![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 89. Go back in thread:
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
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
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.
>
> BobMr. 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
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 Pildercorrected:
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
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
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 weeksIt would be simpler just to block everyone in the thread for the same length of time.
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
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
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
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
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.
>
> BobFollowing 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.
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
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
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
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 ;-)
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.
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?
>
> BobYour 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 12:56:09
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by jade k on July 1, 2010, at 12:54:11
You are right about a month being too much. 2 weeks is long enough for a poster to "learn their lesson and repent".
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 13:54:18
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by fayeroe on July 1, 2010, at 12:06:36
>
> >
> > ***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.I sometimes wonder if it would be kinder to block forever. A long block keeps the ties to the site.
> 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.
Yeah. I experienced that. I, for the most part, quit posting there because I was left to settle a minor dispute myself. While I'm perfectly capable of doing it, it's not an environment that suits me. So effectively I was blocked by that policy in that a source of support is no longer really available to me. It suits many. Some it does not.
> 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 didn't agree with that block. I thought that while you hadn't used the words "I'm sorry" you were in a dialogue with Dr. Bob and showed more openness than many a person who says the actual words without any real regret.
Dr. Bob likes everything to be very clear I think. I wish he'd have been open to nuances that time. I won't say that I wish you had mouthed an apology even if you didn't mean it, because I'm not so sure that's an outcome Dr. Bob should be encouraging. But I am sorry you were blocked. And I appreciate the openness you did show, and admire you for it.
> 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.I think if he knew that he wouldn't do it. And for that matter, I don't think it's always true. My thoughts on the matter is that if someone isn't willing to live by site rules a month isn't long enough and a year isn't long enough. In my ideal universe, blocks would be the length of time it took for someone to agree to abide by site guidelines, whether they like them or not. I guess I see that as part of our agreement to posting here. If that's a week, then the poster should be welcomed back. If it's not true in a year, then maybe this site isn't the best fit. The onus shouldn't lie with Admin, it should lie with the poster.
But that's me. Based on the better part of what my mama taught me. Obviously Dr. Bob doesn't agree.
Posted by NKP on July 1, 2010, at 14:09:08
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2010, at 13:54:18
It's amusing to read posters speculating on Dr Bob's website about what Dr Bob wants, thinks etc.
Replace the name "Dr Bob" with "God" or "Jesus" and this would sound exactly like church.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
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.