![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 64 to 88 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by Brio D Chimp on May 28, 2004, at 17:48:39
In reply to Re: blocked for week » TeeJay, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2004, at 21:48:28
Bob you are publishing the offending phrase on your site. As admistrator you have the power to delete this. Instead you allow it stand. Therefore I propose that you block yourself for a week for this offence. The block would be doubled each day you refuse to remove the offending post from this site. Thanks
> > 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 Dr. Bob on May 29, 2004, at 9:05:18
In reply to re: hoover man's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Brio D Chimp on May 28, 2004, at 17:36:28
> 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?
>
> lil' jimiI see what you mean, but I'd like everyone to feel comfortable expressing their opinion, and this isn't a vote, anyway...
> why ask for our blessing?
>
> Brio D ChimpI'm not asking for your blessing, I'm asking for your feedback.
Bob
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 29, 2004, at 12:20:49
In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2004, at 9:05:18
dr bob,
i feel you should stick with your first decision.
we have enough "wishy washy" politics in this world..
your word and reputation is vital.
keep it strong.
jyl
Posted by lil' jimi on May 29, 2004, at 16:17:36
In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2004, at 9:05:18
hi dr.bob,
> > 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?
> >
> > lil' jimi
>
> I see what you mean, but I'd like everyone to feel comfortable expressing their opinion, and this isn't a vote, anyway...
>
> > why ask for our blessing?
> >
> > Brio D Chimp
>
> I'm not asking for your blessing, I'm asking for your feedback.
>
> Boblet me thank you, dr. bob, for your responsiveness here because i (we, maybe?) haven't really been sure what we (you) were asking for here ... ... i mean, i see solicting the opinions or consensus of folk here at Admin about Larry as being a predictably foregone conclusion: few if any posters are as appreciated and admired, let alone liked as much as Larry, with excellent cause, to his worthy credit ...
so if we (you) were running a poll or survey here then Larry would have been back (by acclamation) before he left ... ... witness the total unanimity of opinions on this thread ...
can you see how your original inquiry
"How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?" could have been interpreted as a poll? ... ... ... but now we see that we (you) don't want it to be a poll so much ... ... which leads folks to be conflicted (or worse) by this seeming inconsitency/realignment/switcheroo ... ... okay we've been there already ...but it leaves open for speculation that if we (you) didn't want a poll, then what did (do) we (you) want .. .. .. .. anyway? ... ... sensitive minds want to know, you know?
here's my guess(es):
we (you) are exploring unchartered babblality where we (you) would openly deliberate some certain administrative issues, in particular block reduction(s) ... ...
and instead of a survey, we (you) are looking for a more deliberative process in which two sides more or less debate the issues in a more point versus counterpoint style ... ... wherein the 2-sidedness of the discussion could yeild broad balance of babble opinions ... ... or something like that?and under these expectaions, we (you) would have to be disappointed when one side fails to show up for the debate to deliberate the issue ...
possibly equally disappointing to us (you) is that for the majority, there are no issues, except how much we love Larry ( a lot! ) and for the vast overwhelming majority (one heck of a lot of us anyway) there is little concern for the subtleties of the consequences on long term babble adminstarion policy concerning possible future ban reduction process(es) ... and separating these issues may be the more effective way we (you, really) would like to have this discussed ... ...
besides Larry's universal popuLARity completely overshadowing our (your) underlying policy issues, there is the palpable discomfort about blocks in general and a separate controversy among posters about their use and their effect ... ... this separate issue gets compounded with babble folks' special feeling toward the block's use against Lar ... ...
any and all of which works to drown out any putative minority sentiments' expression here ...
so
perahps what we (you) need here is a forum which is designed for two-sided deliberation ... ... posters could have a sign-up for support for each side and each side would be heard ... then ... ... maybe ... ... (maybe not) ...
anyway, can we (you) see how these are all different things that we (i) get confused about especially when all we (i) really want is to free our good friend from his ban?
can you clear us up here so as to help us feel like we are contributing positively to whatever it is that we (you) are expecting here? ... ... no votes are happening, no blessings either, no strength-of-feelings measureing is a concern because we (you) want even the shyest of possible minority responses ...
and i feel that many of this thread's posters are feeling invalidated by a preception that their contrbutions are being diminished by this ambivalence about our (your) process here in this thread ... ...
hey, but all i'm a-doing is just guessing into a near vacuum here ... "maybe, maybe, maybe" ... ... what do i know? can you help clear me (us) up here, please?
and if things do get to work out for Lar getting his reduction ... can we use our credit from our efforts here toward getting him another week decrease, maybe? ...
