Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 346427

Shown: posts 47 to 71 of 222. Go back in thread:

 

re: unfairness and hoover man's block Sabina

Posted by lil' jimi on May 27, 2004, at 9:42:08

In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on May 27, 2004, at 1:36:45

sabina,

excellent.
and special
for it is so rare to have
such heart-felt sentiments and experience
so well said and
thoughtfully written.
you have made much of what i too have felt
much clearer than i could have.
thank you very much.

i especially appreciate your point about the lack of malice by the pb administration (which i find especially well taken and well said), to which i would add, in agreement:

"Never ascribe to malice,
that which can be explained by incompetence."
~ Napoleon Boneparte

yours in rabble,
~ jim

 

Re: let Larry come back!

Posted by NotAddicted on May 27, 2004, at 11:08:25

In reply to let Larry come back!, posted by sienna on May 26, 2004, at 22:33:45

> he is wonderful for this place and i miss him.
>
> Sienna

I agree!!

 

re: unfairness and hoover man's block

Posted by FAYEROE on May 27, 2004, at 11:39:29

In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block Sabina, posted by lil' jimi on May 27, 2004, at 9:42:08

jim~~~~~i want to thank you for having the you know whats to express yourself as well as you have concerning Larry Hoover. I do think that blocking anyone for such a long period of time is "overkill".....especially when the person tries and tries to get it right. I also second whomever said that some people get away with little sweet messages and go on tip-toeing through the tulips with no more than slap on the wrist. I realize that it is an overwhelming, perhaps, responsibility running these boards but this was something that was done by Bob's choice. Without the posters, he wouldn't have diiddly squat in the way of his research project. I work with people, like us, on a daily basis and know that everyone has different points of views, different reactions and responses and I try to keep that in mind when I make decisions regarding their issues. Anywho, I needed to thank you! Do you still have my e.mail address? If you do, drop a line. Pat

 

re: unfairness and hoover man's block FAYEROE

Posted by lil' jimi on May 27, 2004, at 12:08:29

In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block, posted by FAYEROE on May 27, 2004, at 11:39:29

hi Pat!
(proud to say that pat and i are old friends and comrades!)
pat posted:
> Anywho, I needed to thank you!

not at all ... ... posting here supporting Larry is all the thanks i need ... ... my thanks to you, babe!

> Do you still have my e.mail address? If you do, drop a line. Pat

i was writing, "of course i do!" when i checked my address books on both computers and you weren't in either (!) ... then i found your address in my in box just now ... so thanks for the prompt there ... i needed it ... ... test message on the way on ...

take good care,
~ jim

 

Working towards solutions

Posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2004, at 14:51:45

In reply to re: alternatives to blocks Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on May 26, 2004, at 16:48:54

Sorry for butting in, but it's part of my job to only look at the past in terms of learning from it.

Too bad I can't apply that to my personal life.

Amyway, let's look for solutions:

1) I think Jim hit the nail on the head with this one. Detention or quarantine - or we could call it probation. Those that would be blocked now would instead be put on probation. This would accomplish several things that folks seem to want:
a) There could still be some communication with the one being "punished" but this communication would be on a voluntary basis.
b) It would reduce the temptation to just come back with another name.

The blocks could be saved for the worse cases. If someone there still doesn't get the hint and does get blocked, they would be entered into the probation area only, on a trial basis, before joining the general population.

Perhaps there could also be a 'heated discussion' area for folks that need to hash something out. This would save the sidetracking of the threads over details or off-topic bits and move it to a different area without stifling it altogether.

Just a couple of ideas. But it seems that working towards a solution that makes the general population feel safer, while allowing others the freedom to say what they need to say, is something worth considering.

 

re: hoover man's block

Posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51

In reply to re: unfairness and hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2004, at 9:19:41

> How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?

FYI, those with a minority opinion who would rather not express it here should feel free to email me...

