006, at 20:01:28
In reply to Re: finally... » Dinah, posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 18:28:14
I don't think that just because there is forced civility, that people are insincere in what they post. I, for one, always mean what I post. If I don't feel I can respond civilly, I don't respond. I would hope that others do the same, but obviously I can't know everyone on Babble's intentions when they post.
sunnydays
Posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 20:50:34
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by sunnydays on July 30, 2006, at 20:01:28
> I don't think that just because there is forced civility, that people are insincere in what they post. I, for one, always mean what I post. If I don't feel I can respond civilly, I don't respond. I would hope that others do the same, but obviously I can't know everyone on Babble's intentions when they post.
>
> sunnydays
Didn't mean to intend that everyone is insincere, i just think the restriction holds some people back a little too much...so they can't speak the "whole truth" for fear of being punished.
Posted by laima on July 30, 2006, at 21:10:03
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 20:50:34
I'd like to add or clarify, I understand there has been concern about people definately "meaning" what they post- *but* for whatever reason, simultaneously committing a civility error, unintentionally. Ie, not comprehending that whatever they said could be read or understood differently from whatever innocent way they intentended, or perhaps by using regionally acceptable and normal phrases or tones which sound fine and unremarkable within their own circles, but horrible to people elsewhere, who are accustomed to different usage.Of course, what the fair answer to that problem is, I have no more to say- no idea.
> > I don't think that just because there is forced civility, that people are insincere in what they post. I, for one, always mean what I post. If I don't feel I can respond civilly, I don't respond. I would hope that others do the same, but obviously I can't know everyone on Babble's intentions when they post.
> >
> > sunnydays
>
>
> Didn't mean to intend that everyone is insincere, i just think the restriction holds some people back a little too much...so they can't speak the "whole truth" for fear of being punished.
>
Posted by Deneb on July 30, 2006, at 21:25:47
In reply to Re: finally... » Dinah, posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 18:28:14
> I don't know about anyone else, but when I reach out for advice or support, I want to feel like people mean what they say - I'd rather have them say something a bit provacative to me then to have them say something nice that they don't mean.
Not me. I would rather the person not say anything to me if they are going to upset me. I don't care if it's tough love, I can't handle it. I like being sheltered.
((((((((shelter))))))))
((((((((Dr. Bob)))))))))
Deneb*
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 14:57:01
In reply to Re: finally... » Dinah, posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 18:28:14
> > The goal is civility. Which facilitates support.
>
> Is that intended as a definition of civility? If you blocked a person and the block didn't facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn't have blocked that person?Not necessarily. Someone can get a ticket for speeding even if they didn't cause an accident, because speeding leads to more accidents in general even if it didn't that time...
> 1) You seem to be too quick to block posters when they haven't accused / attacked / judged another poster and they would be willing to rephrase on the boards (which may well indicate that they didn't mean to cause offence).
>
> 2) You seem to block people for exhorbatent lengths of time when they haven't accused / attacked / judged another poster and they would be willing to rephrase on the boards (which may well indicate that they didn't mean to cause offence).Ideally, people would rephrase their uncivil posts themselves -- before they submit them. And blocks are shorter under the new system. Are you distinguishing between accusing someone like Bush and accusing another poster?
> As a result of that... Other posters seem to be uncivil (typically towards you but also towards other posters). Also the blocked poster seems to be more likely to be uncivil (typically towards you but also towards other posters) upon return.
That's true, blocking someone does sometimes stir things up and make it less supportive, at least in the short run.
> > The thing about flexibility is that it can be seen as unfair.
>
> Rigidity can also be seen as unfair. Not only unfair, but stubborn as well ;-)Maybe I'd rather err on the side of rigidity, since that would at least be predictable?
> > > > Part of learning how to deal with others might just be for people to be uncivil, have that pointed out by Dr. Bob and other members, and then work on appropriate alternate behaviors, and then keep posting.
>
> After being blocked for up to one year? Longer blocks... Probably decrease the liklihood of that. When work to perform appropriate alternative behaviours results in blockings of up to one year... I think people are more likely to come to believe they can't do whatever it is that is required. ... I think you exclude a lot of people who would remain and be good sources of support
>
> EstellaSomeone who's blocked for a year may in fact not be able to do what's required. At least not consistently and under these circumstances. I agree, it's a loss while they're blocked and then if they leave, after that.