.... (can't blame a guy for trying!)until next time,
~ jim
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 29, 2004, at 18:29:24
In reply to re: Lar's block » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on May 29, 2004, at 16:17:36
if i do not want to see dr bob go back on his word, does that mean i do not like larry?
no...
do i want to see anyone "blocked" ?
no...
does my opinion count regardless if it is not popular?
yes...
am i able to post even though i may not be as far along in "recovery" as others?
yes yes yes yes yes and yes!
jyl
Posted by spoc on May 29, 2004, at 20:20:16
In reply to so many questions.., posted by justyourlaugh on May 29, 2004, at 18:29:24
> if i do not want to see dr bob go back on his word, does that mean i do not like larry?
> no...
> do i want to see anyone "blocked" ?
> no...<<<<< I understand what you mean, and I also like people to be true to their word. But I guess here, I'm not seeing a parallel with that. If I remove Larry completely from the equation and look only at whether people should ever be open to amending what they say or not, I would conclude 'yes.' To me it becomes just a matter of how there is usually room (and sometimes need) for improvement, pertaining to everything and everyone. And that no one is perfect or makes perfect decisions. And there is often an instigating factor or event that leads to changes/improvements -- it has to begin with something/someone -- and this just might be it.
Larry's situation seems to fit well as a test case, because the details of his blocks illustrate a lot of the principles being examined here (I'm thinking this whole thing is more about his block history than anything that happened recently, which was a reaction to that). I think his case would be a good one for these purposes even if the matter of whether he is popular or not was separated out of things completely.
True that a lesser known or liked poster of course wouldn't generate the same turnout, but if Dr. Bob specifically asked for feedback here on Admin for any particular case, or even a hypothetical one, then people would oblige. And from what I've seen going back into years-worth of reading here, I give Babblers a lot of credit. I think many would take the request seriously, rise to the occasion, and weigh things more thoughtfully than they may do when simply reading the board or posting for their own purposes.
> does my opinion count regardless if it is not popular?
<<<<< Absolutely! I think people on this thread have been hoping for any such opinions to be expressed, here if possible. Thanks for responding. (And I hope I don't sound as if I fancy myself to be some kind of hostess!) This isn't a popularity thing to me, because I wasn't even here when Larry was present (although a more dedicated archive reader probably doesn't exist, so I have become familiar beyond my 'years'). I don't even know what his presence could have "done" for me or what it would feel like to have him here at the same time as me. Rather, to me it's about principles, the potential for positive change, and prevention of that which is and should be preventable.
> am i able to post even though i may not be as far along in "recovery" as others?
> yes yes yes yes yes and yes!
> jyl<<<<<< Oh, if that's a factor, I don't know what *I'm* doing here! ;- ) I just like examining worthy issues sometimes (if I have the energy and presence of mind!), even if they haven't yet pertained to me. And I think it's great when debate of some types is seen as a positive thing, rather than a divisive one.
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2004, at 20:29:11
In reply to re: Lar's block » Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on May 29, 2004, at 16:17:36
I understand why Dr. Bob suggested that replies could also be made by email. Many people don't like to be part of confrontations and would prefer to give their input directly to Dr. Bob. And I'm sure what Dr. Bob is looking for is input, and a chance for everyone to be heard. The minority as well as the majority view. I have absolutely no illusions that he will be swayed one way or another by popular opinion, or unpopular opinion either.
And bravo to him for that. Right is not always with might (as in administrator of the site), or with the majority (as in number of posters). Careful consideration after hearing all views seems to me to be a prudent course.
And I see the potential problems in reducing blocks as well as the benefits. It's entirely possible that there will be clamor for the reduction of blocks for popular posters, while not a word will be said in favor of the reduction of blocks for less popular or unpopular posters. I might not agree with Dr. Bob's decisions, but I do think he tries to make ones that are for the overall benefit of the site, however misguided they may appear at times. I think I'd prefer that system to one based on popularity.
Mind you, I adore Lar, and have missed his presence on the board. Even more, I am saddened that he has been hurt by Dr. Bob's blocks.
