![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 36 to 60 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by EmmyS on May 26, 2004, at 12:54:48
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2004, at 9:19:41
I'm against all blocks unless they are for outrageous behavior such as racist comments, encouraging suicide, etc.
Blocking access to a generally supportive environment goes against the idea of this place.
If you feel blocks are required, please consider limiting the duration to something more reasonable and base it on the CURRENT offense only, not on cummulated past behaviors.
Amnesty for Larry.
Emmy
Posted by Susan J on May 26, 2004, at 13:13:50
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block » Dr. Bob, posted by EmmyS on May 26, 2004, at 12:54:48
well said!
> I'm against all blocks unless they are for outrageous behavior such as racist comments, encouraging suicide, etc.
>
> Blocking access to a generally supportive environment goes against the idea of this place.
>
> If you feel blocks are required, please consider limiting the duration to something more reasonable and base it on the CURRENT offense only, not on cummulated past behaviors.
>
> Amnesty for Larry.
>
> Emmy
Posted by spoc on May 26, 2004, at 16:06:23
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block » EmmyS, posted by Susan J on May 26, 2004, at 13:13:50
Seconded, thirded, fourthed and on into infinity... You all put it so well and I agree heartily. I think as the original sentences for Larry have already been serious in relation to any deeds on his part (and in consideration of other overlooked factors) -- and have been at the high end of the spectrum of possible remedies -- that even "time served" really does make sense. Not just because of everything he can bring to this board, but because it really does make sense and seem fair.
The door to other considerations about the matter of blocking and mitigating factors may also then be opened, but that is as it should be. Not only for the sake of what's right, but because this isn't like other boards, and I think effects to mental health really are possible in relation to this stuff. So it's as important as it gets to get it right and take the time to do that.
Posted by lil' jimi on May 26, 2004, at 16:48:54
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2004, at 9:19:41
hey,
have alternatives to blocks been discussed or considered? .... .... PBCs and 'please rephrase' afford flexibility for cautionary advisories ...
could there be a pre-block sanction like a detention or a quarantine? ... ... once a poster had runn up to being blocked (nowadays) instead they might to confined to a detention board for some amount of time ... there they might be able to post their case and all babblers would know that it was a less safe board because of the greater potential of offense from possible offenders
... ... there might be more extensive considerations in some circumstances where they could post there, but not allowed to be posted to ... ?
this is a very primordial idea so far, but i see a potential for greater administrative flexibilty with some more options when push starts to come to shove .... .... maybe?... but i am not suggesting this for Larry at all ... ... every factor in Lar's case suggests to me he should go/have gone free ... long ago ...
anyway.
~ jim
Posted by gabbix2 on May 26, 2004, at 19:08:48
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block, posted by spoc on May 26, 2004, at 16:06:23
Oh I'm late, and all the good things have already been said. I agree with Spoc and L'il Jimi, I think Larry has already spent too much time
being penalized for dubious offences, and deserves
to come back A.S.A.P.
Posted by lil' jimi on May 26, 2004, at 19:59:26
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 26, 2004, at 11:21:16
hi dinah,
you wrote:
> The more transparent things are, the safer I feel here.me too.
when things are open and apparent, it is easier to have confidence in the process(es) ...~ jim
Posted by TeeJay on May 26, 2004, at 21:04:26
In reply to Dr. Bob is a hypocrite, posted by Larry Hoover on May 13, 2004, at 10:23:57
What a load of old crap this thread has turned into......it seems to me that Bob has merely let Larry back aboard so he can chastise him further!!!
I've been a reader of this board for some months now with no input and I refuse flatly to input anything here until bob starts acting like a member of this community instead of the leader of some blue eyed, blonde haired master race!!!
Yeah, yeah, be civil, banned, yeah yeah.....yawn..................
You give em hell Larry!!!!!!!!!!
TJ
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2004, at 21:48:28
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is a hypocrite, posted by TeeJay on May 26, 2004, at 21:04:26
> Re: Dr. Bob is a hypocrite
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I already asked that the subject line be kept civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
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.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by shar on May 26, 2004, at 22:11:53
In reply to re: alternatives to blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on May 26, 2004, at 16:48:54
As far as Larry is concerned, and others I can easily think of (Zen!!!) I would love to see some alternatives. Since I'm not the moderator, I'm not sure how they'd work, but I know valuable contributors when I see them!