Bob

 

re: hoover man's block

Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 10:18:53

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51

> > How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?
>
> FYI, those with a minority opinion who would rather not express it here should feel free to email me...
>
> Bob

<<<<< I obviously can't know everything about why anyone would object, and don't mean to advocate disregarding views of any others. I just wanted to express some thoughts on specific reasons anyone may object, from what I can conceive of. Since it's hard for me to imagine that Larry's presence could be seen as genuinely disruptive or hazardous, I can only guess that any objections would be based on whether or not others have had the same opportunity. That could lead to citing of technical evidence regarding "offenses," but is circular because one of his own issues is equal application of rules and whether consideration was given to relative seriousness of offense.

And I am hoping that historical equal opportunity is not now being seen as relevant -- that the day has come in which alternatives and mitigating factors will indeed start to be entertained on a wider scale.

If that sounds like a time-consuming and complicated change, and further assistance would be needed to review data, we all know there are other unbiased, intelligent, critical thinkers with good judgment out there who could help. Even beyond those already present at and/or involved in running this site. It isn't reasonable for us to get stuck at concluding that "you can't find good help anymore." And the effort is justified on its face by the fact that while this not group therapy, there are crucial minumum standards that scream out to be observed when dealing with this particular population. Anything else is unnecessarily risky and cold, and destined to stigmatize if not traumatize some.

Slight sidebar on that note: One admonishment has been that people registering should keep in mind that they need to be at a certain level of recovery, functionality, strength, comprehension, etc. to be here in the first place. But I doubt it's possible to mandate an accurate assessment of that by individuals coming in; and feel certain that people coming in can't be fully aware of how they could end up being impacted, and the various ways in which it happens.

In setting up a site that specifically wants to attract this demographic, how can it be required that in order to be here, people must agree not to have the very weaknesses or challenges or deficits to evaluation capabilities that *make* them the very demographic being sought? If we could turn those things off at will and/or have the keen foresight to know what will end up hurting us or not being in our best interests, we would! And probably wouldn't be here. How can the abilities found in the "normal" world be mandated and required for participation here? We can't necessarily use our previous experiences and reactions to base the decision on -- I think many would agree that this place feels much more real and has much stronger implications to real life than they ever would have guessed coming in. It's almost "blindsiding," and doesn't compare to other experiences.

Anyway -- are any potential objections based on previous equal opportunity indeed going to play a part in this decision? That doesn't seem relevant because the consideration at hand is a new area, which goes beyond and may help address that very argument. Again, I can speak only for myself, but I think there has been agreement that blocks such as those Larry has received should only be reserved for clearly heinous crimes against humanity and spirit. No one is ever going to *like* everyone, and we are all subject to personality clashes (sometimes emanating from our own arbitrary preferences and subjective histories). But it's hard to fathom that Larry could be seen for any legitimate reason as any of the things that meet the criteria for being a negative presence (e.g. mean-spirited, volatile, misleading, untruthful, alarmist, threatening, vulgar, etc. etc.) Assessing that much about his contribution would almost seem factually possible, rather than being a murky and subjective matter of opinions only.

 

re: hoover man's block spoc

Posted by Sabina on May 28, 2004, at 12:02:20

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 10:18:53

you're obviously not taking topamax, spoc! thank you for your extremely lucid and insightful post. it is my sincere wish that dr. bob prints out a copy and refers to it every time he considers a block in the future.

 

re: hoover man's block

Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:03:39

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51

I also wanted to make a suggestion as to how blocks go down, if they are to continue. Previously, when someone has been blocked and PBCed before (even distantly), it seems that in subsequent cases the hammer can come down as a total shock with no warning. No PBC or even Please Rephrase, just squashed like a fly on the page in an instant.

When people die sudden and traumatic deaths like that in the movies, we all know they return as ghosts, to haunt the scene forevermore in search of justice! Ha ha, just kidding, but that probably is the principle behind many posters who try to reincarnate themselves as a way to deal with the shock and sudden loss of their voice and existence here. The reincarnated poster issue of course has exactly *NOTHING* to do with the situation at hand, just addressing another matter related to the various problems with blocks, and one that might also be reduced through some of the changes we are discussing.