--
> Thank you for your explainations, and for tolerating the discussion on this thread.
>
> I am gathering, managing order on an enourmous site like this, full of so many diverse people with differing views, must be a huge and difficult job-not as simple as I, for example, initially imagined.
>
> laimaYou're welcome. It certainly can be a challenge! :-)
--
> Could someone who was offended, say, report it to you, another deputy, or dr bob?
Sure, and FYI I'm working on a "notify the administration" button to facilitate that. But I think it would be good still to have a way to discuss -- as a community, in a civil way -- general policies and even specific situations.
> I think that it is so sheltered here...maybe relaxing the reins a little would allow for us to grow as people? ... I don't find it encouraging right now...to me it feels like I have "big brother" breathing down my neck.
It's hard to hold the reins so they feel right for everyone...
> I wonder if Dr bob thinks that people can't (or shouldn't) work out their own problems sometimes....
>
> cloudydazeI would love it if everyone worked out their problems! It may not in fact always be absolutely necessary, but I do think being civil facilitates that...
Bob
Posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 22:48:47
In reply to Re: rules, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2006, at 14:57:01
> > If you blocked a person and the block didn't facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn't have blocked that person?
> Not necessarily. Someone can get a ticket for speeding even if they didn't cause an accident, because speeding leads to more accidents in general even if it didn't that time...Okay, let me try that again…
If you block offences of type x and blocks for offences of type x don’t generally tend to facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn’t block offences of type x?
> Ideally, people would rephrase their uncivil posts themselves -- before they submit them.I think that sometimes people are blocked for posts that they do not realise you are going to classify as uncivil.
> And blocks are shorter under the new system.
Yes. I think it is better that they are shorter than they were, but I think it would be better still if some of them were shorter again and if you weren’t so quick to block certain kinds of offences.
> Are you distinguishing between accusing someone like Bush and accusing another poster?
I don’t think we should be allowed to accuse people on the boards or people off the boards. When it comes to critiquing then I distinguish between critiquing people (though that would include both people on and people off the boards) and critiquing policies and institutions, yes. But that isn’t what I’m getting at here. I’ll save that one for another day (I don’t want to be more controversial than I have to be).> > As a result of that... Other posters seem to be uncivil (typically towards you but also towards other posters). Also the blocked poster seems to be more likely to be uncivil (typically towards you but also towards other posters) upon return.
> That's true, blocking someone does sometimes stir things up and make it less supportive, at least in the short run.
Also in the long run as the poster is more likely to be uncivil upon return.I know that sometimes people get stirred up when people get blocked for attacking other posters. I think that in those instances people aren’t so upset that the poster was blocked so much as they are upset at the length of the block, however. People also seem to have difficulty with supporting a poster and not condoning their behaviour and turning against you at the same time…
I think that there are certain kinds of offences that people get blocked for where the majority of posters really can’t understand what on earth the person said to get blocked for, however. I think that those kinds of blocks are the most likely to lead to escalation and incivility on the boards. Both in the short and long term.
> > > The thing about flexibility is that it can be seen as unfair.
> > Rigidity can also be seen as unfair. Not only unfair, but stubborn as well ;-)
> Maybe I'd rather err on the side of rigidity, since that would at least be predictable?Maybe we should distinguish between flexibility / rigidity and the issue of where you draw the line. I agree that flexibility is something that many people have trouble with… Perhaps the issue is more where you decide to draw the line. I think that you have drawn the line in a way that is too harsh for some kinds of offences.
Examples… (I’m thinking of very specific cases here, I don’t want to be more controversial than I have to be)
- Zen got blocked for one year for saying ‘sh*t’ without an asterisk.
- Muffled got blocked for one week for saying ‘sh*t’ without an asterisk over on the writing board (where she may well have thought the rules on writing were different in that respect).
- A poster got blocked for posting a link that had a link to a link that was uncivil (where there is precedent for your blocking for that AND for your saying that it was okay to do that).
- I got blocked for 4 weeks for attempting to rephrase in a way that was within the guidelines.And there are so very many more… So very many…
> Someone who's blocked for a year may in fact not be able to do what's required. At least not consistently and under these circumstances. I agree, it's a loss while they're blocked and then if they leave, after that.Are the boards more supportive as a result of your blocking posters for up to one year for certain kinds of offences? That seems to be a point of difference between us. I think you are too harsh:
> > 1) You seem to be too quick to block posters when they haven't accused / attacked / judged another poster and they would be willing to rephrase on the boards (which may well indicate that they didn't mean to cause offence).
