![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 48. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by muffled on July 3, 2007, at 23:48:01
is it gonna be shortened or WHAT???????????
This NEEDS to be dealt with.
m
Posted by tofuemmy on July 4, 2007, at 10:39:53
In reply to SO WTF happening re: the mega block?????????, posted by muffled on July 3, 2007, at 23:48:01
Seriously. There must be some sort of cap on blocks added to the magic formula. Most especially when the block is for something minor. Like 4 weeks tops for a minor infraction.
Bob - I'm pretty sure you aren't a robot. You can think without a formula, can't you? How about adding some common sense and kindness to the process?
Posted by Klavot on July 4, 2007, at 11:34:08
In reply to 33 weeks is ridiculous, posted by tofuemmy on July 4, 2007, at 10:39:53
Posted by Sigismund on July 4, 2007, at 15:50:26
In reply to 33 weeks is ridiculous, posted by tofuemmy on July 4, 2007, at 10:39:53
Where did this formula come from?
Posted by Sigismund on July 4, 2007, at 15:52:54
In reply to The History of the Formula, posted by Sigismund on July 4, 2007, at 15:50:26
It wasn't even an uncivil comment.
I didn't understand Zen's comment at all.
Anyone feel that it was uncivil to them?
Or indeed to anyone else?
Posted by Deputy 10derheart on July 4, 2007, at 18:02:33
In reply to SO WTF happening re: the mega block?????????, posted by muffled on July 3, 2007, at 23:48:01
Posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 21:49:31
In reply to FWIW, Dr. Bob still in the process of deciding.... (nm) » muffled, posted by Deputy 10derheart on July 4, 2007, at 18:02:33
Oh Thx 10der.
I was REALLY wondering.
Has anyone told z so they know?
Or are they hurting real bad and feeling like noone cares?
This SO sucks.
Its downright....I was gonna be uncivil...see, I learning.
:-(
M
Posted by zazenducke on July 5, 2007, at 10:48:32
In reply to Re: The History of the Formula, posted by Sigismund on July 4, 2007, at 15:52:54
> It wasn't even an uncivil comment.
>
> I didn't understand Zen's comment at all.
>
> Anyone feel that it was uncivil to them?
>
> Or indeed to anyone else?I thought it was about James Bond's martinis
I think the block is about Dr bob
Posted by confuzyq on July 5, 2007, at 11:37:50
In reply to Re: The History of the Formula, posted by Sigismund on July 4, 2007, at 15:52:54
> It wasn't even an uncivil comment.
>
> I didn't understand Zen's comment at all.
>
> Anyone feel that it was uncivil to them?
>
> Or indeed to anyone else?I thought it was at most just something that wasn't thought through as to possible other interpretations. Probably *because* it seemed to her to obviously be nothing more than a spontaneous joke about the obvious tie-in between "shaken" & "stirred." I thought it was intended to mean nothing personal at all, and that it shouldn't be a stretch to believe that, even for someone who may have wondered otherwise at first.
Posted by fayeroe on July 5, 2007, at 22:04:09
In reply to SO WTF happening re: the mega block?????????, posted by muffled on July 3, 2007, at 23:48:01
> is it gonna be shortened or WHAT???????????
> This NEEDS to be dealt with.
> mi could be asking for it here. i was blocked for 16 weeks and i think it was 2005......that would be a bit over 100 weeks. two years. i think i've been fairly decent since then.....didn't come here much til lately.
so, if bob did applied the same "reasoning" to me that he applied to Zen, what the freak?
..i was so confused until i read where he implied that some people need more time to "straighten" up.....and i feel that that meant something more personal concerning my friend. i'm more ornery than zen is...any day. and i sure was in that thread more than once and i wasn't always asking questions.
zen asked one question. one. uno.
slowly but surely, the good ones are weeded out.........faye
Posted by fayeroe on July 5, 2007, at 22:17:06
In reply to Re: SO WTF happening re: the mega block????????? » muffled, posted by fayeroe on July 5, 2007, at 22:04:09
here is what i was referring to when i spoke of why i felt there was something more personal in Zen's block......Bob said this:
"Well, I did skip the doubling... And civility is a wonderful thing, too. Some slates may take longer to clean?"
i guess that my "generic brand" cleans better than "409".....