Anyway, I was thinking that in cases of the kinds of things Larry had posted when that happened (i.e. not clearly outrageous), some discussion or warning should have to transpire first. Attempts at rephrasing have historically been a challenge, but I think the person should at least have some indication of what may be coming. The element of being truly stunned and then rendered immediately speechless with adrenalin and racing thoughts bottled up has to feel like a nightmare. There isn't necessarily a lesson that "should have been learned before," except in the cases of those clearly outrageous and injurious behaviors, which we probably can more or less agree on a definition of.

Sidebar (naturally): I myself don't really care which way the cursing issue goes, although I wouldn't see violations to that as ever fitting the egregious category (blocks doubling, tripling, ecalating). Because while I'm in the camp that is not offended by it and sees it as reality and sometimes adding flair and color, I do know that on a heartfelt rather than judgmental level, not all react that way. My father is verrrrry much like that, from his very gut, not his head, and witnessing him I can't deny that it hurts him although he often tries to suffer in silence. So, it is true that people *can* use the technical word-checking tool while they are writing and before they post, which is a concrete tool not available to them in assessing their thoughts and phrases.

Anyway, as to other types of violations, maybe by way of something like the detention area lil' jimi suggested the person should also be given a reasonable opportunity before or after the actual sentence to cite other equal or possibly weightier violations on that thread, which may have been missed. While Dr. Bob can be emailed regarding such things, those kinds of observations probably deserve to be as public as the whole discussion up til then had been. It would also afford an opportunity to see if it is the opinion of just the affected poster, or one that is widely shared.

Maybe, in that detention/purgatory/limbo area (PB Limbo Land?), the person or persons thought to be "injured" by the transgression -- or guilty of an equal violation -- could weigh in and discuss for a certain period... And perhaps, in the case of the latter, be allowed the option of just apologizing to each other, or otherwise agreeing that nothing so serious was going on as to warrant further action...?

Maybe this next part is getting a little too unrealistically "creative," but would it be possible for people to have the option of anonymity in posting observations and opinions to the limbo area? Under temporary, generic screennames (with Dr. Bob still able to detect IP addresses to circumvent any games), and in that way reduce any feelings of being on the spot? Ok I think I'm done! ;- )

 

re: Thanx much, helps cuz I have Posting Neurosis! (nm) Sabina

Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:05:38

In reply to re: hoover man's block spoc, posted by Sabina on May 28, 2004, at 12:02:20

 

re: hoover man's block spoc

Posted by fayeroe on May 28, 2004, at 12:06:08

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 10:18:53

Thank you, spoc!!!!!***In setting up a site that specifically wants to attract this demographic, how can it be required that in order to be here, people must agree not to have the very weaknesses or challenges or deficits to evaluation capabilities that *make* them the very demographic being sought? If we could turn those things off at will and/or have the keen foresight to know what will end up hurting us or not being in our best interests, we would! And probably wouldn't be here. How can the abilities found in the "normal" world be mandated and required for participation here? We can't necessarily use our previous experiences and reactions to base the decision on -- I think many would agree that this place feels much more real and has much stronger implications to real life than they ever would have guessed coming in. It's almost "blindsiding," and doesn't compare to other experiences. ***

I've said this so many times in different ways. We all star in our own movie and if Dr. Bob wants the varied experiences, reactions, responses and reflections of the population he expects here, for his research, then he has to look at us the way we are. Flawed.