> > 2) You seem to block people for exorbitant lengths of time when they haven't accused / attacked / judged another poster and they would be willing to rephrase on the boards (which may well indicate that they didn't mean to cause offence).
I think that blocking people for those kinds of offences is likely to lead to more incivility on the boards.- In the short term: people get upset with you for having blocked them. The boards become polarised into those who support your decision and those who do not.
- In the long term: people see this as an ongoing issue and those hurts come up again next time. The poster returns after a block and is more likely to be uncivil after being blocked for those kinds of offences.
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 15:39:27
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by Deneb on July 30, 2006, at 21:25:47
>
> Not me. I would rather the person not say anything to me if they are going to upset me. I don't care if it's tough love, I can't handle it. I like being sheltered.
>
> ((((((((shelter))))))))
>
> ((((((((Dr. Bob)))))))))
>
> Deneb*Let me put it this way....if I was overly sheltered here (and wanted to be), I might expect to be sheltered in real life too, and when things didn't turn out that way, I would end up being more upset.
Over time, I might withdrawl from real life and my only social interaction would be these boards, where I am sheltered.
That scenario could cause a lot more problems than it prevents. It is an unhealthy situation, IMO. It is possible to be supportive, but real (ond not overly sheltering).
How? I am no genius, and I don't have all the answers, but I have made a few suggestions already, and if I think of more, I will surely speak up.
Posted by gardenergirl on August 2, 2006, at 23:00:23
In reply to Re: question » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 22:27:46
> I don't have time to search for all the numerous examples but I remember this one person who told a r*dneck joke. ... This person got blocked or PBC'ed.
>That term has been used as a negative sterotype towards a specific segment of the population. Is it possible that someone from rural areas of the country or from the lifestyle or culture that term applies to might not appreciate the joke? Is it possible that others might feel offended by jokes that could perpetuate negative stereotypes?
>
> No one said they were offended, but several posted their opposition to the block.You can't prove a negative, though.
> My main point is that we need to lighten up.
>That's one way to look at it. Although as one of the 15-20 percent of the population who are highly sensitive, it's not the right approach for me.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on August 2, 2006, at 23:05:15
In reply to Re: question » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 22:16:24
> Again, thank you, too: for sharing and for the dialog.
> You have me thinking quite a bit as well.Thanks. I appreciated the dialog. Since Dr. Bob stepped in, though, I decided to back out. It's his board and his policies, and I think he's in a better position to 'splain them. Plus, I had some stuff come up IRL that needed my attention. Sorry to just disappear in mid-conversation.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 8:04:04
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 15:39:27
> if I was overly sheltered here (and wanted to be), I might expect to be sheltered in real life too, and when things didn't turn out that way, I would end up being more upset.
I think most people know what "real" life is like before they even get here...
> Over time, I might withdrawl from real life and my only social interaction would be these boards, where I am sheltered.
If someone gets their needs met online, is that a bad thing?
Bob
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 11:57:05
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 8:04:04
> > if I was overly sheltered here (and wanted to be), I might expect to be sheltered in real life too, and when things didn't turn out that way, I would end up being more upset.
>
> I think most people know what "real" life is like before they even get here...
>
> > Over time, I might withdrawl from real life and my only social interaction would be these boards, where I am sheltered.
>
> If someone gets their needs met online, is that a bad thing?
>
It is if it leads them to forsake opportunities IRL.
it is if it leads them to spend their time here instead of pursuing opportunities IRL.
It is is it leads them to live their lives on boards instead of IRL.People have a need for human contact. Touch and the like. You can't get those needs met on boards. IRL has different rules such as... Reciprocity. The ability to put on a happy face. The fact that you are stuck with (so to speak) a smaller group of people and you can't just flit off into conversations as the mood takes you...
I think there are important skills one needs to navigate IRL that aren't adequately minicked on boards... At least... Not on large city boards...
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 11:59:07
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 11:57:05
Do you protect people IRL Dr Bob?
How much can people rely on you vs how much do they need to learn to be assertive to protect themselves?You make judgements on boards.
Do you PBC people for swearing without an asterisk IRL
lol
Posted by gardenergirl on August 3, 2006, at 13:08:36
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 11:57:05
> > If someone gets their needs met online, is that a bad thing?