Thanks, Jimi, for bringing this up. Maybe the blocks should NOT be cumulative. Unless, they are geared toward disruption, offensiveness, put-downed-ness, etc. Since I am old, I am very aware I would not want to be the one making the decisions. There is like 99% gray in the world (as opposed to black-and-white).
But, it's sort of like "I know porn when I see it" or "I don't know art, but I know what I like" kind of thing.
At any rate, late as usual, I like the idea of something other than a 6-month block for someone who says something 'uncivil' when it is a case of preferred wording or disagreement.
Hope that makes sense.
Shar> hey,
>
> have alternatives to blocks been discussed or considered? .... .... PBCs and 'please rephrase' afford flexibility for cautionary advisories ...
>
> could there be a pre-block sanction like a detention or a quarantine? ... ... once a poster had runn up to being blocked (nowadays) instead they might to confined to a detention board for some amount of time ... there they might be able to post their case and all babblers would know that it was a less safe board because of the greater potential of offense from possible offenders
> ... ... there might be more extensive considerations in some circumstances where they could post there, but not allowed to be posted to ... ?
> this is a very primordial idea so far, but i see a potential for greater administrative flexibilty with some more options when push starts to come to shove .... .... maybe?
>
> ... but i am not suggesting this for Larry at all ... ... every factor in Lar's case suggests to me he should go/have gone free ... long ago ...
>
> anyway.
> ~ jim
>
>
Posted by sienna on May 26, 2004, at 22:33:45
In reply to re: alternatives to blocks--Dr. B and » lil' jimi, posted by shar on May 26, 2004, at 22:11:53
he is wonderful for this place and i miss him.
Sienna
Posted by Sabina on May 27, 2004, at 1:36:45
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2004, at 9:19:41
if you don't want to invest yourself in reading my post in its entirety (which might chafe someone's heinie, i dunno), the upshot is that i think that larry was treated unfairly from the *original* get-go, and that i hope he is allowed to come back immediately, if not sooner.
the following is merely my personal opinion and not all of it pertaining directly to larry's situation but to the subject of blocks and "fairness" in general. feel free to disregard or dispute it at will, as i am providing absolutely no evidence, links, etc., of any kind. unfortunately, i don't have the time or energy to delve back through the period of posts in question to prove my point, nor do i want to make an example of folks who have done nothing to deserve the publicity.
since i've been reading at babble, i can't help but have noticed that some posters seem to receive dramatically more harsh, swift, and vigilant "correction" from dr. bob while others have been able to sweetly apologize their way through periodic PBC after PBC with impunity. i remember (months and months ago, when i was still posting, too) one poster receiving three PBC's over a week's time and her response being along the lines of, "sorry dr. bob. i'm trying to be good" smiley face, et cetera. she's a sweet girl and i wouldn't want her blocked, but i'd like to see some folks i know try that line! anyhoo...
i could speculate and deconstruct all day as to why this kind of thing seems to happen and why it seems to happen to only certain posters, but that's shooting off into a whole different topic. my first and best guess is that minding this board is a dam* big job and there's one, necessarily flawed (as are we all) human being running the whole shebang. didja ever notice how the <insert nationality> ice skating judge gives the <same nationality> ice skaters slightly higher scores than the other teams? i don't think they do it intentionally, it's just that *everyone* has subconscious favorites, just like they have those that get picked on or neglected.
for whatever reason, i honestly believe that some posters get treated more harshly than others. that's not saying that he's bad for doing it or that they deserve it. i just think that it happens. kinda like how i'm short and people stand in front of me at events and i can never see what's going on. things like that just happen. life's not fair and it never will be. fine, i can wear heels and stand on the seats. we can't petition everything. thankfully, for these blocks, we can request reductions.
i have been greatly saddened in the past to see posters that were heavily dependent upon their babble support system be (wrongly, severely) blocked for months for the most abstruse offenses. i would find myself sympathetically wading through admin "please rephrase" threads where posters were trying desperately to find the magic words that would save them from being blocked, but to no avail.
i do believe that, in these instances of "incivility" where there is no argument or obscenity, more could be done to set things right and alleviate frustration as opposed to leaving the poster searching for some "preferred wording" (as shar put it) until (s)he is driven well past the point of frustration in attempts to rephrase and placate until an actual validation for the block begins to exist as the poster's button's are understandably pressed and the situation begins to become exacerbated.