 

re: Hope I shouldn't have quit while ahead! ;- ) (nm) fayeroe

Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:31:14

In reply to re: hoover man's block spoc, posted by fayeroe on May 28, 2004, at 12:06:08

 

re: hoover man's block Dr. Bob

Posted by lil' jimi on May 28, 2004, at 12:51:57

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51

hi dr. bob,

> > How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?
>
> FYI, those with a minority opinion who would rather not express it here should feel free to email me...
>
> Bob

would you address the sensitivities of some, (parts of, all?) the majority about this post?

in particular, it seems easy to imagine that some of the majority would feel this is not unlike a thumb of bias is imposing itself on your scales of justice ... tilting the scales against re-instating Lar ... .. if you can see what i mean here?

and there's a little bit of a sense of changing the rules of the process during the event, too.

once again, i am one to agrue that these amount to your classic inadvertence which is being allowed to look like the inconsistency which seems to be unfair to Lar.

if you could, would you please reply to this seemingly anti-Lar perceptions of your minority solicitation.

more later,
~ jim

 

re:i think your posts are just fine, Spoc! thanks! (nm)

Posted by lil' jimi on May 28, 2004, at 12:53:59

In reply to re: Hope I shouldn't have quit while ahead! ;- ) (nm) fayeroe, posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:31:14

 

re: the minority Dr. Bob

Posted by Sabina on May 28, 2004, at 12:56:21

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51

i give the minority credit for the ability to contact you without a special invitation. we already know you're available to us anytime. :-)

 

spoc~~~you rock!! (nm) spoc

Posted by fayeroe on May 28, 2004, at 15:50:01

In reply to re: Hope I shouldn't have quit while ahead! ;- ) (nm) fayeroe, posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 12:31:14

 

re: hoover man's block Dr. Bob

Posted by Brio D Chimp on May 28, 2004, at 17:36:28

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51

> > How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?

I oppose ANY block at all.