> >
> It is if it leads them to forsake opportunities IRL.
> it is if it leads them to spend their time here instead of pursuing opportunities IRL.
> It is is it leads them to live their lives on boards instead of IRL.I agree that could be a problem. I don't believe that the existence of a place where it's safer to open up and be vulnerable in the seeking of support and understanding would be responsible for someone withdrawing from the real world. I think that's a much more complex phenomenon. I think as a whole, the benefits far outweigh the risks.
>
> People have a need for human contact. Touch and the like. You can't get those needs met on boards.I agree. And I think it's helpful to understand the differences between IRL and interacting in an internet community.
> I think there are important skills one needs to navigate IRL that aren't adequately minicked on boards... At least... Not on large city boards...I agree. But I do not think of the main purpose of internet boards, Babble included, as providing a place to learn IRL skills. I do think that skills developed here can apply to IRL, but I tend to think of that as secondary.
gg
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 13:12:32
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 11:59:07
if there is no other way for you to meet your needs then meeting your needs on boards is a wonderful thing indeed.
when meeting your needs on boards becomes a fairly reliable source of reinforcement... to the point where people forsake working on IRL interactions to receive rft here then... i think it encourages dependency on boards and encourages people to withdraw irl.
in some respects... boards are easier than irl.
but in other respects... the rewards of irl interactions are greater.it is a hard one.
i lived my life here for... couple years. i really did. i really did live my life here.
what is the equivalent of IRL ban on interaction for a coupld weeks / months?
hard to compare huh.
where are the hugs? where is the human touch? people get those at babble meets perhaps but how often are those?
one can pick and choose conversations...
one can not respond 'cause one doesn't feel like it.
one can jump into a conversation 'cause one does feel like it.so much on ones own terms...
IRL...
how much are the boards preparing people... empowering people for irl...
and how much are th eboards encouraging / fostering unhealthy dependency and resulting in people withdrawing from irl for a 'quick fix'
hard to say...
Posted by cloudydaze on August 3, 2006, at 21:37:24
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 8:04:04
> > if I was overly sheltered here (and wanted to be), I might expect to be sheltered in real life too, and when things didn't turn out that way, I would end up being more upset.
>
> I think most people know what "real" life is like before they even get here...
>
> > Over time, I might withdrawl from real life and my only social interaction would be these boards, where I am sheltered.
>
> If someone gets their needs met online, is that a bad thing?
>YES! If it causes them to withdrawl from all real contact....you don't think internet addiction is unhealthy Bob?
Posted by fayeroe on August 3, 2006, at 22:54:23
In reply to Re: some kinds of blocks may harm the boards » Dr. Bob, posted by Estella on July 31, 2006, at 22:48:47
bob said:> Someone who's blocked for a year may in fact not be able to do what's required. At least not consistently and under these circumstances. I agree, it's a loss while they're blocked and then if they leave, after that.
since Zen was blocked for a year, were you referring to her?
and if you were, do you think that Zen could not post again and use * in the word sh*t?
if you are implying that, you're painting her with a pretty broad stroke. you must know her better than I.
unless, of course, i'm confused and there is another Zen who was blocked for a year.
Posted by Deneb on August 3, 2006, at 22:55:01
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 8:04:04
> If someone gets their needs met online, is that a bad thing?
>
> BobI agree that wouldn't be a bad thing. What if I like online friends better than IRL friends? I've never been very social IRL, I don't think it's possible to withdraw more than I already was. I think I've been *more* social IRL since making Babble friends.
At least I'm communicating with human beings now. Before I was all alone with my thoughts and I didn't mind. Now I want to write my thoughts here. Any interaction is progress for me.
Yes, I'm that much of a hermit.
Deneb*
Posted by cloudydaze on August 3, 2006, at 23:05:17
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Deneb on August 3, 2006, at 22:55:01
> > If someone gets their needs met online, is that a bad thing?
> >
> > Bob
>
> I agree that wouldn't be a bad thing. What if I like online friends better than IRL friends? I've never been very social IRL, I don't think it's possible to withdraw more than I already was. I think I've been *more* social IRL since making Babble friends.
>
> At least I'm communicating with human beings now. Before I was all alone with my thoughts and I didn't mind. Now I want to write my thoughts here. Any interaction is progress for me.
>
> Yes, I'm that much of a hermit.