On the other hand, unlike many of those who have posted here, I am a big fan of blocks, and successive blocks, tempered by Dr. Bob's discretion. I think it's terrific that Dr. Bob doesn't buy the arguments that we can't be held to high standards because we have mental health issues. Heck, the worst boards I've seen have been for supposedly mentally healthy people.
On the other other hand, I appreciate that Dr. Bob *does* frequently temper the automatic doubling with mercy. And in the same spirit, I think it's just fine for him to reduce blocks. As long as he does it openly.
I've used up extra hands, but my general conclusion is that I think it's grand for Dr. Bob to reduce Lar's block. And I also think he should formulate the same sort of informal guidelines he has for setting the length of blocks (other than a simple doubling) to decide whether or not to reduce blocks. So that if there is a public or private clamor to reduce a particular block, he can have an idea of how and why he would consider it.
Posted by spoc on May 29, 2004, at 21:51:56
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2004, at 20:29:11
> On the other hand, unlike many of those who have posted here, I am a big fan of blocks, and successive blocks, tempered by Dr. Bob's discretion. I think it's terrific that Dr. Bob doesn't buy the arguments that we can't be held to high standards because we have mental health issues. Heck, the worst boards I've seen have been for supposedly mentally healthy people.>
<<<<< I just wanted to be sure that this is not what I appeared to be expressing in an earlier post, when I mentioned the possible difficulties in having exceptionally fragile people predict when electing to be here how being at the site will affect them, such as whether it would have a serious real-life impact should they end up getting a block themselves (especially under complex circumstances). I absolutely didn't mean that people should be allowed incivility and looser standards due to mental health issues.
Btw, I too would not want these things to basically be popularity contests. I too intensely dislike that stuff. And I don't have the confidence to see myself that way here and probably never will. I was having faith that with all these brilliant minds, a reasonable process would be conceived of. Maybe we shouldn't even think of this as such a self-contained world, with only those already present as potential "jurors."
I have been responding because, as jimi noted, the question was asked. Maybe the fact that Larry *is* so popular is actually tainting the larger discussion about blocks in general, because I don't necessarily see that as related or having been asked. What's happening here isn't THE new process being suggested, I don't think. That I know of, we haven't been considering open, board-wide popular voting in regard to making determinations about blocks. I thought we'd establish whether change was advisable, and then decide the part about how and who would assist. This world is full of people and sources of them who could help with judgments, even on a volunteer basis I bet.
Maybe even people whose day jobs and experience reflect or are related to having good, unbiased judgment... Wouldn't a few mental health professionals (of various 'strains') probably commit a few hours to reviewing cases? Or college professors who teach something relevant (ethics, philosophy, etc.); or even some kind of actual judge? I'd think many would enjoy it! They wouldn't have to read the whole site everyday, just get up to speed on specific cases, in shifts if the load was that big, which it isn't, is it?
I don't know, but there are plenty of quality people out there besides us, who could also be more removed than us... Dr. Bob could then hear their input and make the final call... Except in cases of X, Y, Z (insert blatantly inhuman violations) having been committed; or in cases where a poster sees his error and doesn't even call for review; which cases would be left at that...
Dr. Bob, you must have a bevy of esteemed colleagues and connections who could help! :- )
I do know what you mean about the doubling and tripling making sense to you Dinah, but that probably presumes cases wherein violations are either pretty serious or the person is cut-and-dried guilty, but is clearly not learning. In reality, that *isn't* how it always is.... And as far as the appearance of any "misguidedness" in decisions, or oversights to equal transgressions, lack of time for thorough review of all posts has often been cited, but that is clearly a circumstance that doesn't *have* to continue...
Posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by spoc on May 29, 2004, at 21:51:56
Bob first said, "Well, he and I have been in touch. How about if I
reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?"The question was clearly seeking feedback on what people thought of
Bob reducing *Larry's* block. It's quite possible that some people
might answer that they don't want to ever see anybody's block
reduced, but we shouldn't get distracted into a debate about block
reduction in general. Isn't that a separate question? The question
was about Larry.It looks like, from what Bob first asked, Larry had raised some
doubt in Bob's mind whether he had been unfair. The replies seemed
to uniformly indicate that people agreed. Bob had been unfair. But
then it got weird.Bob came back with, "FYI, those with a minority opinion who would
rather not express it here should feel free to email me..."I've got two problems with that. It looks like Bob didn't like the
opinions he had seen, so he was specifically looking for the other
sort. Like he wanted to have people help him justify turning Larry
down. The other thing is that Bob's email address is on every board
on this site. Anybody who ever wanted to email him could do so. If
he was going to make this point, he should have done it when he
first asked for feedback, and he should not have mentioned the type
of feedback at all.I'm not made any more comfortable by the next thing Bob says, "I see
what you mean, but I'd like everyone to feel comfortable expressing
their opinion, and this isn't a vote, anyway..." He's not looking
for everyone to feel comfortable at all.....just people
with...umm...uncomplimentary opinions of Larry? Uncivil opinions of
Larry? Can I even say that? Maybe not, but it looks that way when this is posted after the fact.
