![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 121 to 145 of 185. Go back in thread:
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.
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?
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
:-(
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
>
> confuzyqIt 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.
>
> MidnightBlueWell, 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?
>
> MI 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
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. :(
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.
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
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
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
Posted by muffled on June 30, 2007, at 9:59:27
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Honore on June 30, 2007, at 9:17:55
Interesting, yours and klavots stuff have similiarities.
I like your ideas, but I still wonder bout length, but that may just be me, cuz I find the blocks so hurtful.
Thanks for working on this Honore, its been a LONG process trying to figger how to do blocks....
M
Posted by muffled on June 30, 2007, at 10:01:38
In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 30, 2007, at 6:49:44
> 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. :(I found them compelling Dinah....
He ignores me too ofttimes...
Thanks for pitching in, this all sucks bad don't it :-(
Maybe we will achieve some thing.
Ya just never know.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Honore on June 30, 2007, at 9:17:55
> 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.
>
> KlavotThat's an interesting suggestion, thanks. What do you think would be a reasonable value of r in that formula?
--
> --have 2 types of infractions
>
> 1. personal things
>
> --use the rule bob has now, with with the current limitation
>
> 2. nonpersonal
>
> -use the rule, but have two further rules
>
> ---a.. No banning for over a month (or maybe six weeks) at a time.
>
> ---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.
>
> 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.
>
> HonoreThanks for your suggestions, too. The current formula is essentially:
B = S * (D - P / r)
with r = 10 and S = 3 when it's personal, 2 when it's impersonal. So if it were impersonal and D were 4 (1 month), P would need to be 36 (9 months), not 24 (6 months), for B to be 1 (with rounding).
I suppose a case could be made for a lower cap for impersonal incivility. Keeping the same 2:3 ratio would mean 35 weeks?
IMO, it makes sense for the personal and impersonal systems not to be separate.
Thinking of blocks in terms of incentives is tricky, since the longer the blocks, the greater the incentives...
Also, I still like the idea of a mandatory civility buddy option:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/596986.html
Finally, as Dinah said:
> The thread had already escalated quite a bit.
It would've been nice if all these blocks could've been prevented in the first place...
Bob
Posted by Honore on July 2, 2007, at 12:12:43
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
B = S * (D - P / r)
b= s * (D - (P/r) ) ?
In that case, if d= 48, P=147, and r=10, then the block is, as you said, 33 weeks. I'd be interested in seeing more of how Klavot's system works.
I don't mean to be personal, Bob, but I wonder if you aren't underestimating the degree of loss involved in being blocked from a place that you go to, and get some important emotional solace, for as long as two weeks or even a month.
Maybe your thinking on this has evolved, but you aren't aware of it, or maybe it hasn't evolved since earlier when using the internet a lot was considered addictive, and all that. Whereas now, the internet has clearly changed into a major source of connection for many people.
I also know, for me, not being able to post here for a month would be a really great sacrifice. Yet there are moments when one impulsively does things, and then is taken up short by what one has done.
If it's a question of giving people a chance to repeat an experience, so as to learn enough from the repetitions that it would actually help change behavior, allowing people to come back and make mistakes and being blocked more often would, for me, make the learning process more probable.
If I acted impulsively and were blocked for a month, it would be less likely that I'd learn anything--other than that I felt badly treated, and perhaps had to be very very careful, which also could lead to moments of rebellious impulsivity-- than if I were blocked several times for briefer periods, during which I felt I had chances to act differently each time.
[I get the sense that your concern is not taking short blocks seriously, but I think people generally do.]
To me, the system of blocks isn't really just. That's my personal feeling. I do think it's important to separate grammatical impulses from interpersonal impulses, so to speak. So that's just a disagreement on principles. I could argue, but it's probably just based on some fundamental beliefs.
I do think, though, from a practical point of view, or teaching new behaviors, allowing people more chances to make mistakes, suffer the consequences, and come back with another chance, would lead to people's feeling more consistency in their lives (ie participation) and also to have chances to adapt to the rules, which may not be natural, initially.
Honore
Posted by muffled on July 2, 2007, at 12:28:16
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
> That's an interesting suggestion, thanks. What do you think would be a reasonable value of r in that formula?
*I love the look of the numbers and all, but am unable to figger it exactly...
> > ---a.. No banning for over a month (or maybe six weeks) at a time.
*THIS I agree with. Unless a person is *ongoingly* being disruptive, then maybe 6 mo.
> >
> > ---b. If a long time passes– say six months– after a month ban, reduce to a week for next ban* YES YES YES!!!