>
> Deneb*I think internet addiction is a very sad and serious thing. I struggle with it myself. This board in no way helps me develop real life skills, in fact i think it hurts my real life skills. It's been causing me to withdrawl more than usual, and it's making me upset.
I don't see how this board could help RL skills at all.
Posted by Estella on August 4, 2006, at 0:38:22
In reply to Re: some kinds of blocks may harm the boards, posted by fayeroe on August 3, 2006, at 22:54:23
I think Bob was speaking more generally... I don't think he had any particular poster in mind (though I should probably let him speak for himself).
> and if you were, do you think that Zen could not post again and use * in the word sh*t?
Now there would be an asterisk inserted automatically (unless someone deliberately chooses to turn off the automated asterisking system). I think that he decided to implement that system precisely so he wouldn't have to block people for feeling upset and swearing and forgetting to asterisk because they were feeling upset.
Nice to see you here :-)
:-)
Really very.It is special_k incase you are confused...
Thanks for your warm welcome over at other site.
I guess I realised...
There isn't really a place for me there.
Some of the posters are wonderful people.
I think there are administration problems here
But I really respect the fact that we have a board to sort those out.
Sometimes feels like one is talking to a brick wall...
But I guess rocks make good brick walls lol.
I actually think... That some kind of progress is being made...
But sometimes progress is slow...I hope you stick around.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 4:01:47
In reply to Re: shelter, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 13:12:32
> If you block offences of type x and blocks for offences of type x don't generally tend to facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn't block offences of type x?
I guess I would...
> > Ideally, people would rephrase their uncivil posts themselves -- before they submit them.
>
> I think that sometimes people are blocked for posts that they do not realise you are going to classify as uncivil.I'm sure that happens. It's something that can take time to learn...
> > And blocks are shorter under the new system.
>
> Yes. I think it is better that they are shorter than they were, but I think it would be better still if some of them were shorter again and if you weren't so quick to block certain kinds of offences.Well, one step at a time?
> > Are you distinguishing between accusing someone like Bush and accusing another poster?
>
> I don't think we should be allowed to accuse people on the boards or people off the boards. When it comes to critiquing then I distinguish between critiquing people (though that would include both people on and people off the boards) and critiquing policies and institutions, yes.Are you saying you think it shouldn't be OK to accuse people, but it should be OK to accuse policies and institutions?
> I think that there are certain kinds of offences that people get blocked for where the majority of posters really can't understand what on earth the person said to get blocked for
How much do you think it's (a) not understanding the reasons and how much (b) understanding the reasons, but not agreeing that they justify the blocks?
> Perhaps the issue is more where you decide to draw the line. I think that you have drawn the line in a way that is too harsh for some kinds of offences.
That may be true. Reasonable people can disagree. But how long someone's blocked for doesn't depend just on the current "offence"...
> Are the boards more supportive as a result of your blocking posters for up to one year for certain kinds of offences? That seems to be a point of difference between us.
It does seem to be, I agree with you there. :-)
> - In the short term: people get upset with you for having blocked them. The boards become polarised into those who support your decision and those who do not.
That's the thing about critiquing, it's correlated with polarization. If the subgroups were people who supported my decision and those who supported the blocked poster, I think it would be different.
> - In the long term: people see this as an ongoing issue and those hurts come up again next time. The poster returns after a block and is more likely to be uncivil after being blocked for those kinds of offences.
I think it's inevitably an ongoing issue, how to coexist. I don't think posters are always more uncivil after being blocked.
> how much are the boards preparing people... empowering people for irl...
>
> and how much are th eboards encouraging / fostering unhealthy dependency and resulting in people withdrawing from irl for a 'quick fix'
>
> hard to say...I agree, it's hard. And it could be one for some people, the other for others. And for a given person one at some times, the other at others.
Bob
Posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 0:29:34
In reply to Re: blocks and support, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 4:01:47
> > If you block offences of type x and blocks for offences of type x don't generally tend to facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn't block offences of type x?
> I guess I would...
Yeah. I thought you would say that :-)
So now the controversy would be over:1) How you type offences.
2) How you measure whether blocking people for a type generally tends to facilitate support or not.
> > > Ideally, people would rephrase their uncivil posts themselves -- before they submit them.> > I think that sometimes people are blocked for posts that they do not realise you are going to classify as uncivil.