Perhaps there should have been a reminder at the beginning that people who are uncomfortable publically expressing their opinions have the option of e-mailing their feelings privately.
I don't think it even matters whether there should be block
reductions or not. Bob's already done it. I'm glad he came forward
and asked peoples' opinions this time, because it was a secret
process before now. I can understand that this is not a vote,
because that measures popularity as much as anything else.Bob, at least establish a procedure that at least appears to be
unbiased. You've got a standard format you use for your PBCs
and "please rephrase" posts. How about something like "'X' has
requested a block reduction, and I'm looking for feedback, either
here or via email at..." and not ever coming back to us and looking
for a particular kind of feedback, after the fact. Please.
Posted by lil' jimi on May 30, 2004, at 17:26:40
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
thank you Shelli ...
excellent points
very well said.much appreciated, at least by me,
~ jim
Posted by shar on May 30, 2004, at 20:14:37
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?
I think anything that helps Lar get back here (if he still will) is a good thing.
Shar
Posted by spoc on May 30, 2004, at 21:24:27
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
I’m in favor of addressing the primary matter at hand -- whether Larry can come back sooner or not -- expeditiously as well. But maybe it's not so easy to separate the larger issue of whether it’s official and above-board now that this kind of thing is an option. And that an unbiased process for it will be in the works. Dr. Bob wasn’t and surely wouldn’t ask if people merely liked Larry and missed his contribution. I think he was reconsidering the circumstances around his actions. But the current feedback issue may be clouded for some by whether they’d be condoning treatment they didn’t -- and maybe can’t expect to -- receive themselves. Then it does take on the connotation of popularity that people fear. But bear with me, this post is at the same time all about the specifics of Larry.
I’m a person who can remove the element of favoring Larry completely, since I didn’t know him. And I wouldn't expect to win a popular vote myself. Rather, my thing is that I was very happy to find this place, then crestfallen over principles once I started reading archives. Even if I could have been *guaranteed* I would never be in those positions, it wouldn’t have comforted me. It changed my perception of other things, and (what would have been) my natural progression here.
And I’m only guessing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Larry himself is out there caring more about the principles here than whether or not he can get back to posting as soon as possible. I bet he might not put his own short-term gratification first in that way. I doubt he's thinking that this only happens to him, but rather that it's a groundless pattern of dealing with certain people, and I believe he cares about that. And would like to see something good come out of his experiences.
It occurred to me that some people who might otherwise weigh in may not be familiar with Larry’s block history, or remember it clearly. They may not know whatever the magnitude is of what we are being 'protected' from through his absence, or its 'gravity' relative to other things we see sanctioned and not sanctioned. This weigh-in can't be informed and balanced any other way, and this stuff is not so easy to search out, especially for those not up to it. So I thought it might help get people up to speed to link the progression, which I’ve done below. Note that I see whatever topics were being discussed as pretty much irrelevant to the matter of how he has been dealt with.
I think Larry is a good, rule-abiding person who got caught in those extreme interpretations of semantic technicalities. And, isolated and taken out of context to what else had been going on in these situations. For a very long time, he had even been a vocal defender of The Rules. He did his best, while retaining important standards at the same time, and I think it showed. In the circumstances leading up to his blocks, even if he could or should have known at all that something was risky about what he was about to say, how could he know that he was not allowed to speak as candidly as the rest had been doing.
Maybe there should be more use of, and consistent affording of, Please Rephrases. Or at the very minimum, issuance of the “heads up” of a PBC prior to a subsequent block for violations with a gray area as to the interpretations possible. Some posters who are, for instance, withdrawing from a med or suffering the lifelong haunting of a serious prior addiction, for which the pain never goes way, *will* do things like spew every vile word in the book and tell others they are crazy and stupid. So if they persist in doing that here, sure, they need to learn. If nothing else, that in the future, they have the option -- and should use it – of staying the heck away from their computers at those times. But that is not the kind of obvious and unrepentant thing that is going on in Larry’s cases. But he quickly lost warnings before his blocks.
