Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 951844

Shown: posts 10 to 34 of 89. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou's request-nolodfndo

Posted by Toph on June 23, 2010, at 18:30:15

In reply to Lou's request-nolodfndo » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on June 23, 2010, at 16:21:51

I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was an intent to harm another. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.

 

Re: the system here..WHO are the deputies? (nm) » Dr. Bob

Posted by fayeroe on June 23, 2010, at 21:15:47

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 19:28:01

 

Re: being blocked again

Posted by jade k on June 25, 2010, at 16:05:50

In reply to Re: being blocked again, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2010, at 3:25:34


> Would anyone be willing to try to show [poster] how he might rephrase the above or to encourage him to apologize? You may have the power to help him avoid being blocked again.
>


Just curious,

Has this ever worked?

~Jade

 

Re: the system here

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48

In reply to Re: Lou's request-nolodfndo, posted by Toph on June 23, 2010, at 18:30:15

> What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.

> I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.

I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.

Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.

Bob

 

Re: the system here..Who is 'we' here? (nm) » Dr. Bob

Posted by fayeroe on June 26, 2010, at 1:20:55

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48

 

Lou's response to {your system}- » Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 8:41:23

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48

> > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
>
> > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
>
> I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
>
> Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung, you wrote that in your system,
[...we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm...there could be harm in the future...]
That is your system.Looking at the post here that I am requesting that you post in the thread wher it is as to if or if not you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not, I also ask for you to consider in that you say it is your system here to consider if there has been potential harm or there could be harm in the future as a criteria for you to use to sanction a statement .
Here is the statement in quuestion in the link in the link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/200100321/msgs/951879.html
Now that statement could cause others here to think that you consider it to be supportive, for you state here that support takes presedence and that antisemitic statements are not to be posted which are those that if a Jew reads it they could be led to feel put down/accused. Your system her, as in your TOS, state not to post what could lead someone to feel put down/accused. In fact your sytem states not to post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down.
History has shown what could happen to Jews and others when the {state} allows to be promulgated statemnts that could preclude Jews and others that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgivness and Eternal Life. The statement then could mean to some that could think in such terms, that the Jewish children murderd and subjected to atrocities, that have been determined to have been crimes against humanity commited by those that are antisemites and claim superiority, to be precluded from forgivness and Eternal Life. Not only thast, but there are those that could think from the statement in question who do accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that the ones that commited the atrocities have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Now I am asking that you post in that thread as to if you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not sdo that the members her could make their own determination as to what you mean here as to if in your system as to you using your judgement as ti if there could be harm to someone from the post in question without you posting in that thread as to if you consider the statement supportive or not. Fot members could think that you do consider it supportive because you state that support takes precedence and not to post what could lead someone to feel put down.
Now you state here that you will take rsponsibility for what you post here. And you state that your TOS states that to not post what could lead someone to feel put down. When I became a member here and looked at your system, I took you at your word.
You could continue to leave my request unanswerd and there is IMHO the potential of me being a victim of antisemitic violence. Would you take responsibility for that? You sated here that the forum is for support so I think that it falls in your TOS of your system to not leave that thread in question with the ambiguity as to if the statement in question is supportive to you or not.
Lou Pilder

 

corrected link- Lou's response to {your system}-

Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 8:46:10

In reply to Lou's response to {your system}- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 8:41:23

> > > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
> >
> > > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
> >
> > I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
> >
> > Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung, you wrote that in your system,
> [...we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm...there could be harm in the future...]
> That is your system.Looking at the post here that I am requesting that you post in the thread wher it is as to if or if not you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not, I also ask for you to consider in that you say it is your system here to consider if there has been potential harm or there could be harm in the future as a criteria for you to use to sanction a statement .
> Here is the statement in quuestion in the link in the link:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/200100321/msgs/951879.html
> Now that statement could cause others here to think that you consider it to be supportive, for you state here that support takes presedence and that antisemitic statements are not to be posted which are those that if a Jew reads it they could be led to feel put down/accused. Your system her, as in your TOS, state not to post what could lead someone to feel put down/accused. In fact your sytem states not to post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down.
> History has shown what could happen to Jews and others when the {state} allows to be promulgated statemnts that could preclude Jews and others that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgivness and Eternal Life. The statement then could mean to some that could think in such terms, that the Jewish children murderd and subjected to atrocities, that have been determined to have been crimes against humanity commited by those that are antisemites and claim superiority, to be precluded from forgivness and Eternal Life. Not only thast, but there are those that could think from the statement in question who do accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that the ones that commited the atrocities have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
> Now I am asking that you post in that thread as to if you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not sdo that the members her could make their own determination as to what you mean here as to if in your system as to you using your judgement as ti if there could be harm to someone from the post in question without you posting in that thread as to if you consider the statement supportive or not. Fot members could think that you do consider it supportive because you state that support takes precedence and not to post what could lead someone to feel put down.
> Now you state here that you will take rsponsibility for what you post here. And you state that your TOS states that to not post what could lead someone to feel put down. When I became a member here and looked at your system, I took you at your word.
> You could continue to leave my request unanswerd and there is IMHO the potential of me being a victim of antisemitic violence. Would you take responsibility for that? You sated here that the forum is for support so I think that it falls in your TOS of your system to not leave that thread in question with the ambiguity as to if the statement in question is supportive to you or not.
> Lou Pilder