> I'm sure that happens. It's something that can take time to learn...I think that being too quick to block some of those doesn't faciliate learning, it facilitates people going 'well f*ck you'. I've been here for a while now... Am I 'unlearning' over time? If blocks are anything to go by then I seem to be...
> > > And blocks are shorter under the new system.
> > Yes. I think it is better that they are shorter than they were, but I think it would be better still if some of them were shorter again and if you weren't so quick to block certain kinds of offences.> Well, one step at a time?
Sure. I hope you don't mind if I keep trying to push you into (what I perceive to be) the right general direction, however...
> Are you saying you think it shouldn't be OK to accuse people, but it should be OK to accuse policies and institutions?No, I don't think it should be okay to accuse either people or institutions. I distinguish between accusing and critiquing, however.
Main Entry: ac·cuse
to charge with a fault or offense : BLAMEMain Entry: 1cri·tique
a critical estimate or discussion <a critique of the poet's work>I agree there can be a fine line. I think we should be able to critique policies and ideologies and institutions *on the politics board*. I agree that we shouldn't accuse politicians or posters, however. It can be a fine line. I think it would help people learn if you weren't so quick to block borderline offences.
> > I think that there are certain kinds of offences that people get blocked for where the majority of posters really can't understand what on earth the person said to get blocked for
> How much do you think it's (a) not understanding the reasons and how much (b) understanding the reasons, but not agreeing that they justify the blocks?Hard to say. If (a) then it would be nice if you could try and help us understand. If (b) then it might be time for you to look at whether your reasons really do justify lengthy blocks. That is what people seem to be saying in some instances. Seems to be a recurring issue... That yes they understand your reasons, but that no they don't agree that that justifies a lengthy block.
> > Perhaps the issue is more where you decide to draw the line. I think that you have drawn the line in a way that is too harsh for some kinds of offences.
> That may be true. Reasonable people can disagree.Though it is unclear whether both can be right ;-)
It would seem to be an empirical matter...> But how long someone's blocked for doesn't depend just on the current "offence"...
Borderline offences can accumulate too...
One year for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk...
> That's the thing about critiquing, it's correlated with polarization.Correlation doesn't entail causation. It might be that polarisation tends to cause critique, or it might be the other way around. Do you distinguish between critique and attack? Perhaps we disagree on what counts as a critique and what counts as an attack?
It doesn't have to be that way. Especially when critique is about *discussion* and *reasons*.
> If the subgroups were people who supported my decision and those who supported the blocked poster, I think it would be different.
Different how?
> > - In the long term: people see this as an ongoing issue and those hurts come up again next time. The poster returns after a block and is more likely to be uncivil after being blocked for those kinds of offences.
> I think it's inevitably an ongoing issue, how to coexist.Though when you block people it isn't about coexisting. It is about a person being excluded (that might not be your intention but that is a consequence).
> I don't think posters are always more uncivil after being blocked.
I think posters are more likely to be uncvil after blocks for certain types of offences... Also after lengthy blocks for certain types of offences...
> > how much are the boards preparing people... empowering people for irl...
> > and how much are th eboards encouraging / fostering unhealthy dependency and resulting in people withdrawing from irl for a 'quick fix'> > hard to say...
> I agree, it's hard. And it could be one for some people, the other for others. And for a given person one at some times, the other at others.Yeah, thats probably right.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 11:00:24
In reply to Re: blocks and support » Dr. Bob, posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 0:29:34
> So now the controversy would be over:
>
> 1) How you type offences.
> 2) How you measure whether blocking people for a type generally tends to facilitate support or not.I agree, those could be controversial. :-)
> I think that being too quick to block some of those doesn't faciliate learning, it facilitates people going 'well f*ck you'. I've been here for a while now... Am I 'unlearning' over time? If blocks are anything to go by then I seem to be...
I agree, blocks doesn't always have the desired effect. Learning is part of it, but other factors influence behavior, too.
> > Well, one step at a time?
>
> Sure. I hope you don't mind if I keep trying to push you into (what I perceive to be) the right general direction, however...Please do, pushing keeps us from going too far off course, and a lot of pushing can be necessary when the boat's this big.
> Main Entry: cri·tique
> a critical estimate or discussion
>
> I agree there can be a fine line. I think we should be able to critique policies and ideologies and institutions *on the politics board*. I agree that we shouldn't accuse politicians or posters, however. It can be a fine line.What if any critiques needed to be constructive?
> > how long someone's blocked for doesn't depend just on the current "offence"...