Consider the following (please note that since someone was given a "please be supportive" for using the word def*nestration that I am completely opposed to this practice for uncivil students, posters or others however if I have inadvertently offended you I am due to be blocked for 48 weeks unless you believe the remarks were directed toward a particular group or individuals say the class of people who might be tossed through windows or students or people in Georgia or..... the choice is limited only by your own imagination :-) in which case I would be given 52 weeks under the current cap of 1 year). I would oppose tossing uncivil students out of windows-the question of how long they were tossed out would be irrelevant.

~~~~
News of the W*ird

D**b teachers: Veteran schoolteacher Carrie Peoples, 63, quit her job in April in Covington, Ga., after an incident in which she responded to a trash-talking 14-year-old student by ordering two male classmates to toss the girl out of an open window (even though it was a first-floor window); the boys dutifully complied, for fear of punishment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am afraid you may be trying to make us your accomplices in this act of yours by presenting it as a concession to Larry which rather blurs the issue. If you want to change it to 4 weeks and Larry wants to come back early that's fine but why ask for our blessing? I don't think he should be blocked for four weeks or any weeks at all.

The policy is wrong and needs to be changed.

>
> FYI, those with a minority opinion who would rather not express it here should feel free to email me...

I don't think popularity should become an issue in these blocks. I would not like to see only people who are able to generate a public show of support be given favorable treatment. I think the minority should feel equally welcome posting here which is a problem I see with you granting reprieves only after asking for public opinions.


>
> Bob

 

Re: blocked for week Dr. Bob

Posted by Brio D Chimp on May 28, 2004, at 17:48:39

In reply to Re: blocked for week TeeJay, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2004, at 21:48:28

Bob you are publishing the offending phrase on your site. As admistrator you have the power to delete this. Instead you allow it stand. Therefore I propose that you block yourself for a week for this offence. The block would be doubled each day you refuse to remove the offending post from this site. Thanks

> > Re: Dr. Bob is a hypocrite
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I already asked that the subject line be kept civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
>
> If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> or email me, or post a follow-up here after your block is over.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob

 

re: hoover man's block

Posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2004, at 9:05:18

In reply to re: hoover man's block Dr. Bob, posted by Brio D Chimp on May 28, 2004, at 17:36:28

> in particular, it seems easy to imagine that some of the majority would feel this is not unlike a thumb of bias is imposing itself on your scales of justice ... tilting the scales against re-instating Lar ... .. if you can see what i mean here?
>
> lil' jimi

I see what you mean, but I'd like everyone to feel comfortable expressing their opinion, and this isn't a vote, anyway...

> why ask for our blessing?
>
> Brio D Chimp

I'm not asking for your blessing, I'm asking for your feedback.

Bob

 

minority feedback...

Posted by justyourlaugh on May 29, 2004, at 12:20:49

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2004, at 9:05:18

dr bob,
i feel you should stick with your first decision.
we have enough "wishy washy" politics in this world..
your word and reputation is vital.
keep it strong.
jyl

 

re: Lar's block Dr. Bob

Posted by lil' jimi on May 29, 2004, at 16:17:36

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2004, at 9:05:18

hi dr.bob,

> > in particular, it seems easy to imagine that some of the majority would feel this is not unlike a thumb of bias is imposing itself on your scales of justice ... tilting the scales against re-instating Lar ... .. if you can see what i mean here?
> >
> > lil' jimi
>
> I see what you mean, but I'd like everyone to feel comfortable expressing their opinion, and this isn't a vote, anyway...
>
> > why ask for our blessing?
> >
> > Brio D Chimp
>
> I'm not asking for your blessing, I'm asking for your feedback.
>
> Bob

let me thank you, dr. bob, for your responsiveness here because i (we, maybe?) haven't really been sure what we (you) were asking for here ... ... i mean, i see solicting the opinions or consensus of folk here at Admin about Larry as being a predictably foregone conclusion: few if any posters are as appreciated and admired, let alone liked as much as Larry, with excellent cause, to his worthy credit ...

so if we (you) were running a poll or survey here then Larry would have been back (by acclamation) before he left ... ... witness the total unanimity of opinions on this thread ...

can you see how your original inquiry
"How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?" could have been interpreted as a poll? ... ... ... but now we see that we (you) don't want it to be a poll so much ... ... which leads folks to be conflicted (or worse) by this seeming inconsitency/realignment/switcheroo ... ... okay we've been there already ...

but it leaves open for speculation that if we (you) didn't want a poll, then what did (do) we (you) want .. .. .. .. anyway? ... ... sensitive minds want to know, you know?

here's my guess(es):

we (you) are exploring unchartered babblality where we (you) would openly deliberate some certain administrative issues, in particular block reduction(s) ... ...
and instead of a survey, we (you) are looking for a more deliberative process in which two sides more or less debate the issues in a more point versus counterpoint style ... ... wherein the 2-sidedness of the discussion could yeild broad balance of babble opinions ... ... or something like that?