And maybe, if after someone is blocked, another person (or the blocked person him/herself via email) points out another clearly qualifying but overlooked offense on the thread, it should have to be addressed. And, if not resulting in sanctioning of that poster too, at the least, a block reduction or retraction should then have to go in the favor of the extinguished poster. Or, their presence reinstated long enough to be able to publicly address things. For that matter, even when a PBC is leveled, if the recipient can point to something else equal on the thread, it should *have* to be dealt with too.
This all may sound petty, but as we know, it's exactly the stuff that results in so much anguish and fear of favoritism. I don't think it's at all easy for people to shrug it off to an innocuous shortage of time to review all posts, or being too late now when it may have only been between minutes and a day or two. The other party or parties have not gone and turned over new leaves by now or anything. Everything is preserved in writing here for all time. Able to be referenced again if pointed out, and also to stay stuck in the craw (whatever a craw is) of the poster who is feeling singled out. This isn't about wanting to see more people punished either. It's just about consistency.
In any event, for those unfamiliar, here’s the history:
Dec 23, 2003
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031217/msgs/292735.html
Not being the first, only or somehow strongest expression of ... "dissatisfaction" appearing on the thread, the words resulting in the block were:
> The problems we have are the result of you saying, in so many words, what I'm doing wrong... That is a boundary violation.
>
> I erroneously thought xxx was receptive to having ideas about her problem suggested to her... Apparently, she was not…Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Sorry, but I've already asked you to be civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
Bob
=========January 5, 2004
No PBC or Please Rephrase. That, I think, is intended to reflect that the person should and *could* have learned already. When they *really* could have known that what they were about to say was verboten. Such as someone persisting in swearing, or attacking others (by the definition most of us would probably agree on), with no discretion or forethought as to their words.
Here, things didn't delineate neatly like that. And, as in other blocks of Larry, I feel that some warning that in at least one person’s eyes, things were getting off track, would have been helpful. The following was on Admin, discussing concerns over the original topic and related matters, *not* Lar continuing to ask a poster for sources (but for that matter, the masses had been grateful for his disspelling of alarm):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/296967.html
> It is perfectly reasonable to want to examine the data/research/information used to arrive at such a conclusion
Sure. But if no data/research/information are forthcoming?
> claims of "wiping hardware" and "deep destruction" are more than just simple opinion. They are provocative and threatening.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but the last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
Bob
========January 21, 2004
Again, there was no PBC, no Please Rephrase. The maximum, tripling of the block time, was leveled for this one (Larry was responding to negative things said about him in his absence, that he couldn’t respond to previously, as he was blocked: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/303226.html).
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/303549.html
For:
> I can only react with amazement that anyone would display morals/ethics that would lead to a post such as this one
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. It may be somewhat moot, but the last time you were blocked it was for 2 weeks, so this time it's for 6.
Bob
=======
The thing is, what happens to one person DOES matter. Shorthandedness and time shortages can be overcome, we are being quite provincial to say otherwise. If the fate of one person didn't matter, why are exceptional efforts made to sometimes do things like repeatedly contact someone's ISP when they appear to be in danger. For that matter, blocked posters may leave here and become dangers to themselves. And no, they can't predict that when registering. Larry is just one person, but his circumstances matter. And the fact that he is popular has nothing to do with why that is as it should be.In fact, I see addressing this whole matter -- and finally choosing as bias-free of a solution as possible -- as having the potential to stand up for and protect *underdogs.* Because preferences are a part of life -- there's the type radiating from authority figures but also the type radiating from peers. So something uniform and removed from the interactions here is called for.
Posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 3:26:58
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
this has come to me slowly here ... very slowly
it seems to me we have peculiarly inverse symmetry being dealt to us with this issue:
on the first hand
we had an incident where dr. bob had chosen to reduce a poster’s block without any mention to babble posters ... ... this had specific consequences for many posters, myself and larry included ... these consequences were negative personal impacts for myself and for lar ... ... ... my attempts to post about these inadequacies failed to meet the standards of civility and i was banned ... posting about it now is extremely complicated emotionally for me ... ... the fallout from that incident raised a significant hue and cry about administration’s stealth process for reducing her block ... ... ... dr. bob allowed as he would consider informing the babble posting public before exercising his discretion by reducing a blocked person’s sentence ...the particulars of that poster’s block; the quality and magnitude of the negative impact on babble caused by this poster’s actions, make for the sharpest contrast imaginable to lar’s block ...
this, when added to larry’s instrumental contributions to the discussion in the first incident ... about the inequity of not informing the babble community ... come to mind with fresh relevance now ... ... because it was larry who insisted that we should have an open process when the reduction of a block is being considered ... larry championed this innovation more than anyone ... ...
you see dr. bob not only allowed this poster to have her block reduced ... ... he was complicit in her returning to babble with a “new” identity with which to perpetrate her masquerade ... ... and we were told that this was indulged because dr. bob felt she was going to be supportive and could make a positive contribution ... ... there was some debate about this to say the least ... ... i tried to make my contributions to it ... ...
on the scale of the magnitude of possible malignancy of actions for which a poster could be blocked, where 10 would be the worst and a zero would not be blocked ... ... lar was a one half on his worst day ... ... as for this other poster, our rules of civility prohibit me saying any more under threat of i forget how many weeks of ban which hang over my head from my past crimes ... ... every one of which was committed under the influence of this particular issue/case ... ...
on the second hand,
we find
one of the most beneficial of babble posters who was/has been consistently and genuinely supportive in exceptionally useful ways for untold large numbers of posters and readers,
who i first got to know when he came to my rescue when i was panicked out of my wits by our subject on the first hand (see above),
who was the major force and voice of reason in addressing the inequities of dr. bob’s actions allowing her to return unannounced ... ...
who had barely rubbed the rules rough at all ... ... and then, ONLY for the protective benefit of those who someone was trying to panic ...
was banned for 6 weeks
for being in violation of a technique of language construction ... ... for which he was not afforded the graciousness of a commonly used “please rephrase” ... or any gentler warning or guidance or support ... ... only summarily shown the you-are-blocked exit, thank you very much ... ...if the potential for being supportive is still a criterion for reducing a block as dr. bob said it was for this other person, then larry has long ago earned a lifetime immunity from blocks ... ... or at the very very least to have this block eliminated ...
(with some plausible explanation for the leniency given to others, but which larry has to go through this subjugation to be considered for, maybe?)
i am trying to point out the day and night differences between these incidents and the posters involved
... besides being posters, there are no salient parallels ... ...
one, babble needed to be protected from ... ...
the other, babble needs the protection of.and that lar fomented and instigated having ban reductions done openly .... .... ....
seems ironic ... feels ironic
.... this inversion of things in this peculiar reversed symmetry
... ... it feels even odder to me ... ...
... how must it feel to larry? ...
... (what must he be sending to dr. bob, as he must be reading all of this with the special interest of those who have been judged and sit outside while their judgment is discussed?)this near perfect symmetry of what might pass for poetic justice to some gives off too much of the aroma of contrivance ... ... you know the badly written scripts in the movies where in protagonist suffers his comeuppance as the reversal of his situation has the shoe on the other foot? .. ... ... is it hard to imagine that there could be a possibility of trumped up charges brought on order to perpetrate such a deliberate plot twist?
perhaps only i, in my weakened, unrecovered mental state would see any of these things ... ...
but what force would free my fragile friends from feeling that these fragments fit the form of such an easily imaginable malice?
blocks have an essential role for babble: not an issue.
reducing blocks is not an issue because it has been done, at least once that we know of.
discussing reducing blocks is not an issue because we are doing that now.the only issue is larry’s block:
why did you propose to reduce larry’s block, dr. bob?
what point did larry make in his emails to you that moved you to consider reducing his block?
shouldn’t we be discussing that (whatever it is) if we are expected to make a contribution to your personal deliberations about larry’s fate?
was it merely the request to reduce his block that made you broach this issue here?
should we be discussing the particulars of your decision to ban larry?
are we to search out the inadequacies of the process you employed for banning larry?what do you feel would be worthwhile to have discussed here about reducing larry’s ban?
are we just going through the motions here? merely paying lip service to the notion of having this discussion?
is this just a matter of form?how is discussing reducing larry’s ban meaningfully useful to anyone?