mind you, i am in no way suggesting that dr. bob "plays favorites" with malice aforethought, as that would be tantamount to sadistic given the vulnerable emotional and mental state of many of those who seek comfort and advice here. i would like to think that this latest olive branch toward larry as a sign that dr. bob is willing to concede that perhaps there is always room for improvement. it *is* good to be flexible and i hope that larry will be able to return soon.
i am also very glad that the topic of reduced blocks is out in the open this time. i regret that i still don't feel very comfortable or "at home" here anymore ever since the way things went down last october. we'll see, as time passes, if i continue to feel that way. i still check in from time to time (especially on posts of those folks that i know!), and certainly hope that larry will feel comfortable enough to come back soon. he has much to offer to everyone and has helped me so very much in the past.
Posted by lil' jimi on May 27, 2004, at 9:42:08
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on May 27, 2004, at 1:36:45
sabina,
excellent.
and special
for it is so rare to have
such heart-felt sentiments and experience
so well said and
thoughtfully written.
you have made much of what i too have felt
much clearer than i could have.
thank you very much.i especially appreciate your point about the lack of malice by the pb administration (which i find especially well taken and well said), to which i would add, in agreement:
"Never ascribe to malice,
that which can be explained by incompetence."
~ Napoleon Boneparteyours in rabble,
~ jim
Posted by NotAddicted on May 27, 2004, at 11:08:25
In reply to let Larry come back!, posted by sienna on May 26, 2004, at 22:33:45
> he is wonderful for this place and i miss him.
>
> SiennaI agree!!
Posted by FAYEROE on May 27, 2004, at 11:39:29
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block » Sabina, posted by lil' jimi on May 27, 2004, at 9:42:08
jim~~~~~i want to thank you for having the you know whats to express yourself as well as you have concerning Larry Hoover. I do think that blocking anyone for such a long period of time is "overkill".....especially when the person tries and tries to get it right. I also second whomever said that some people get away with little sweet messages and go on tip-toeing through the tulips with no more than slap on the wrist. I realize that it is an overwhelming, perhaps, responsibility running these boards but this was something that was done by Bob's choice. Without the posters, he wouldn't have diiddly squat in the way of his research project. I work with people, like us, on a daily basis and know that everyone has different points of views, different reactions and responses and I try to keep that in mind when I make decisions regarding their issues. Anywho, I needed to thank you! Do you still have my e.mail address? If you do, drop a line. Pat
Posted by lil' jimi on May 27, 2004, at 12:08:29
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block, posted by FAYEROE on May 27, 2004, at 11:39:29
hi Pat!
(proud to say that pat and i are old friends and comrades!)
pat posted:
> Anywho, I needed to thank you!not at all ... ... posting here supporting Larry is all the thanks i need ... ... my thanks to you, babe!
> Do you still have my e.mail address? If you do, drop a line. Pat
i was writing, "of course i do!" when i checked my address books on both computers and you weren't in either (!) ... then i found your address in my in box just now ... so thanks for the prompt there ... i needed it ... ... test message on the way on ...
take good care,
~ jim
Posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2004, at 14:51:45
In reply to re: alternatives to blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on May 26, 2004, at 16:48:54
Sorry for butting in, but it's part of my job to only look at the past in terms of learning from it.
Too bad I can't apply that to my personal life.
Amyway, let's look for solutions:
1) I think Jim hit the nail on the head with this one. Detention or quarantine - or we could call it probation. Those that would be blocked now would instead be put on probation. This would accomplish several things that folks seem to want:
a) There could still be some communication with the one being "punished" but this communication would be on a voluntary basis.
b) It would reduce the temptation to just come back with another name.The blocks could be saved for the worse cases. If someone there still doesn't get the hint and does get blocked, they would be entered into the probation area only, on a trial basis, before joining the general population.
Perhaps there could also be a 'heated discussion' area for folks that need to hash something out. This would save the sidetracking of the threads over details or off-topic bits and move it to a different area without stifling it altogether.
Just a couple of ideas. But it seems that working towards a solution that makes the general population feel safer, while allowing others the freedom to say what they need to say, is something worth considering.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51
In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2004, at 9:19:41
> How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?
