Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 762973

Shown: posts 109 to 133 of 185. Go back in thread:

 

Re: block history » Dr. Bob

Posted by confuzyq on June 29, 2007, at 3:52:19

In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13

I haven't been able to sleep yet and am not sure I'm thinking too straight at the moment, but: when the current block formula was created and implemented, wasn't it somehow partly to address objections over really long blocks; and wasn't the issue then raised (and at least put on the to-consider list) that it might thereafter not be correct to factor a long block given under the old system into a block given under the new system? That somehow those old fields needed to be leveled into more what they would have been, if played on under the new system all along..?


> I'm glad Zen's receiving support, and I'm open to suggestions, but I think the same formula should (in general) be used for everyone. If poster A's block is going to be determined in part by poster B's history, then shouldn't poster B's block also be determined in part by poster A's history? And shouldn't their reductions for "good behavior" be the same?
>
> Bob

 

Re: perception of privilege » Dr. Bob

Posted by confuzyq on June 29, 2007, at 4:34:42

In reply to Re: perception of privilege, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:47

> > mostly it is just about fairness and consistency, and I just don't see the justification in implying otherwise in such cut-and-dried scenarios.
> >
> > Sometimes I wonder if the hypotheses you put forth are more about a particular angle you'd like to examine at the moment ... In those cases I'd be more comfortable if you'd just come out and say that X is an angle you would simply like to hear discussed.


> You're right
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob


...whoops, did I leave something out, let me try that again... ;-)

> You're right, I didn't mean to imply that it's only envy, or even mostly envy, just that envy might be a particular angle, one that might be helpful to discuss.

I want to practice what I preach and reinforce parts that to me are good, so thank you for rethinking the above.

 

Re: block history » Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:29:18

In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13

I think when you get to really long blocks, that becomes somewhat problematic.

Even if we put aside the fact that autoasterisking was introduced after zen's long block...

I think the formula is fine with shorter blocks, and I wouldn't object strenuously in cases of clear incivility, particularly if the conflict was begun by the person in question.

But in this case, neither of those things is true. The thread had already escalated quite a bit.

In the past, before the formula, you generally were more lenient in cases where a thread had escalated substantially. A lot of times you let everything that wasn't flagrantly uncivil go, and a lot of times you showed clemency in the block lengths. I think that was understandable and reasonable.

Your block formula has been around long enough for people to be able to get a general idea of the consequences of their behavior, true. But your block formula doesn't preclude you from considering facts and circumstances and ruling in favor of mercy. And.... Just my opinion here, but I think that clemency and mercy are often good policy decisions, and better for the long term atmosphere of the board.

For what it's worth.

 

As an aside... » Dinah

Posted by scratchpad on June 29, 2007, at 8:26:00

In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:29:18

> I think when you get to really long blocks, that becomes somewhat problematic.
>
....

>
> For what it's worth.


I don't know if you believe in reincarnation, Dinah; but at the very least I believe you were a diplomat in a former life.
:-)

sp

 

:-) » scratchpad

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 8:40:55

In reply to As an aside... » Dinah, posted by scratchpad on June 29, 2007, at 8:26:00

I'd like to give my parents full credit for their early training and education. ;)

 

I AGREE WITH DINAH (nm)

Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 9:45:39

In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:29:18

 

I am being ignored by the venerable Dr. Bob :-( (nm)

Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 9:54:56

In reply to :-) » scratchpad, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 8:40:55

 

I am............invisible....... (nm)

Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 9:56:27

In reply to :-) » scratchpad, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 8:40:55

 

Re: block history » Dr. Bob

Posted by MidnightBlue on June 29, 2007, at 12:01:43

In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13

Dr. Bob,

I'm just talking in general now. But let's assume you did something wrong and you got blocked for it for a very long time. Then you turned your life around. Maybe went on meds, got some therapy, stayed clean and sober. After YEARS of good behavior shouldn't a person be rewarded with a clean slate? I think after ONE year with no blocks and no PBC's a person should be able to start over.

Forgiveness is a wonderful thing.

MidnightBlue

 

period of time since previous block: 147 weeks?!?!

Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 12:35:00

In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42

*******OMG*************
stuff stays round THAT long????????????????????????//
Crap, I JUST read that.
OMG
This feels insane to me.
My head is spinning.
Getting a HUGE block after 147 WEEKS of being fine?????????????
I have no words, no words.
There is NO logic here....