it can not be because anyone has reason to fear lar is going to skulk into babble under some other guise to garner the ill-gotten confidence of unsuspecting posters and have them at the disadvantage ... ... this is where we experience the absurdity of the attempt to reverse the circumstances from the first hand ... ... we could put that shoe on the other foot, but it does not fit ... ...who could need to be protected from larry?
if this discussion were to be able to help get larry’s ban reduced (eliminated is too much, right? ... uh, like why?) surely that should be as good as done ...
but, independent of this or any other discussion, reducing or eliminating lar’s ban is solely up to you, of course, dr. bob, so that by any objective measuring, what we write now can hardly matter ... ...i do find this ironic element here deeply perplexing ... .... .... ...
has this been too long? ... sorry ... ... i am just staring to get warmed up here ...
take care,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 4:06:24
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by spoc on May 30, 2004, at 21:24:27
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2004, at 13:18:20
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
> Perhaps there should have been a reminder at the beginning that people who are uncomfortable publically expressing their opinions have the option of e-mailing their feelings privately.
That's a good idea, thanks, I'll try to remember to do that next time.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2004, at 13:19:25
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 3:26:58
> the quality and magnitude of the negative impact on babble caused by this poster’s actions
> one, babble needed to be protected from
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time, I'm making it for 2.
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 Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » lil' jimi, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2004, at 13:19:25
I'm really disappointed that Jim wasn't given the opportunity of a "Please be civil" instead of being summarily blocked, particularly since he expressed how it was "extremely complicated emotionally" for him to write the post in the first place. If you know him at all, you know he's the sweetest guy in the world who would never post anything wrong intentionally. I know, I know, you say you don't go by intent. I've seen a lot of people say a lot of things here; but it is my opinion that the courtesy of a "Please rephrase" would not have gone amiss in this case.
I'm even more disappointed that none of his questions and concerns about Larry's block which resulted in this two week break have been addressed. I think he deserves at least that much for offering so much time and concern for our friend Larry and for speaking openly about a topic that is still very painful for some people here.
I'll trust that you're still in the process of drafting a well thought out response to Jim's direct questions, Dr. Bob?
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
"gone amiss" ..
i was wondering if you thought that other posters were offended or ignoring dr bob's "please rephrase"..
i think it is important for posters not to feel pressured at any time..
dr bob is the "umpire"
we can protest and replay..but he is the one that puts us in the box...right or wrong he had the stripes...
i do not want to imagine the "choas" if there were no blocks...
jyl
Posted by Sabina on June 2, 2004, at 10:13:01
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
Your post seems to be bringing points that I was never broaching or contesting, which I found more than a bit confusing. Obviously, I did not explain myself clearly enough, for which I apologize. Hopefully, Dr. Bob will be able to make some sense out of it. I was actually posting to him about a very specific issue; but since you directed a reply to me, I will do my best to answer you.
> "gone amiss" ..
> i was wondering if you thought that other posters were offended or ignoring dr. bob's "please rephrase"..I’m not sure why you chose to include this one fragment from my original post out of context. I’m not certain if you fully took it's meaning as I intended or how it refers to your next sentence. Actually, I don't know what the next sentence means at all. I suppose I wasn't aware of any "other posters" who may potentially be offended by or ignoring a "please rephrase" request. I must have missed something here; but please don't enlighten me!
Pertinent sidebar: 'Cause see, I really don't want to go around and around on this. I was only trying to post to Dr. Bob out of frustration that Jim got blocked and never even got the courtesy of having his direct questions to Dr. Bob answered. It was like, Larry could no longer ask questions, so Jim did. Now Jim's gone, and I’m asking questions. Like...when's Dr. Bob going to answer Jim's questions? :-)
> i think it is important for posters not to feel pressured at any time..
Of course. I don't believe I advocated otherwise anywhere in my post.
> dr. bob is the "umpire"
Quite right, and precisely why I was writing to him to air my grievances.
> we can protest and replay..but he is the one that puts us in the box...right or wrong he had the stripes...
Please see my previous comment.
> i do not want to imagine the "chaos" if there were no blocks...
I was not protesting any block whatsoever. What I *did* say was that posters are commonly given PBC's and "please rephrase" options instead of being summarily blocked, as happened to Jim. I feel that it would not have gone amiss for him to have been given this opportunity as well.
Again, I apologize for my shortcomings in explaining myself sufficiently. I hope this helps. On a personal note, I hope you are doing better today.
Posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 7:00:22
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
Sabina, I agree with you. I know Jim and he has a huge heart and I believe that he was just trying to get answers while hoping that things would improve. It seems that if you question things (which is what this board is for) you're very likely going to be punished. But if you scrape and bow, you're in like flynn..........That's why I never post on administration but I HAD to say something about Jim. xoxox to Jim!!!
Posted by spoc on June 3, 2004, at 11:25:14
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 7:00:22
...my own participation was based on thinking this could all be a positive thing... And, that something which could reasonably be interpreted as a signal had been given that perhaps it was the right time at last to have these discussions again... But no input or feedback from where it matters was forthcoming, so I guess maybe that time hadn't come after all...
This is draining stuff and has all been done before, but I had thought maybe this time it was to be different and worth it. However, everything is still unacknowledged and in the dark (as may be the actual process that went into whatever verdict is issued in the primary case at hand)... I know many don't like to see these discussions and I wouldn't have wanted to do it for naught, if it was guaranteed to go the way of all the others...
If the validation of a dialogue of some type had been afforded, we might not just look like rebels without a cause posting over here... I thought it had been more or less *conceded* this time that there probably *was* a cause...
But it's so dark in here, I feel kind of uneasy and maybe a little ill over having risked/bothered to come out on this matter, only for us to receive no input or answers or feedback... which is tantamount to negative (behavior stopping) feedback. I think we did have good reason to believe a discussion was being encouraged and might be responded to ... Now I just feel exposed and somehow embarrassed.
But underneath it all I do know that this is valid and that to have at least tried to exercise a voice over very fundamental humanistic principles is better and healthier than not to have, so I have to fight the guilt I am prone to when the lesson I could learn from it would be regressive and faulty.
I get confused when a discussion like this is addressed with the statement that having punishments available is good and necessary, because I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, that there shouldn't be any. I don't see where it addresses what's at hand. It's just being said that one size does not fit all; the punishment should fit the 'crime' (if it's to teach positive conflict resolution and result in "improved" posters); and that consistency and the fate of individuals does matter. And that objections to improvement based on time/assistance factors and possible complications like biases surely *can* be worked out and overcome. Without requiring unreasonable additional resources or effort.
It's true that we are all free to go elsewhere at any time for any reason. But as important as positivity, good logic, education and constructive solutions are supposed to be to the very essence and reason for existence of this place, it's hard to believe that the bottom-line answer would be given that people should just leave rather than ask for things to be fair and make sense. In general, I thought all the concerns about supportiveness and civility were supposed to be teaching us that doing the best/right thing whenever possible is the best/right thing to do...
This place is *indeed* a great resource and I know everyone is grateful for that, but isn't it also more or less someone's current life work that we are contributing to, not just a service? Towards that, any reasonable improvements would seem like they'd be a positive thing on both ends. At what cost and based on what principles the shiny surface was achieved matters too...
This site is actually a very fascinating human interest story -- I'd almost be surprised if an outside source doesn't see the potential for a documentary or book about it someday. So we might as well all put on our Sunday finest and do things as right as possible!
Well, I have contributed some (probably old) suggestions, and was not out of others, nor the commitment to helping iron out logistical wrinkles. But given no reason to think this could be any different than all the other threads like this (or seen as the constructive interaction it could have been), I guess I (finally?) no longer see the point...
Posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 11:50:50
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by spoc on June 3, 2004, at 11:25:14
This place is *indeed* a great resource and I know everyone is grateful for that, but isn't it also more or less someone's current life work that we are contributing to, not just a service? Towards that, any reasonable improvements would seem like they'd be a positive thing on both ends. At what cost and based on what principles the shiny surface was achieved matters too...
AMEN!!!!!! Thanks for the reminder that this is a "research project" for the good doctor. And I am also in agreement with everything else you said. I've gone out on a limb before and ended up feeling like the village idiot when the core problem was NEVER addressed.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:19:34
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
> I'm even more disappointed that none of his questions and concerns about Larry's block which resulted in this two week break have been addressed.
Sorry, could you repeat the questions? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:22:37
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
> i was wondering if you thought that other posters were ... ignoring dr bob's "please rephrase"...
I'm not sure what you had in mind, but that did remind me of:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/351378.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 3, 2004, at 17:48:56
In reply to re: please rephrase » justyourlaugh, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:22:37
sorry ,
sometimes even i do not know what i am talking about..
?
jyl
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.