Posted by confuzyq on July 5, 2007, at 23:45:37
In reply to Re: SO WTF happening re: the mega block?????????, posted by fayeroe on July 5, 2007, at 22:17:06
> here is what i was referring to when i spoke of why i felt there was something more personal in Zen's block......Bob said this:
>
> "Well, I did skip the doubling... And civility is a wonderful thing, too. Some slates may take longer to clean?"
>
> i guess that my "generic brand" cleans better than "409".....I could be remembering this incorrectly -- zen debuted before my time, but I have been quite the astute archive diver and also do investigations and connections-making for a living. I think zen's original monster block was for allegedly speaking
disparagingly of Bob... which, as recent discussions have pointed out, is often given more leniency... But relative to recent examples of speaking disparagingly of Bob that went unadmonished, does not seem remotely equitable or consistent.
Posted by muffled on July 5, 2007, at 23:51:52
In reply to Re: SO WTF happening re: the mega block?????????, posted by confuzyq on July 5, 2007, at 23:45:37
> > here is what i was referring to when i spoke of why i felt there was something more personal in Zen's block......Bob said this:
> >
> > "Well, I did skip the doubling... And civility is a wonderful thing, too. Some slates may take longer to clean?"
> I could be remembering this incorrectly -- zen debuted before my time, but I have been quite the astute archive diver and also do investigations and connections-making for a living. I think zen's original monster block was for allegedly speaking
> disparagingly of Bob... which, as recent discussions have pointed out, is often given more leniency... But relative to recent examples of speaking disparagingly of Bob that went unadmonished, does not seem remotely equitable or consistent.
>
**no, not consistant.
I honestly have no clue what goes on??
I have often disparaged Bob...
He don't seem to give a rats *ss...
So I dunno?
Makes NO sense.
If it was me, I would mourn my babble friends,
but I proly wouldn't come back.
It would be the last straw.
:-(
M
Posted by Sigismund on July 6, 2007, at 2:57:12
In reply to Re: SO WTF happening re: the mega block?????????, posted by fayeroe on July 5, 2007, at 22:17:06
Nice.
I wonder what was written on that slate.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 14:31:48
In reply to Re: SO WTF happening re: the mega block????????? » muffled, posted by fayeroe on July 5, 2007, at 22:04:09
> slowly but surely, the good ones are weeded out
Please don't post anything that could lead others (such as those who aren't "weeded out") to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 14:31:52
In reply to Re: SO WTF happening re: the mega block?????????, posted by confuzyq on July 5, 2007, at 23:45:37
> I think zen's original monster block was for allegedly speaking disparagingly of Bob ... But relative to recent examples of speaking disparagingly of Bob that went unadmonished, does not seem remotely equitable or consistent.
>
> confuzyqIt can be hard to compare different examples, because the posters, the contexts, and the policies in effect may be different, too...
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2007, at 14:58:23
In reply to Re: consistency, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 14:31:52
> > I think zen's original monster block was for allegedly speaking disparagingly of Bob ... But relative to recent examples of speaking disparagingly of Bob that went unadmonished, does not seem remotely equitable or consistent.
> >
> > confuzyq
>
> It can be hard to compare different examples, because the posters, the contexts, and the policies in effect may be different, too...
>
> BobI'm very curious about the exact reason that Zen was blocked? I just didn't understand the part about the "slate"...
I didn't understand why she was blocked for the one question that she posted when others who posted above her were the ones who started and finished the fray.
I would really appreciate a more detailed explanation concerning her block. Thank you, Fayeroep.s. In no way was I speaking disparagingly about other posters here when I posted about Zen. I believe that the posters who read Administration understood why I posted that.
I apologize if any poster felt "put down" by my statements. I know Zen personally and feel very strongly about her presence here.
Posted by muffled on July 6, 2007, at 15:57:28
In reply to Re: consistency, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 14:31:52
>It can be hard to compare different examples, because the posters, the contexts, and the policies in effect may be different, too...
Bob
But err on the side of gentleness...
PBC are gentle, not bashing blocks.
Can you please unblock Z?
:-(
It just don't seem right that one IMHO.
Posted by confuzyq on July 6, 2007, at 18:16:20
In reply to EXACTLY, posted by muffled on July 6, 2007, at 15:57:28
> >It can be hard to compare different examples, because the posters, the contexts, and the policies in effect may be different, too...
>
> Bob
>
> But err on the side of gentleness...
> PBC are gentle, not bashing blocks.
> Can you please unblock Z?
