![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 92. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Estella on August 28, 2006, at 3:05:35
In reply to Re: blocks and support, posted by Dr. Bob on August 27, 2006, at 1:16:30
> > 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...
Yeah, you would need to do something systematic in order to support your claim that your blocking system reduces the incivilities on the boards. You do keep saying that, but really it is an empirical matter. Also... Assuming there are systematic dependencies (which I think there probably are) between the blocking system and the positive and negative effects of the blocking system it would be an empirical matter whether you have hit upon the best balance in the maximisation of good / minimisation of harm trade off.
One way to approach the issue...
Do you keep stats on who gets blocked, when, and for how long? It might be possible to see whether people tend to escalate or tow the line as a result of blocking. Also... It would be interesting to know how many people stop posting for a time or perminanently following blocks.
> There could be disagreement regarding "valid and well-reasoned"
There could be, but there are objective measures of both. They are both technical terms and what people have been asking for... Is to be allowed to offer constructive criticism on the politics board. To learn how to do constructive critiques instead of being blocked out of existence.
> but I think that sounds a lot better than just negative comments...
I never advocated allowing name calling etc on the politics board. We have been asking to be allowed to CRITIQUE policies and institutions.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2006, at 19:06:08
In reply to Re: blocks and support » Dr. Bob, posted by Estella on August 28, 2006, at 3:05:35
> Do you keep stats on who gets blocked, when, and for how long? It might be possible to see whether people tend to escalate or tow the line as a result of blocking. Also... It would be interesting to know how many people stop posting for a time or perminanently following blocks.
Those are good ideas for projects, too!
> what people have been asking for... Is to be allowed to offer constructive criticism on the politics board.
OK, but the key word is "constructive"...
Bob
Posted by Jost on August 28, 2006, at 19:40:11
In reply to Re: blocks and support, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2006, at 19:06:08
Critiques include positive as well as negative comments. Often a critique is an analysis or inventory of how well various aspects of an activity are performed.
So, if something is effective or well-executed or imagined, that calls for comment, as much as do things that are incorrect, or imperfect.
Also, it's not so simple to design tests to show that things such as blocking people are working, or that such and such empirical test has any necessary or compelling relationship to what you're trying to prove.
There are lots of value judgments involved, in what it means to be "working well"-- plus arguments would be necessary for why one empirical test or other gives the answer.
Of course, unargued or undemonstrated assertions that blocking has any particular effect would also be somewhat less than persuasive.
What the effects of blocking people are, is an interesting question, though.
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 29, 2006, at 21:40:00
In reply to Re: blocks and support Estella, posted by Jost on August 28, 2006, at 19:40:11
> Critiques include positive as well as negative comments.
Yes indeed. It is hard to motivate someone to look for a better strategy if people aren't aware of what may be wrong with the current strategy
Currently, however, people get blocked from the politics board for trying to point out unsavory aspects of current strategies so it seems that only POSITIVE comments about policies, institutions, and ideologies is permissible. The trouble with that is that we simply aren't allowed to critique on the politics board.
> Also, it's not so simple to design tests to show that things such as blocking people are working, or that such and such empirical test has any necessary or compelling relationship to what you're trying to prove.
I know it isn't so easy, but I figure it would be possible to do a reasonable study (which is to say about as reasonable as lots of other studies out there). If you think there is a causal relationship between blocking and certain things like reoffending, leaving the boards etc then it would seem to me that the place to start would be to have a look at the stats of people reoffending, leaving the boards etc. While correlation doesn't imply causation it would be interesting to see WHAT correlations obtain in the first place. If there are correlations then the next step would be to systematically alter the independent variable (blockings for certain kinds of offences) in order to see whether there are systematic alterations to the dependent variables. If we agree that systematic variation is causation (as many scientists seem to accept it is) then a causal relationship between blockings and reoffending / leaving would be established. It would then be an empirical matter as to how to achieve the best trade-off between the positive and negative consequences of blocking. E.g., if you shorten the block lengths there might be more 'minor' offences, but less people may leave as a consequence of the blocking system.
In all this... I think offenses need to be typed into kinds. I think there are some offenses that most people would agree blockings are appropriate for (when people fairly clearly accuse, attack, judge another etc) and there are other offenses where most people agree blockings are not appropriate (critiquing ideologies and institutions for example). Whether you block or not and the length of time you block for would be the independent variables. I think it would be possible to do this. Offenses are typed already to a certain extent. Typing wouldn't seem to be more arbitrary than oh say the way DSM types. It doesn't need to be an exact science, just needs to be good enough...
The first step would be to type offenses. That is probably best done by looking through the archives and seeing what kinds of offences people are blocked for. It might be hard to come up with an appropriate category of types, but I don't think it is impossible or essentially arbitrary. One way to do it would be to see whether one person can organise blocks into types under certain headers and then see whether once the headers are given whether another poster can organise the blocks into the same headers. If so then there is inter-rater reliability for the types at any rate. There might be lots of funny borderline cases but I would say that we should have a go rather than giving up on a-priori grounds.