 

Re: blocked for 33 weeks » Dr. Bob

Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 12:52:33

In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42

> previous block: 48 weeks
> period of time since previous block: 147 weeks
> uncivil toward a particular individual or group: no
> particularly uncivil: no
> different type of incivility: no
> clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
> provoked: no
> uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
> already archived: no
>
> If we take 147 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 15 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 48 - 15 = 33 weeks.

a. why we dividing by 10?
b. why we comparing to previous block length in a previous state of mind?
c. and all that stuff above, no CREDIT for those all being no?

>I'm open to suggestions,
but
I think the same formula should
(in general)
be used for everyone.
If poster A's block is going to be determined in part by poster B's history, then shouldn't poster B's block also be determined in part by poster A's history? And shouldn't their reductions for "good behavior" be the same?


**No.
Damn I wish I could make my brain work.
But I think there's something to be said as to having an automatic 'clean slate' after a period of time (say 6 mo.)
People change, emotions that were charged and ran high, pass.
IMHO the length of blocks escalates WAAAAAAY too fast, esp for such a minor offence.
Mebbe blocks should just be 1 week. Repeated BLOCKS then escalate(after 6 mo. clean slate though).
There could be some offences that are automatically a longer block, say 2 weeks, or if no attempt at working things thru is made.
I think/hope someone with a better brain than I can somehow map this out and then we could vote on it or something?
I think we need to keep in mind WHAT we are seeking by blocking? Is it deterrent?(then at what point does deterrent become cruelty??) Is it education?(then how do we learn to sort things out if we just blocked for long times?) after a week, we could still attempt...to discuss or apologise, much longer and its just old news, the emots are gone.. WHAT is it?
My thots are some scattered, but mebbe SOMEbody can understand what I am getting at and present it to Bob in a clearcut logical way.
Then we could maybe vote?
Or Bob, will you even entertain this thots? Are you gonna get stuck on a formula? Can you break free? Or not? If not, just save us the time and say so.
M

 

Re: blocked for 33 weeks

Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 15:55:48

In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42

I assume this is not an elaborate joke?

I don't know what to think.

 

Re: block history

Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 15:57:41

In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13

We can forget about Zeugma then.

I think this is a very bad system.

I have difficulty beieving it is *not* a joke.

 

Zenhussy

Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:01:34

In reply to Re: block history, posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 15:57:41

Look, I'm sure I don't get this.

Zen appears on the thread.

Says that *one thing* about stirred and all that.

And gets blocked for 33 weeks?

Is this right?

 

Re: Zenhussy

Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 16:03:38

In reply to Zenhussy, posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:01:34

:-(
worst of it is...
:-(
I dunno if we can change it
:-(

 

Re: Zenhussy » muffled

Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:53:55

In reply to Re: Zenhussy, posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 16:03:38

This is what happens in the engine room of babble and this is why people come here and talk about the experiments and stuff then?

Right.

 

Re: period of time since previous block: 147 weeks

Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:55:11

In reply to period of time since previous block: 147 weeks?!?!, posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 12:35:00

I gather that the assumptions behind the blocking formula come from the US justice system?

 

Re: block history » Dinah

Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 17:00:45

In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:29:18

>Your block formula has been around long enough for people to be able to get a general idea of the consequences of their behavior, true. But your block formula doesn't preclude you from considering facts and circumstances and ruling in favor of mercy. And.... Just my opinion here, but I think that clemency and mercy are often good policy decisions, and better for the long term atmosphere of the board.

I agree.

 

Re: Zenhussy

Posted by jammerlich on June 29, 2007, at 20:37:34

In reply to Zenhussy, posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:01:34

I just wanted to offer my support to zenhussy.

And to state, for the record, that I DO NOT agree with the length of her block. It strikes me as unreasonably long. To be honest, I don't think she should be blocked at all.

 

Re: block history

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2007, at 0:34:33

In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 12:52:33

> when the current block formula was created and implemented, wasn't it somehow partly to address objections over really long blocks

Right, the reduction for "good behavior" was added so blocks wouldn't be as long. In general.

> and wasn't the issue then raised (and at least put on the to-consider list) that it might thereafter not be correct to factor a long block given under the old system into a block given under the new system?
>
> confuzyq

It might've been raised, but the change only applied to new blocks. It wasn't retroactive.

--

> let's assume you did something wrong and you got blocked for it for a very long time. Then you turned your life around. Maybe went on meds, got some therapy, stayed clean and sober. After YEARS of good behavior shouldn't a person be rewarded with a clean slate? I think after ONE year with no blocks and no PBC's a person should be able to start over.
>
> Forgiveness is a wonderful thing.
>
> MidnightBlue

Well, I did skip the doubling... And civility is a wonderful thing, too. Some slates may take longer to clean?