corrected:
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html

 

Re: the system here » Dr. Bob

Posted by jade k on June 26, 2010, at 13:26:40

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48

> > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
>
> > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
>
> I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
>
> Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
>
> Bob


"there could be harm in the future"? Yikes!!

I'd "encourage" you to slow down Toph, but alas, its just not in my nature...(what kind of car do you drive btw?)

~Jade

 

Re: blocked for 3 weeks

Posted by Fred23 on June 26, 2010, at 15:01:29

In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » bulldog2, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:48


> PS: According to the formula:
>
> duration of previous block: 1 week
> period of time since previous block: 1 week
> severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
> block length = 2.96 rounded = 3 weeks

It would be simpler just to block everyone in the thread for the same length of time.

 

Re: blkd 4 3 wks.all for one and one for all! :-) (nm) » Fred23

Posted by fayeroe on June 26, 2010, at 15:07:07

In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks, posted by Fred23 on June 26, 2010, at 15:01:29

 

Re: 3 wks? Let me check my calendar :-) (nm)

Posted by jade k on June 26, 2010, at 15:24:23

In reply to Re: blkd 4 3 wks.all for one and one for all! :-) (nm) » Fred23, posted by fayeroe on June 26, 2010, at 15:07:07

 

Re: BLK 3 wks? Let me get my bike helmet! (nm) » jade k

Posted by fayeroe on June 26, 2010, at 15:34:09

In reply to Re: 3 wks? Let me check my calendar :-) (nm), posted by jade k on June 26, 2010, at 15:24:23

 

Re: simpler

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 2:03:07

In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks, posted by Fred23 on June 26, 2010, at 15:01:29

> It would be simpler just to block everyone in the thread for the same length of time.

Everyone in a thread that turns uncivil or everyone who's uncivil?

It would be simpler if everyone were uncivil in the same way, and with the same frequency. :-)

Bob

 

Re: the system here

Posted by Toph on June 28, 2010, at 9:53:00

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48


> Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
>
> Bob

Following your metaphor, I see Babble as a sort of support group for impaired drivers. Some will be speeders. Your system penalizes speeding members it is designed to help. Babble has had a lot of mental speeders over the years.

 

Re: simpler uncivility » Dr. Bob

Posted by jade k on June 28, 2010, at 11:14:39

In reply to Re: simpler, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 2:03:07


>
> It would be simpler if everyone were uncivil in the same way, and with the same frequency. :-)
>
> Bob


Want us to work on that? It does seem unfair that you're alone in this. :-)

~Jade

 

Re: the system here

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2010, at 19:23:52

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Toph on June 28, 2010, at 9:53:00

> Following your metaphor, I see Babble as a sort of support group for impaired drivers. Some will be speeders. Your system penalizes speeding members it is designed to help. Babble has had a lot of mental speeders over the years.

What would the goal of a support group for impaired drivers be? What kind of help would it try to provide?

Bob

 

Impaired or speeding? different things (nm) » Dr. Bob

Posted by fayeroe on June 29, 2010, at 19:59:02

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2010, at 19:23:52

 

Re: blocked for 3 weeks » chujoe

Posted by jade k on June 30, 2010, at 12:25:11

In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by chujoe on June 22, 2010, at 13:51:48

> I'm taking a voluntary three week block in solidarity with Bulldog2.

I wonder if that means you get a "credit" for time served (three weeks) for next time you express your opinion...

Anyway, just wanted to let you know, its a BEAUTIFUL day in the neighborhood.

~Jade ;-)

 

Re: blocked for 3 weeks » jade k

Posted by chujoe on June 30, 2010, at 12:34:08

In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » chujoe, posted by jade k on June 30, 2010, at 12:25:11

Thanks Jade. As you may have noticed I've decided it's OK for me to keep up the conversation I'm having with Dr. Bob on the Admin board. And I've been sort of reading a couple of the threads on the Medication Board, but not paying too much attention.

And that would be cool if I could bank the three weeks, but I suspect it doesn't work that way.