> >
> > this introduces greater incentives for good behavior.*hmmm. Incentives? or mebbe a better way to say it would be not so much incentives, but *repercussions* for bad behaviour. I do not feel rewarded for not being blocked, but I DO feel punished when I am...
As for incentives, meaning your blocks go away for good behaviour, again, I don't think I'd feel rewarded, so much as *releived* of some of my fear...So IMHO theres not incentives, but just the looming possibility of punishment...> I suppose a case could be made for a lower cap for impersonal incivility. Keeping the same 2:3 ratio would mean 35 weeks?
*sigh, numbers aside, impersonal civility is less bad I guess......
>
> IMO, it makes sense for the personal and impersonal systems not to be separate.*its a little subjective at times....I forsee many arguments....
>
> Thinking of blocks in terms of incentives is tricky, since the longer the blocks, the greater the incentives...*again NOT an incentive to me. Longer blocks are not more incentive, just more hurt, more fear. If I screw up and uncivil its most likely I will have done so in the heat of the moment, and 'incentives' mean absolutely nothing to me at that point, all that would happen is I would be blocked and further hurt. When/if I came back, I would just be fearful and quite possibly angry and resentful(depending on the block...). But for me to get a block, for a moment of upset, ESP if it weren't all that bad....well, I not saying it well, just we DEALING WITH PEOPLE HERE, not machines....we DO screw up, but the punishment IMHO often FAR outstrips the crime....:-(
>
> Also, I still like the idea of a mandatory civility buddy option:*potentially useful...very challenging....
>
> > The thread had already escalated quite a bit.
>
> It would've been nice if all these blocks could've been prevented in the first place...*if you read the thread Bob, you *will* notice that others DID try.Doesn't always work.Esp if you got strong feelings bout it...
Also on a diff thread it *was* successful, and deputy said thanks for apologies, and it was good. So mebbe we need to do more of that...
But really, oftimes all thats needed is a breather......
NOT BANISHMENT and SHAME.
I think thats mebbe another thing you don't fully understand Bob, is the shame component...
One day, when my brain is working good(it DOES sometimes...) I will take the time and write a dissertation explaining the interpersonal stuff and the shame and the deterrence, time factors of relevancy, etc of blocks...
For now I am tired.
I still beleive VERY strongly that you NEED to revisit Z block above.
IT IS JUST WRONG.
Respectfully,
M
Posted by muffled on July 2, 2007, at 12:39:14
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Honore on July 2, 2007, at 12:12:43
> I'd be interested in seeing more of how Klavot's system works.
*me too
>
> I wonder if you aren't underestimating the degree of loss involved in being blocked from a place that you go to, and get some important emotional solace*sigh..I been trying to explain this to Bob for a long time....
>
>Whereas now, the internet has clearly changed into a major source of connection for many people.*nicely said!
>
>Yet there are moments when one impulsively does things, and then is taken up short by what one has done.*EXACTLY, and I KNOW you can review your post but sometimes when I in the mode I'm in, it don't make a diff, seems OK, then I read it later and go 'oh sh*t', but tooooooooooo late :-(
>
> If it's a question of giving people a chance to repeat an experience, so as to learn enough from the repetitions that it would actually help change behavior, allowing people to come back and make mistakes and being blocked more often would, for me, make the learning process more probable.*again, well said. I too have felt that we don't learn from too strong punishment. Just twists us...
>
> If I acted impulsively and were blocked for a month, it would be less likely that I'd learn anything--other than that I felt badly treated, and perhaps had to be very very careful, which also could lead to moments of rebellious impulsivity-- than if I were blocked several times for briefer periods, during which I felt I had chances to act differently each time.*catch more flies w/honey....or something like that.
>
> [I get the sense that your concern is not taking short blocks seriously, but I think people generally do.]**again EXACTLY. Ohhh good using words honore!
> I do think, though, from a practical point of view, or teaching new behaviors, allowing people more chances to make mistakes, suffer the consequences, and come back with another chance, would lead to people's feeling more consistency in their lives (ie participation) and also to have chances to adapt to the rules, which may not be natural, initially.* yup you said it good honore!
Glad you could make the words come out right.
Do your words do that all the time? Or do they sometimes not work? Mine seem to get all stuck in my head some how, and sometimes they flow like a mighty river. And sometimes the river floods!!!!ROFL!!!
:-)
M
Posted by Klavot on July 2, 2007, at 13:54:17
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
> What do you think would be a reasonable value of r in that formula?
What about r = 39. To keep the formula simple, and considering that many people are not familiar with the exponential function, one can perhaps replace exp(x) = e^x with 3^x, since e = 2.71828... is close to 3. In fact, I just plotted the two functions on my computer, and for 0 <= P <= 52 (i.e. within the first year of a previous block having expired), it turns out that 3^(-P/39) is nearly identical with exp(-P/39).
