Posted by spoc on June 20, 2004, at 5:52:24
In reply to re: thoughts (not TOOOOO long for me either.....) » spoc, posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 3:34:19
> Hi, Mel,
>
> Forgive me, but I must ignore your double entendre subject line. We need to keep it administrative here, you know.
>
> Allow me to offer that as exhibit number one that I am not a good enough person to deserve your beautiful praise.> Hi Spoc,
>
> > ....but everything's relative.
>
> I *think* we are referring to the ... "not too long" part?<<<< Yes Jimbo, heavens to Betsey (who the h-e-double-toothpicks WAS Betsey anyway)! Remember your "discomfort zone," wherein even innocuous banter about hot tubs is seen to disparage wife, baby, and the institute of marriage. Surely the alarms will be tripped and the dogs let out on anatomical innuendo! ;- )
>> 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. ...<<<<<< True.
> 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.<<<<<< Good point. Setting up a difficult but required equation, wherein a vet cannot safely respond in kind to various stimuli, or to be cautious, may have to dilute or avoid a response completely. Ouch (I'm more of a given-context-favoring type). But while it does frame things in a way I can understand better, I would add "Ok, fine. As long as everyone is required to or not to (to an extent greater than that attributable to chance oversights), rather than just some."
So, point indeed taken. But as I gather you are not disputing, other vets do end up reaping for the most part pbcs only, at the point they should have run out long before. Since we can't have it all, it's just consistency that I'm prioritizing on the wish list. Whichever way it leans, towards lenient enforcement or the opposite if that "must" be (whether that should be seems a separate issue to me, that I would also have opinions about). Then even those who are especially sensitive and most at risk for taking a block hard could at least be consoled by the fact that the same application can be seen at work everywhere, lessening all upset in all camps.
> > 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?<<<<< Oh, just referring to the irony of the fact that this is a psych board, and one where the fostering of civility and increased civility is absolutely paramount; and such psych studies on the likelihood of randomness to facilitate that are indeed rampant; yet that taking the time or making the effort to increase consistency has not been seen as a priority.
> 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.
<<<<< Agreed. And I do see where some of the lines are. For example, regarding your own block, I do see your point about the bottom line being that you indeed did risk having someone end up feeling accused. And no matter if I may feel that that may be excusable at times, admittedly it does open a very subjective door. So I can process that prohibition better (I just like to be able to see the logic in things, but then even more importantly, the consistent application of them). So while at the time of your block, I stated that I had seen "stronger references to the same thing pass muster," I didn't mean that I couldn't understand why you got blocked. Of course I still didn't want you to be unhappy, but I understood what had gone down and it didn't set off my sense of unfairness, except to the extent that as mentioned, I'd seen stronger get under the wire. But that was awhile ago, when possibly there was a tug between enforcement and realizing that when people are freshly shocked they will be more likely to emote, and may sometimes deserve to.
> Now, are we hearing each other here, Spoc? I can miss some things... lots of things.
<<<<< I believe so. I am in agreement about how you processed your block. And for those same reasons, I wouldn't argue for the reduction of all blocks (again, consistency is my chosen platform here, not whether I condone blocking or blocking for some of the reasons we see, *only* because I doubt we can get everything we'd like to addressed). Even when I thoroughly enjoyed and/or agreed with the statement eliciting the block, and may prefer that some such things be allowed. I had just initially thought you were speaking in general terms when you came back, that the same sequence and logic could be seen behind all/most blocks or lack of them.
Thanks for clarifying. And again, having at least a layperson's grasp of reinforcement and the honey vs. vinegar principle, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the recent proof that change is possible, and my intended faith in what that will mean generally.
> i think you are right.
>
> ~ j<<<<< And I think you are brilliant and astute. ;- )
Good to see you, and you take care too! :- D
poster:spoc
thread:346427
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/358245.html