 

Re: the system here » Dr. Bob

Posted by Toph on July 1, 2010, at 11:01:53

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2010, at 19:23:52


> What would the goal of a support group for impaired drivers be? What kind of help would it try to provide?
>
> Bob

Your right Bob, not the best analogy. How about a support group for Tourettes patients where they get blocked for uncontrolled utterances? That seems as ironic to me as a support site for people with mental illness where there is little tolerance for several psychiatric symptoms.

 

Re: the system here » Toph

Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 11:28:06

In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on July 1, 2010, at 11:01:53

And the rest of us? Don't our needs as mental health consumers matter? Our needs for emotional safety and respect? Vulnerable people post here. People who might be more likely to trigger an aggressive response in others post here.

Dr. Bob is balancing the needs of more than one group of people. You believe he's coming down too far on the side of one group, and I might believe he's coming down too far on the side of others.

But he does acknowledge the needs of both. That's why unlike some sites he doesn't block people permanently.

 

Re: the system here » Toph

Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 11:43:32

In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on July 1, 2010, at 11:01:53

Sorry, Toph.

I think maybe I feel rather too passionately on this topic.

I went to a seminar about anger once. It turns out that the other people in the seminar had trouble *controlling* their anger. I had trouble with other people not controlling their anger. After growing up with parents who felt free to emote all over the place and encouraged me to do the same, I decided consciously to behave differently. I feel strongly that other people's feelings really do need to be considered.

On the other hand, the woman who ran the seminar was more concerned with me than she was with the people who felt free to yell at their spouses and kids. So maybe it's my issue.

 

Re: the system here » Dinah

Posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 11:49:44

In reply to Re: the system here » Toph, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 11:43:32

> Sorry, Toph.
>
> I think maybe I feel rather too passionately on this topic.
>
> I went to a seminar about anger once. It turns out that the other people in the seminar had trouble *controlling* their anger. I had trouble with other people not controlling their anger. After growing up with parents who felt free to emote all over the place and encouraged me to do the same, I decided consciously to behave differently. I feel strongly that other people's feelings really do need to be considered.
>
> On the other hand, the woman who ran the seminar was more concerned with me than she was with the people who felt free to yell at their spouses and kids. So maybe it's my issue.


****After growing up with parents who felt free to emote all over the place and encouraged me to do the same, I decided consciously to behave differently. I feel strongly that other people's feelings really do need to be considered.****

I know that feeling, Dinah. Same upbringing. Except I was NOT encouraged to voice my feelings and responses. I'm working on those issues now with T.

 

Re: the system here

Posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 12:06:36

In reply to Re: the system here » Toph, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 11:28:06


>
> ***But he does acknowledge the needs of both. That's why unlike some sites he doesn't block people permanently.***

I have to speak to the above, Dinah. You have never been blocked for 6 months or a year, right? Believe me when I say those blocks feel like forever. My longest block was 16 weeks but I've kept in touch with people who have had much longer blocks. A block of that length pulls everything they need away from them.

For someone to be banned at Psych Central means they have done something so horrible that they can't be dealt with any other way. That person generally has no remorse about what they've said or done. Private messages go to the poster first and John tries to work with them. The banning comes only after John and his moderators determine that it is the only way to handle the problem. I know that 2 people have been banned at PC....maybe more since I left. I doubt it. I want to mention that there aren't any PBCs there. It is left to the posters to settle minor disputes.

When the FB mess came up Bob didn't talk to me about it, as you are aware. He blocked me. I don't care that much about being blocked. My investment here is teensy. I cared that no one got any information that would have helped us understand what happened. I saw no concern for the feelings of the upset posters.

Anything over a month is ridiculous. I don't care who owns the site. It is a punishment that is much worse than the crime.

I believe that Bob knows that.


 

Re: the system here

Posted by jade k on July 1, 2010, at 12:54:11

In reply to Re: the system here, posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 12:06:36


> When the FB mess came up Bob didn't talk to me about it, as you are aware. He blocked me. I don't care that much about being blocked. My investment here is teensy. I cared that no one got any information that would have helped us understand what happened. I saw no concern for the feelings of the upset posters.


I'm really trying to help when I say this, I think many people no longer post and many new people don't come because of the seemingly loose regard for personal privacy here. Everytime I post, I have to think about where it may end up: Facebook, twitter, other active psych sites, even saved by another poster to be "leaked" onto the board again at an innapropriate time.
>
> Anything over a month is ridiculous. I don't care who owns the site. It is a punishment that is much worse than the crime.

I agree, I think even a month is usually too long.

>
> I believe that Bob knows that.
>
>
>

~Jade


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, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.