>
> Borderline offences can accumulate too...Right, and IMO an accumulation is different than a single one.
> > If the subgroups were people who supported my decision and those who supported the blocked poster, I think it would be different.
>
> Different how?I'm not sure how to explain it. I guess I think it's inevitably more adversarial if one subgroup says x is good and another says x is bad. Because good and bad are (easily seen as) incompatible.
But if one says x is good and another says y is good, those aren't necessarily contradictory positions. So it's easier to get along.
> > I think it's inevitably an ongoing issue, how to coexist.
>
> Though when you block people it isn't about coexisting. It is about a person being excluded (that might not be your intention but that is a consequence).It's both, it's about somebody being excluded because their behavior isn't, IMO, conducive to coexisting.
Bob
Posted by Estella on August 17, 2006, at 5:32:57
In reply to Re: blocks and support, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 11:00:24
> I agree, blocks doesn't always have the desired effect.
Systematic alterations to the blocking system should lead to systematic alterations in the effects (whether the effects are desired or not). It is unclear whether the current blocking system acheives the optimal solution in the trade-off between desired and undesired effects.
How much have you done with respect to seeing whether there is a systematic dependency between the blocking system and the effects? How much have you done with respect to varying where you draw the line so as to assess the trade-off between desired and undesired effects?
Posters have been trying to get you to block less. How seriously have you taken their concerns?
> Learning is part of it, but other factors influence behavior, too.You already have a notion of ‘same type of offence’. That factors in to the length of the block, at times.
> What if any critiques needed to be constructive?
What do you mean by “constructive critique”?
Wiki says:
> Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_criticism
>> I know that sometimes people get stirred up when people get blocked for attacking other posters. I think that in those instances people aren’t so upset that the poster was blocked so much as they are upset at the length of the block, however. People also seem to have difficulty with supporting a poster and not condoning their behaviour and turning against you at the same time… In the short term: people get upset with you for having blocked them. The boards become polarised into those who support your decision and those who do not.
> If the subgroups were people who supported my decision and those who supported the blocked poster, I think it would be different… I'm not sure how to explain it. I guess I think it's inevitably more adversarial if one subgroup says x is good and another says x is bad. Because good and bad are (easily seen as) incompatible. But if one says x is good and another says y is good, those aren't necessarily contradictory positions. So it's easier to get along.
Right. I think people do have difficulty seeing that they can support a poster without condoning their behaviour. I think people do have difficulty seeing that they can support a poster without turning on you. I think it is a shame because it means that when people have good reasoned opinions on their finding your blocking behaviour unacceptable you can just lump it with an ‘expression of support’ for the blocked poster and… Not take the concerns seriously.
> > > I think it's inevitably an ongoing issue, how to coexist.
> > Though when you block people it isn't about coexisting. It is about a person being excluded (that might not be your intention but that is a consequence).> It's both, it's about somebody being excluded because their behavior isn't, IMO, conducive to coexisting.
In your opinion.
It is your opinion that people are calling into question.
Your basing decisions on your opinion when the majority really don’t agree with your opinion and when the consequence can be a one year block. When the majority cannot understand why it is that you saw fit to block the person.When you block people… Then you aren’t conducive to coexisting.
And you say 'well how am I supposed to administrate if I aren't allowed to be uncivil and label posters uncivil and exclude them from society as a consequence of my opinion of their posts?'
And some of us say 'well maybe you should ease up a little and not be so quick to jump on people, take their posts out of context, uncharitably interpret, be so jolly quick to block people for up to one year'
And round and round we go...
And it isn't about steering a ship
It is about pushing you
Cause others don't steer
Except insofar as you go AWOL for a time
And leave them explicit instructions
And you call on them so you can say
'Our' decision instead of 'mine'
Even when...
Thats not the case.
Is it?Do you poll deputies?
Do you count the votes?
Or just the vote of the person named Bob?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 27, 2006, at 1:16:30
In reply to Re: blocks and support, posted by Estella on August 17, 2006, at 5:32:57
> How much have you done with respect to seeing whether there is a systematic dependency between the blocking system and the effects?
I haven't done anything systematic. But that's a good idea for a project...
> > What if any critiques needed to be constructive?
>
> What do you mean by “constructive critique”?
>
> Wiki says:
>
> > Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative commentsThere could be disagreement regarding "valid and well-reasoned", but I think that sounds a lot better than just negative comments...
Bob
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.