and under these expectaions, we (you) would have to be disappointed when one side fails to show up for the debate to deliberate the issue ...

possibly equally disappointing to us (you) is that for the majority, there are no issues, except how much we love Larry ( a lot! ) and for the vast overwhelming majority (one heck of a lot of us anyway) there is little concern for the subtleties of the consequences on long term babble adminstarion policy concerning possible future ban reduction process(es) ... and separating these issues may be the more effective way we (you, really) would like to have this discussed ... ...

besides Larry's universal popuLARity completely overshadowing our (your) underlying policy issues, there is the palpable discomfort about blocks in general and a separate controversy among posters about their use and their effect ... ... this separate issue gets compounded with babble folks' special feeling toward the block's use against Lar ... ...

any and all of which works to drown out any putative minority sentiments' expression here ...

so

perahps what we (you) need here is a forum which is designed for two-sided deliberation ... ... posters could have a sign-up for support for each side and each side would be heard ... then ... ... maybe ... ... (maybe not) ...

anyway, can we (you) see how these are all different things that we (i) get confused about especially when all we (i) really want is to free our good friend from his ban?

can you clear us up here so as to help us feel like we are contributing positively to whatever it is that we (you) are expecting here? ... ... no votes are happening, no blessings either, no strength-of-feelings measureing is a concern because we (you) want even the shyest of possible minority responses ...

and i feel that many of this thread's posters are feeling invalidated by a preception that their contrbutions are being diminished by this ambivalence about our (your) process here in this thread ... ...

hey, but all i'm a-doing is just guessing into a near vacuum here ... "maybe, maybe, maybe" ... ... what do i know? can you help clear me (us) up here, please?

and if things do get to work out for Lar getting his reduction ... can we use our credit from our efforts here toward getting him another week decrease, maybe? ...
.... (can't blame a guy for trying!)

until next time,
~ jim

 

so many questions..

Posted by justyourlaugh on May 29, 2004, at 18:29:24

In reply to re: Lar's block Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on May 29, 2004, at 16:17:36

if i do not want to see dr bob go back on his word, does that mean i do not like larry?
no...
do i want to see anyone "blocked" ?
no...
does my opinion count regardless if it is not popular?
yes...
am i able to post even though i may not be as far along in "recovery" as others?
yes yes yes yes yes and yes!
jyl

 

Re: so many questions..

Posted by spoc on May 29, 2004, at 20:20:16

In reply to so many questions.., posted by justyourlaugh on May 29, 2004, at 18:29:24

> if i do not want to see dr bob go back on his word, does that mean i do not like larry?
> no...
> do i want to see anyone "blocked" ?
> no...

<<<<< I understand what you mean, and I also like people to be true to their word. But I guess here, I'm not seeing a parallel with that. If I remove Larry completely from the equation and look only at whether people should ever be open to amending what they say or not, I would conclude 'yes.' To me it becomes just a matter of how there is usually room (and sometimes need) for improvement, pertaining to everything and everyone. And that no one is perfect or makes perfect decisions. And there is often an instigating factor or event that leads to changes/improvements -- it has to begin with something/someone -- and this just might be it.

Larry's situation seems to fit well as a test case, because the details of his blocks illustrate a lot of the principles being examined here (I'm thinking this whole thing is more about his block history than anything that happened recently, which was a reaction to that). I think his case would be a good one for these purposes even if the matter of whether he is popular or not was separated out of things completely.

True that a lesser known or liked poster of course wouldn't generate the same turnout, but if Dr. Bob specifically asked for feedback here on Admin for any particular case, or even a hypothetical one, then people would oblige. And from what I've seen going back into years-worth of reading here, I give Babblers a lot of credit. I think many would take the request seriously, rise to the occasion, and weigh things more thoughtfully than they may do when simply reading the board or posting for their own purposes.

> does my opinion count regardless if it is not popular?

<<<<< Absolutely! I think people on this thread have been hoping for any such opinions to be expressed, here if possible. Thanks for responding. (And I hope I don't sound as if I fancy myself to be some kind of hostess!) This isn't a popularity thing to me, because I wasn't even here when Larry was present (although a more dedicated archive reader probably doesn't exist, so I have become familiar beyond my 'years'). I don't even know what his presence could have "done" for me or what it would feel like to have him here at the same time as me. Rather, to me it's about principles, the potential for positive change, and prevention of that which is and should be preventable.

> am i able to post even though i may not be as far along in "recovery" as others?
> yes yes yes yes yes and yes!
> jyl

<<<<<< Oh, if that's a factor, I don't know what *I'm* doing here! ;- ) I just like examining worthy issues sometimes (if I have the energy and presence of mind!), even if they haven't yet pertained to me. And I think it's great when debate of some types is seen as a positive thing, rather than a divisive one.

 

re: Lar's block

Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2004, at 20:29:11