FYI, those with a minority opinion who would rather not express it here should feel free to email me...
Bob
Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 10:18:53
In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51
> > How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?
>
> FYI, those with a minority opinion who would rather not express it here should feel free to email me...
>
> Bob<<<<< I obviously can't know everything about why anyone would object, and don't mean to advocate disregarding views of any others. I just wanted to express some thoughts on specific reasons anyone may object, from what I can conceive of. Since it's hard for me to imagine that Larry's presence could be seen as genuinely disruptive or hazardous, I can only guess that any objections would be based on whether or not others have had the same opportunity. That could lead to citing of technical evidence regarding "offenses," but is circular because one of his own issues is equal application of rules and whether consideration was given to relative seriousness of offense.
And I am hoping that historical equal opportunity is not now being seen as relevant -- that the day has come in which alternatives and mitigating factors will indeed start to be entertained on a wider scale.
If that sounds like a time-consuming and complicated change, and further assistance would be needed to review data, we all know there are other unbiased, intelligent, critical thinkers with good judgment out there who could help. Even beyond those already present at and/or involved in running this site. It isn't reasonable for us to get stuck at concluding that "you can't find good help anymore." And the effort is justified on its face by the fact that while this not group therapy, there are crucial minumum standards that scream out to be observed when dealing with this particular population. Anything else is unnecessarily risky and cold, and destined to stigmatize if not traumatize some.
Slight sidebar on that note: One admonishment has been that people registering should keep in mind that they need to be at a certain level of recovery, functionality, strength, comprehension, etc. to be here in the first place. But I doubt it's possible to mandate an accurate assessment of that by individuals coming in; and feel certain that people coming in can't be fully aware of how they could end up being impacted, and the various ways in which it happens.
In setting up a site that specifically wants to attract this demographic, how can it be required that in order to be here, people must agree not to have the very weaknesses or challenges or deficits to evaluation capabilities that *make* them the very demographic being sought? If we could turn those things off at will and/or have the keen foresight to know what will end up hurting us or not being in our best interests, we would! And probably wouldn't be here. How can the abilities found in the "normal" world be mandated and required for participation here? We can't necessarily use our previous experiences and reactions to base the decision on -- I think many would agree that this place feels much more real and has much stronger implications to real life than they ever would have guessed coming in. It's almost "blindsiding," and doesn't compare to other experiences.
Anyway -- are any potential objections based on previous equal opportunity indeed going to play a part in this decision? That doesn't seem relevant because the consideration at hand is a new area, which goes beyond and may help address that very argument. Again, I can speak only for myself, but I think there has been agreement that blocks such as those Larry has received should only be reserved for clearly heinous crimes against humanity and spirit. No one is ever going to *like* everyone, and we are all subject to personality clashes (sometimes emanating from our own arbitrary preferences and subjective histories). But it's hard to fathom that Larry could be seen for any legitimate reason as any of the things that meet the criteria for being a negative presence (e.g. mean-spirited, volatile, misleading, untruthful, alarmist, threatening, vulgar, etc. etc.) Assessing that much about his contribution would almost seem factually possible, rather than being a murky and subjective matter of opinions only.
Posted by Sabina on May 28, 2004, at 12:02:20
In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 10:18:53
you're obviously not taking topamax, spoc! thank you for your extremely lucid and insightful post. it is my sincere wish that dr. bob prints out a copy and refers to it every time he considers a block in the future.
Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:03:39
In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51
I also wanted to make a suggestion as to how blocks go down, if they are to continue. Previously, when someone has been blocked and PBCed before (even distantly), it seems that in subsequent cases the hammer can come down as a total shock with no warning. No PBC or even Please Rephrase, just squashed like a fly on the page in an instant.
When people die sudden and traumatic deaths like that in the movies, we all know they return as ghosts, to haunt the scene forevermore in search of justice! Ha ha, just kidding, but that probably is the principle behind many posters who try to reincarnate themselves as a way to deal with the shock and sudden loss of their voice and existence here. The reincarnated poster issue of course has exactly *NOTHING* to do with the situation at hand, just addressing another matter related to the various problems with blocks, and one that might also be reduced through some of the changes we are discussing.