> :-(
> It just don't seem right that one IMHO.
>
Yes... after, what was it, a hundred and forty-some weeks of good behavior; could she not have just gotten a PBC or Please Rephrase? If hers isn't a good case for restoring one's privilege of prior warnings, and opportunities to prevent a block, I sure don't know what is.And it would have gone way further towards teaching those lessons you want people to learn: the consideration of a warning would have both rewarded her for her good behavior for so so long, while still reminding her of where the lines are.
Posted by scratchpad on July 8, 2007, at 11:04:43
In reply to Re: EXACTLY, posted by confuzyq on July 6, 2007, at 18:16:20
> > >It can be hard to compare different examples, because the posters, the contexts, and the policies in effect may be different, too...
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > But err on the side of gentleness...
> > PBC are gentle, not bashing blocks.
> > Can you please unblock Z?
> > :-(
> > It just don't seem right that one IMHO.
> >
>
>
> Yes... after, what was it, a hundred and forty-some weeks of good behavior; could she not have just gotten a PBC or Please Rephrase? If hers isn't a good case for restoring one's privilege of prior warnings, and opportunities to prevent a block, I sure don't know what is.
>
> And it would have gone way further towards teaching those lessons you want people to learn: the consideration of a warning would have both rewarded her for her good behavior for so so long, while still reminding her of where the lines are.
Something like 4 weeks, maybe? And apply it to Zen's block?
I, too, don't see that prolonged blocks particularly benefit the boards, much less the poster who is being blocked.Scratchpad
Posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2007, at 11:21:34
In reply to How about a cap on the length of blocks?, posted by scratchpad on July 8, 2007, at 11:04:43
do what he wants to do. period. fayeroe
Posted by muffled on July 8, 2007, at 11:55:11
In reply to Re: i think we need to drop it.......he's going to, posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2007, at 11:21:34
like bashing my head against a wall.
Mebbe posting here can count as SI for me?
I should feel grounded and releived.
:-(
But I don't.
Just pissed off.
:-(
Thanks for trying SP, this really sucks doesn't it?
M
Posted by muffled on July 8, 2007, at 12:01:09
In reply to Re: i think we need to drop it.......he's going to, posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2007, at 11:21:34
*This is very clear...
He is the owner.
He has ALL the power here...
He can choose to listen...
or NOT...
:-(
I love babblers...
But I am REALLY NOT happy bout this...
:-(
M
Ownership: Rights and responsibilities
Editor--Eysenbach and Till [1] are right to call attention to the potential difficulties of studying online communities. An underlying problem in many of their examples is that of ownership. Those who provide the mailing lists or Web sites on which online communities are based "own" those communities and have the right to set their goals. When outsiders, even ones with academic credentials, introduce their own agendas, conflict is not surprising.
One solution is for investigators to establish their own communities. As owners, they would then have the right to make research a goal. They would also, of course, have the responsibility of conducting that research ethically.
I host such a community, Psycho-Babble, and have employed two forms of prospective informed consent. The first was implicit. The main and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) pages informed members that a condition of posting messages was allowing me unrestricted use of them, for example, elsewhere on the site or in articles. The FAQ also reminded them that -- regardless of how private they felt the community was -- their messages would be public. I wrote an article describing the community [2] and made it available on the site, and the response was largely positive. Currently, prospective informed consent is explicit. My Institutional Review Board has approved the project and a disclosure statement, and I have added an official "agreement to consent" that individuals can accept by clicking a button.
Robert C Hsiung, MD
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
Department of Psychiatry
University of Chicago
5737 S. University Ave.
Chicago, IL
60637-1507
USA
Posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2007, at 12:06:43
In reply to See, he OWNS it :-( We got NO recourse:-(, posted by muffled on July 8, 2007, at 12:01:09
My Institutional Review Board has approved the project and a disclosure statement, and I have added an official "agreement to consent" that individuals can accept by clicking a button.
Dr. Robert H.
and if the button isn't clicked, what is the choice then??????????????
Posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2007, at 12:06:52
In reply to See, he OWNS it :-( We got NO recourse:-(, posted by muffled on July 8, 2007, at 12:01:09
My Institutional Review Board has approved the project and a disclosure statement, and I have added an official "agreement to consent" that individuals can accept by clicking a button.
Dr. Robert H.
and if the button isn't clicked, what is the choice then??????????????
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.