In reply to re: Lar's block Dr. Bob, posted by lil' jimi on May 29, 2004, at 16:17:36

I understand why Dr. Bob suggested that replies could also be made by email. Many people don't like to be part of confrontations and would prefer to give their input directly to Dr. Bob. And I'm sure what Dr. Bob is looking for is input, and a chance for everyone to be heard. The minority as well as the majority view. I have absolutely no illusions that he will be swayed one way or another by popular opinion, or unpopular opinion either.

And bravo to him for that. Right is not always with might (as in administrator of the site), or with the majority (as in number of posters). Careful consideration after hearing all views seems to me to be a prudent course.

And I see the potential problems in reducing blocks as well as the benefits. It's entirely possible that there will be clamor for the reduction of blocks for popular posters, while not a word will be said in favor of the reduction of blocks for less popular or unpopular posters. I might not agree with Dr. Bob's decisions, but I do think he tries to make ones that are for the overall benefit of the site, however misguided they may appear at times. I think I'd prefer that system to one based on popularity.

Mind you, I adore Lar, and have missed his presence on the board. Even more, I am saddened that he has been hurt by Dr. Bob's blocks.

On the other hand, unlike many of those who have posted here, I am a big fan of blocks, and successive blocks, tempered by Dr. Bob's discretion. I think it's terrific that Dr. Bob doesn't buy the arguments that we can't be held to high standards because we have mental health issues. Heck, the worst boards I've seen have been for supposedly mentally healthy people.

On the other other hand, I appreciate that Dr. Bob *does* frequently temper the automatic doubling with mercy. And in the same spirit, I think it's just fine for him to reduce blocks. As long as he does it openly.

I've used up extra hands, but my general conclusion is that I think it's grand for Dr. Bob to reduce Lar's block. And I also think he should formulate the same sort of informal guidelines he has for setting the length of blocks (other than a simple doubling) to decide whether or not to reduce blocks. So that if there is a public or private clamor to reduce a particular block, he can have an idea of how and why he would consider it.

 

re: Lar's block

Posted by spoc on May 29, 2004, at 21:51:56

In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2004, at 20:29:11

> On the other hand, unlike many of those who have posted here, I am a big fan of blocks, and successive blocks, tempered by Dr. Bob's discretion. I think it's terrific that Dr. Bob doesn't buy the arguments that we can't be held to high standards because we have mental health issues. Heck, the worst boards I've seen have been for supposedly mentally healthy people.>

<<<<< I just wanted to be sure that this is not what I appeared to be expressing in an earlier post, when I mentioned the possible difficulties in having exceptionally fragile people predict when electing to be here how being at the site will affect them, such as whether it would have a serious real-life impact should they end up getting a block themselves (especially under complex circumstances). I absolutely didn't mean that people should be allowed incivility and looser standards due to mental health issues.

Btw, I too would not want these things to basically be popularity contests. I too intensely dislike that stuff. And I don't have the confidence to see myself that way here and probably never will. I was having faith that with all these brilliant minds, a reasonable process would be conceived of. Maybe we shouldn't even think of this as such a self-contained world, with only those already present as potential "jurors."

I have been responding because, as jimi noted, the question was asked. Maybe the fact that Larry *is* so popular is actually tainting the larger discussion about blocks in general, because I don't necessarily see that as related or having been asked. What's happening here isn't THE new process being suggested, I don't think. That I know of, we haven't been considering open, board-wide popular voting in regard to making determinations about blocks. I thought we'd establish whether change was advisable, and then decide the part about how and who would assist. This world is full of people and sources of them who could help with judgments, even on a volunteer basis I bet.

Maybe even people whose day jobs and experience reflect or are related to having good, unbiased judgment... Wouldn't a few mental health professionals (of various 'strains') probably commit a few hours to reviewing cases? Or college professors who teach something relevant (ethics, philosophy, etc.); or even some kind of actual judge? I'd think many would enjoy it! They wouldn't have to read the whole site everyday, just get up to speed on specific cases, in shifts if the load was that big, which it isn't, is it?

I don't know, but there are plenty of quality people out there besides us, who could also be more removed than us... Dr. Bob could then hear their input and make the final call... Except in cases of X, Y, Z (insert blatantly inhuman violations) having been committed; or in cases where a poster sees his error and doesn't even call for review; which cases would be left at that...

Dr. Bob, you must have a bevy of esteemed colleagues and connections who could help! :- )

I do know what you mean about the doubling and tripling making sense to you Dinah, but that probably presumes cases wherein violations are either pretty serious or the person is cut-and-dried guilty, but is clearly not learning. In reality, that *isn't* how it always is.... And as far as the appearance of any "misguidedness" in decisions, or oversights to equal transgressions, lack of time for thorough review of all posts has often been cited, but that is clearly a circumstance that doesn't *have* to continue...


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.