I'm interested in whether lengthy blocks for certain types of offences actually harm the boards. What I mean by harm is operationalised and fairly specific:
1) It harms the boards when a person who usually posts supportive messages leaves the board for a lengthy period of time / for good.
2) It harms the boards when a person who usually posts supportive messages starts posting unsupportive / attacking messages.
3) It harms the boards when a person who usually posts supportive messages leaves the boards because another poster was blocked for a lengthy period of time for a borderline offence.I think that lengthy blocks for borderline infractions tends to CAUSE both those results. Hence... Blocking people for lengthy periods of time tends to HARM the boards in the above mentioned ways.
Bob thinks that might well be so but he thinks that blocking people for lengthy periods of time actually prevents further incivilities on the boards.
Only one way to find out and yeah it is indeed an empirical matter...
Posted by Estella on August 29, 2006, at 23:29:51
In reply to Re: blocks and support, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2006, at 19:06:08
> Those are good ideas for projects, too!
Well as people tend to say, you get the research grant and I'll spend it :-)
Seriously, though. I say this because... You are fond of saying that your blocking system helps the boards more than it harms the boards. I want to say... That is an empirical matter. I think that your blocking system harms the boards more than alternative blocking systems. That is an empirical matter as well. But instead of us reaching loggerheads on a-priori grounds it is indeed an empirical matter. You can assert your perspective until you are blue in the face but the only thing that will show you to be right is a careful analysis of the stats (and maybe some systematic variation if you want a supported causal claim).
> > what people have been asking for... Is to be allowed to offer constructive criticism on the politics board.
> OK, but the key word is "constructive"...OK. But the key word for "constructive criticism" (according to wiki) is that negative comments are an important part of that.
So... Are we allowed to critique policies, institutions, and ideologies on the politics board (where negative comments are an important part of critique) or not?
Posted by Jost on August 30, 2006, at 2:19:10
In reply to Re: blocks and support Estella, posted by Estella on August 29, 2006, at 21:40:00
Your ideas seem well worth pursuing empirically to see whether and to what extect tthere are connections between blocking and greater or lesser use of the board by those not blocked--or, if it leads to further blocks, beause some defend their blocked friends, and can becomn disillusioned about thre fairness of the Admn.
[I have more to say about this, but am literally falling asleep as I write, and drifting into incoherence, so I'll continue tomorrow.]
Jost
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 3, 2006, at 10:50:03
In reply to Re: blocks and support » Dr. Bob, posted by Estella on August 29, 2006, at 23:29:51
> > > what people have been asking for... Is to be allowed to offer constructive criticism on the politics board.
>
> > OK, but the key word is "constructive"...
>
> So... Are we allowed to critique policies, institutions, and ideologies on the politics board (where negative comments are an important part of critique) or not?Um, you left out the key word, plus the other important part of those critiques...
Bob
Posted by Jost on September 3, 2006, at 13:59:04
In reply to Re: blocks and support Estella, posted by Estella on August 29, 2006, at 21:40:00
>>> The first step would be to type offenses. That is probably best done by looking through the archives and seeing what kinds of offences people are blocked for. It might be hard to come up with an appropriate category of types, but I don't think it is impossible or essentially arbitrary. One way to do it would be to see whether one person can organise blocks into types under certain headers and then see whether once the headers are given whether another poster can organise the blocks into the same headers. If so then there is inter-rater reliability for the types at any rate. There might be lots of funny borderline cases but I would say that we should have a go rather than giving up on a-priori grounds.
~~~ are there any categories that you're thinking about? (other than personal attacks, vs, something else?)~~ have you looked through any archives, say of the last year, to see how many blocks there were and if there's any pattern to the blocks? or to the behavior of those who were blocked, after the blocks, or the behavior of those who weren't blocked? etc
>>>
>>>I'm interested in whether lengthy blocks for certain types of offences actually harm the boards. What I mean by harm is operationalised and fairly specific:1) It harms the boards when a person who usually posts supportive messages leaves the board for a lengthy period of time / for good.
2) It harms the boards when a person who usually posts supportive messages starts posting unsupportive / attacking messages.
3) It harms the boards when a person who usually posts supportive messages leaves the boards because another poster was blocked for a lengthy period of time for a borderline offence.
~~ Have you identified the lengths of the blocks for the last year? what's the longest vs the shortest? have you tried doing a bell curve for the length of blocks?That would be a pretty simple step, that might be interesting.
The thing about the blocks is that I'm not sure that Bob uses them for consequentialist reasons. So far, that's what you've assumed. Bob has, I guess, made consequentialist-sounding claims about the blocks, and he may believe that these claims are true-- but they still may not be the rationale.
My sense (and I admit to having no strong basis for it) is that Bob has some sort of philosophical/pedagogic attachment to the structure of blocks. If so, a demonstration that he's empirically incorrect might go only so far.