Then the formula would be
B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)].
Then the extent to which a previous block would be used against a poster diminishes as follows:
1 week (P = 1): 3^(-P/39) = 0.97;
2 weeks (P = 2): 3^(-P/39) = 0.95;
1 month (P = 4): 3^(-P/39) = 0.89;
2 months (P = 8): 3^(-P/39) = 0.80;
3 months (P = 12): 3^(-P/39) = 0.71;
6 months (P = 24): 3^(-P/39) = 0.51;
1 year (P = 52): 3^(-P/39) = 0.23.Thus, within the first month of another incivility occuring, the poster would be penalised with a block consisting of S plus roughly his previous block. After 3 months, the poster would be penalised with a block consisting of S plus roughly 70 % of his previous block. After 6 months, you would get S plus half your previous block, and after a year, you would get S plus roughly one quarter your previous block.
(That is the reason I chose r = 39. It is the smallest r that guarantees that after 6 months, previous incivility will still factor. So even if the previous block was only one week, and that expired 6 months ago, then
B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = S + 1*[3^(-24/39)] = S + 0.51 -> S + 1 week.)
If people consider that to be too strict, then r can be lowered; if people consider that to be too lenient, then r can be raised.
In Zenhussy's case, we would then get
B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = 1 + 48*[3^(-147/39)] = 1.76 -> 2 weeks.
It turns out that here, previous incivility would still factor, because of the great length of the previous block (48 weeks).
Klavot
Posted by sunnydays on July 2, 2007, at 15:22:39
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Honore on July 2, 2007, at 12:12:43
I agree with Honore's presentation of the issues. Being able to come back within a relatively short time and change one's behavior would facilitate learning a lot more than being gone for so long you may not even remember what got you blocked in the first place by the time you get back.
sunnydays
Posted by muffled on July 2, 2007, at 16:55:18
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
>It would've been nice if all these blocks could've been prevented in the first place...
**It'd be nice if we were all perfect...
M
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2007, at 22:10:01
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on July 2, 2007, at 16:55:18
I believe if a therapist or a pdoc blocked their patient cause they didn't agree with what they were saying and didn't hurt anyone that could cause abandontment issues and worse. When we need help the most we should be able to support each other. As far as gg she's had a rough time and has helped so many others I personally don't think she should be blocked. Now I base this only on gg as I don't go to many boards and know her and not the others. Same could be true for them don't know. But 33 weeks is in my opinion like being in jail. Love Phillipa
Posted by Sigismund on July 3, 2007, at 1:29:35
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2007, at 11:41:53
I don't agree with that 2:3 ratio thing.
I think personal incivility is *much* more important, although in fact I wonder if it is possible to codify.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2007, at 16:35:34
In reply to Re: blocks, options, and prevention, posted by Klavot on July 2, 2007, at 13:54:17
> there are moments when one impulsively does things, and then is taken up short by what one has done.
>
> If it's a question of giving people a chance to repeat an experience, so as to learn enough from the repetitions that it would actually help change behavior, allowing people to come back and make mistakes and being blocked more often would, for me, make the learning process more probable.
>
> HonoreI agree, it can be hard if someone's impulsive or needs many repetitions to learn, but if people can't make mistakes as often, there's less overall incivility and more supportive overall atmosphere.
--
> What about r = 39.
>
> It is the smallest r that guarantees that after 6 months, previous incivility will still factor. So even if the previous block was only one week, and that expired 6 months ago, then
>
> B = S + D*[3^(-P/39)] = S + 1*[3^(-24/39)] = S + 0.51 -> S + 1 week.
>
> KlavotThanks for working on this. Hmm, powers of e probably are about as intuitive than powers of 3, and if we set:
0.5 = exp(-24/r)
then:
r = 24/ln2 ~ 35
Another issue is when a poster is immediately uncivil again. Currently, if it's impersonal and S = 2:
B = S * (D - P/r) = 2 * D
But with your formula and S = 1:
B = S + D * exp(-P/r) = 1 + D
It makes the formula more complicated, but to add the exponential decay and keep the current doubling (exponential growth), it could be:
B = 1 + (SD - 1) * exp(-P/r)
with S = 2 or 3. So if D = 48 and P = 147 and it were impersonal, we would still get:
B = 1 + (2 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 2.42 -> 2 weeks
In Zenhussy's case, however, it was personal, not impersonal, so it would've been an extra week:
B = 1 + (3 * 48 - 1) * exp(-147/35) = 3.14 -> 3 weeks
Bob
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.