Anyway, I was thinking that in cases of the kinds of things Larry had posted when that happened (i.e. not clearly outrageous), some discussion or warning should have to transpire first. Attempts at rephrasing have historically been a challenge, but I think the person should at least have some indication of what may be coming. The element of being truly stunned and then rendered immediately speechless with adrenalin and racing thoughts bottled up has to feel like a nightmare. There isn't necessarily a lesson that "should have been learned before," except in the cases of those clearly outrageous and injurious behaviors, which we probably can more or less agree on a definition of.
Sidebar (naturally): I myself don't really care which way the cursing issue goes, although I wouldn't see violations to that as ever fitting the egregious category (blocks doubling, tripling, ecalating). Because while I'm in the camp that is not offended by it and sees it as reality and sometimes adding flair and color, I do know that on a heartfelt rather than judgmental level, not all react that way. My father is verrrrry much like that, from his very gut, not his head, and witnessing him I can't deny that it hurts him although he often tries to suffer in silence. So, it is true that people *can* use the technical word-checking tool while they are writing and before they post, which is a concrete tool not available to them in assessing their thoughts and phrases.
Anyway, as to other types of violations, maybe by way of something like the detention area lil' jimi suggested the person should also be given a reasonable opportunity before or after the actual sentence to cite other equal or possibly weightier violations on that thread, which may have been missed. While Dr. Bob can be emailed regarding such things, those kinds of observations probably deserve to be as public as the whole discussion up til then had been. It would also afford an opportunity to see if it is the opinion of just the affected poster, or one that is widely shared.
Maybe, in that detention/purgatory/limbo area (PB Limbo Land?), the person or persons thought to be "injured" by the transgression -- or guilty of an equal violation -- could weigh in and discuss for a certain period... And perhaps, in the case of the latter, be allowed the option of just apologizing to each other, or otherwise agreeing that nothing so serious was going on as to warrant further action...?
Maybe this next part is getting a little too unrealistically "creative," but would it be possible for people to have the option of anonymity in posting observations and opinions to the limbo area? Under temporary, generic screennames (with Dr. Bob still able to detect IP addresses to circumvent any games), and in that way reduce any feelings of being on the spot? Ok I think I'm done! ;- )
Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:05:38
In reply to re: hoover man's block » spoc, posted by Sabina on May 28, 2004, at 12:02:20
Posted by fayeroe on May 28, 2004, at 12:06:08
In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 10:18:53
Thank you, spoc!!!!!***In setting up a site that specifically wants to attract this demographic, how can it be required that in order to be here, people must agree not to have the very weaknesses or challenges or deficits to evaluation capabilities that *make* them the very demographic being sought? If we could turn those things off at will and/or have the keen foresight to know what will end up hurting us or not being in our best interests, we would! And probably wouldn't be here. How can the abilities found in the "normal" world be mandated and required for participation here? We can't necessarily use our previous experiences and reactions to base the decision on -- I think many would agree that this place feels much more real and has much stronger implications to real life than they ever would have guessed coming in. It's almost "blindsiding," and doesn't compare to other experiences. ***
I've said this so many times in different ways. We all star in our own movie and if Dr. Bob wants the varied experiences, reactions, responses and reflections of the population he expects here, for his research, then he has to look at us the way we are. Flawed.
Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:31:14
In reply to re: hoover man's block » spoc, posted by fayeroe on May 28, 2004, at 12:06:08
Posted by lil' jimi on May 28, 2004, at 12:51:57
In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51
hi dr. bob,
> > How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?
>
> FYI, those with a minority opinion who would rather not express it here should feel free to email me...
>
> Bobwould you address the sensitivities of some, (parts of, all?) the majority about this post?
in particular, it seems easy to imagine that some of the majority would feel this is not unlike a thumb of bias is imposing itself on your scales of justice ... tilting the scales against re-instating Lar ... .. if you can see what i mean here?
and there's a little bit of a sense of changing the rules of the process during the event, too.
once again, i am one to agrue that these amount to your classic inadvertence which is being allowed to look like the inconsistency which seems to be unfair to Lar.
if you could, would you please reply to this seemingly anti-Lar perceptions of your minority solicitation.
more later,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on May 28, 2004, at 12:53:59
In reply to re: Hope I shouldn't have quit while ahead! ;- ) (nm) » fayeroe, posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:31:14
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.