--

> I think we need to keep in mind WHAT we are seeking by blocking? Is it deterrent?(then at what point does deterrent become cruelty??) Is it education?(then how do we learn to sort things out if we just blocked for long times?) after a week, we could still attempt...to discuss or apologise, much longer and its just old news, the emots are gone.. WHAT is it?
> My thots are some scattered, but mebbe SOMEbody can understand what I am getting at and present it to Bob in a clearcut logical way.
> Or Bob, will you even entertain this thots? Are you gonna get stuck on a formula? Can you break free?
>
> M

I guess for individual posters, it could potentially both deter and educate. And for the community, it keeps those posters from being uncivil for a period of time.

I might be able to break free if someone presents an alternative in a clear-cut logical way?

Bob

 

Re: block history » Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on June 30, 2007, at 6:49:44

In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2007, at 0:34:33

I did try to give sensible reasons based on past practice.

You ignored my post in your reply.

I suppose you didn't find them as compelling as I did. :(

 

Re: block history » Dr. Bob

Posted by Sigismund on June 30, 2007, at 7:03:41

In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2007, at 0:34:33

>I might be able to break free if someone presents an alternative in a clear-cut logical way?

What about what Klavot is talking about at the bottom of the board?
(Not that I could understand it.)
I appreciate the fact that you imply that this situation is problematic, deter and educate notwithstanding.

 

Re: block history » Sigismund

Posted by Klavot on June 30, 2007, at 8:49:30

In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Sigismund on June 30, 2007, at 7:03:41

> >I might be able to break free if someone presents an alternative in a clear-cut logical way?
>
> What about what Klavot is talking about at the bottom of the board?

If my formula had been used to determine the block length, Zenhussy would have probably gotten a 1 week block:

B = S + D*exp(-P/r) = 1 + 48*exp(-147/r) = 1.

Here I assume that S = 1, since the incivility is minor. The duration of the previous block is D = 48, and time passed since the previous block expired is P = 147. For any reasonable value of r, we get exp(-147/r) very close to 0, so the term 48*exp(-147/r) vanishes. This seems fair: considering nearly three years of civil behaviour on the part of Zenhussy, previous incivility should no longer count IMHO.

Klavot

 

Re: block history

Posted by Honore on June 30, 2007, at 9:17:55

In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13

Dinah has made the suggestion, I think-- but if you wanted to quantify it, you could see it this way. These are just some thoughts about how you could restructure things without getting to complicated.

--have 2 types of infractions

1. personal things– personal attacks, or general condemnations of types of people etc-- attacks on babble such as overwhelming the board with angry posts, etc. using nonpersonal incivility in a way that amounts to an attack on the board, rather than mere an occasional or habitual thing

--use the rule bob has now, with with the current limitation

2. nonpersonal– using words that don't seem civil, not asterisking, three posts in a row, etc

-use the rule, but have two further rules

---a.. No banning for over a month (or maybe six weeks) at a time. If a person reaches a month and keeps reoffending, just keep bannning them for a month. A month really makes the point, and they can be monitored more closely for violations

---b. If a long time passes– say six months– after a month ban, reduce to a week for next ban

this introduces greater incentives for good behavior. Most people don't like being banned at all– just the fact of being banned is bad; then the month is a long enough time of being deprived of posting that it should have an effect on people's behavior

if the person doesn't respond to the month, a another month is a pretty long time–

2. if someone has a long block for having committed things under the more serious type of incivility, you can have a separate system of blocks for them, relating to their impersonal acts.

So for example, zen could at most be blocked for a a month, if she had worked up to that by a number of impersonal uncivil posts. But if she had had a history of personal uncivil posts that led to 33 weeks of blocking, then that would be used if she was uncivil in a personal way again, up to a year.

In that sense, you could fit the punishment more to the crime, but keep the system simple and understandable. People would understand that there are different degrees of incivility (in this case 2), which is true.

Also, just as a general point, sentences in most justice systems are related to the crime that is at hand, not to the history of prior criminal activity. There is the exception that prior activity can be taken into account, when there's a range of sentence for a crime. For example, if theft has a range of 2-5 years, prior criminal acts could move someone toward the 5 year sentence, but not change the range of possible sentences for theft to those for some more serious crime.

Honore

 

:-) (nm) » Klavot

Posted by muffled on June 30, 2007, at 9:46:26

In reply to Re: block history » Sigismund, posted by Klavot on June 30, 2007, at 8:49:30


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.