Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

re: thoughts (not TOOOOO long for me either.....) spoc

Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 3:34:19

In reply to re: thoughts (not TOOOOO long for me either.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 13:35:44

Hi Spoc,

> ....but everything's relative.

I *think* we are referring to the ... "not too long" part?

> I just wanted to add that from my vantage point, the issue was not whether it is safe to deliver truths.


> That the essence ... was the very variance in interpretation of what passed and didn't pass itself; occurring in patterns either for or against; and not always related to any identifiable degree of offense or nature of offense. And that whether someone had received previous admonishments or even numerous previous admonishments did not consistently get used as the foundation for future administrative actions. That of course there will be some degree of oversight and some degree of inconsistency, as administration is not performed by a computer program. But that the degree of variance could be seen to be considerably greater than that explainable by chance.

Yeah, some people feel Dr. Bob has been unfair, right?

> Now, ok, like Jimi said, I *can* see where the subject matter being handled at the time of his block could be seen as hazardous under the principles he has just espoused. And in that way, that it could be concluded that that kind of thing is best avoided. But that is only one of many types of subjects or purposes being engaged in at the times blocks or reprimands are handed down -- or aren't, inexplicably. Sense can be made there but not so easily elsewhere; and trying to deliver a truth to someone -- brutal OR simple -- is not always involved at all.

We could just forget about my situation. And each situation is different, but in Larry's case, he was arguably delivering the truth when he was blocked. And Larry's case is very different from mine. It is both more complicated and more involved. We are thankful that he may plead his own case now, so I won't.

There is a risk for pB veterans with histories of "civil" violations or even one "civil" violation, when they come into conflict with a newbie ... ... an equal, less-than-"civil" exchange is going to result in unequal sanctions with the vet coming out looking at the short end of the stick. Of course, the vet should have learned better, while the noob will get the benefit of the doubt.

I think that nothing I have posted here exnorates all questionable blocks from criticism. Far from it.

I just feel we may grasp a better understanding of some blocks by considering how sanctions can not follow the equal punishment for equal violation/ expectation of consistency rule.

> Ya know, you'd think there would have been a psychological study by now on the effect of randomness on the efficacy of punishment! ;- )

I believe that the behavoirists did this sort of research on animals.
And the people with the unmuzzled dogs include this as a interrogation technique too. But you were making a point. What did I miss this time?

> Know that I was encouraged by the recent evidence that change is possible (while I would enjoy hearing something about what, if any, general impact it will have, because that has implications too. But I'm just not curious or motivated enough to ask). And I appreciate the apologies given in some senses. So I don't want to take away from any of that and I'm even satisfied to say that I'll have faith for now that something did happen here and things will indeed get more consistent. But I just wouldn't feel quite right leaving this at having been a matter of realizing what the causative factor almost always is, and the simplicity of now being able to avoid it. I think there was more to it than that.

Again, Spoc, I think there may well remain real issues to be discussed about the application of sanctions. But we should be at pains to separate the real ones from the explicable ones. If just to cut down on the distractions.

And I in no way beleive that my explication resolves issues that Larry has/had/may have/continues to have/ whatever with the administration.

Now, are we hearing each other here, Spoc? I can miss some things... lots of things.

take care pal,
~ jim




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:lil' jimi thread:346427