If blocks were quite harmful, without having the pedagogic benefits, you might get somewhere with him. But the harm would have to substantially outweight the pedagogy (IMHG). (G meaning "guess") How can you measure the degree of a harm--or the degree of a good that might be out there, but is more theoretical--ie the blocked person goes away mad, but learns something useful in the next situation?
Bob could still correctly point out that your study doesn't capture the benefits, and also that the harms, when weighed against the benefits, are less telling. How, for example, do you weight Good A, vs Good B, or Harm A vs. Harm B? (There are always points of view in studies--it's particularly hard to produce a study specifically to convince someone whose point of view you don't share.)
It would nonetheless be interesting (to me anyway) as to what the pattern of blocks is. And of comings and goings, and lots of other aspects of this board. If I were prone to empirical work, Psychobabble would be my dream site. (I like it a whole lot anyway, as anyone can see.)
I'm curious about Bob's algorithm for blocking. I've been online long enough (not that long, but long enough) to have noticed that s/he who owns the message board is going to run message board according to her/his lights. From what Ive seen Bob is a rather enlightened dictator, compared to others. Although democracy is a great concept, probably enlightened dictatorship works as well as enlightened democracy. So while I undoubtedly disagree with Bob on many things (or don't, who knows?), I'm impressed with the insight and evolving usefulness of many features of the board.
I'm also interested in your critique (constructive, of course).
Jost
Posted by Estella on September 3, 2006, at 23:17:17
In reply to Re: blocks and support » Estella, posted by Jost on September 3, 2006, at 13:59:04
> Bob has, I guess, made consequentialist-sounding claims about the blocks, and he may believe that these claims are true-- but they still may not be the rationale.
Yeah. He might well come up with another rationale if that one doesn't work out for him. The whole motto is that 'I'm doing this for the good of the group', however.
> a demonstration that he's empirically incorrect might go only so far.He said that he would agree that he shouldn't block offences of type x if blocking offences of type x harmed the boards more than it helped them.
> How can you measure the degree of a harm--or the degree of a good that might be out there, but is more theoretical--ie the blocked person goes away mad, but learns something useful in the next situation?Bob thinks that blocks make the boards more civil. If you find that blocks tend to lead to escalation (where more people get blocked) then he wouldn't seem to be correct.
> How, for example, do you weight Good A, vs Good B, or Harm A vs. Harm B?I hear what you are saying. In a way what I'm doing is... Protesting against lengthy blocks that are handed out for IMO no good reason. I think he shouldn't be as quick to block.
This is an issue that comes up again and again and again on the boards. The difference is that I keep up with the issue while other people will wait until the next person is blocked (where they don't understand) and then they will go off for a time... And then they will forget about it until next time. I keep on at it because if you go off about a particular case then Bob writes you off as attempting to offer (misguided) support to the blocked poster and he doesn't take your concerns about the blocking system seriously.
(He is changing the topic already)
I know the study won't be done. All I'm really trying to do with that... Is to illustrate that while Bob keeps saying 'its for the good of the group' he could well be wrong. I'm not sure how much he looks at / notices / takes seriously the harm that results from some of his blocks.
Not ALL of them. The conversation typically degenerates into 'but we can't do away with the whole thing'. I'm not saying that we should do away with the whole thing. The conversation typically degenerates into 'you can't please people all of the time'. But I'm not saying that one should try all I'm saying is to take serious upset seriously. The conversation typically degenerates into 'So you feel powerless. But people having power over you isn't always a bad thing'. But I'm not saying that it is always a bad thing. I'm saying that Bob is too quick to block (on SOME occasions). And that that harms the boards. It does harm the boards. He thinks the benefit outweighs the harm. But I don't think he sees the harm. Some of what he says about the harm... Is dismissive.
> I'm curious about Bob's algorithm for blocking.
Seems to be a work in progress (thank god). Lots of room for improvement though...
> From what Ive seen Bob is a rather enlightened dictator, compared to others.
I'm not denying that. But he ain't perfect. If we focus on the good... Often we ignore the improvements that could be made...
> Although democracy is a great concept, probably enlightened dictatorship works as well as enlightened democracy.
Becoming more democratic is on the cards. There has been a conversation about that in the archives. I think he is trying to move towards a 'rule by small few'. Tends to be resisted, however. People think he is trying to 'extract' himself and so it is resisted. On the other hand maybe the way he envisiges 'rule by small few' is that he can say 'I've talked to the deputies and we have decided that no' instead of just saying 'no'.
Posted by Estella on September 3, 2006, at 23:19:49
In reply to Re: blocks and support » Jost, posted by Estella on September 3, 2006, at 23:17:17
He talks about power a lot.
About how we think it is unfair that he can do whatever the f*ck he likes.I sometimes think that that is why people get blocked.
Because bob sees them as challenging his power.
Even when they aren't. Even when they don't understand what they are supposed to have done wrong.
How do you feel when you see people as challenging your authority bob?
Do you think people might tend to do it more because... You tend to elicit that which you are most afraid of?
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.