![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 89 to 113 of 185. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:24:26
In reply to Re: perception of privilege » Happyflower, posted by fayeroe on June 24, 2007, at 10:18:08
> HF, remember the experience where the professor set up certain class memebers with authority and others with none? it went south really quickly.
>
> i'd ignore the carrot today, if i were you......xoxoxoPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions 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
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:28:09
In reply to Re: perception of privilege » fayeroe, posted by Happyflower on June 24, 2007, at 12:11:47
> LOL, thanks for the carrot warning!
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions 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
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:30:47
In reply to Re: Not taking the carrot, yup! stayin' cool!, posted by henrietta on June 25, 2007, at 19:28:18
> Good for you!!! Too bad the carroteer couldn't resist. What a sign of health and wisdom that would be.
> hPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions 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
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Happyflower on June 27, 2007, at 8:33:14
In reply to Please be civil » Happyflower, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:28:09
Posted by gardenergirl on June 27, 2007, at 8:46:28
In reply to Please be civil » gardenergirl, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:20:43
I know all that cost you time and probably aggravation. Sorry.
And I apologize to all who may have been upset reading my part in this thread. I let my anger get the best of my judgment. I'll try to focus on the positive going forward.
gg
Posted by muffled on June 27, 2007, at 9:18:25
In reply to Please be civil » muffled, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:13:21
> and this is just endless this thread, and doesn't seem to be to the benefit of much.
**OK.
I am finding this thread endless, and cant' understand what it is trying to achieve?
How bout that?
And sorry of course.
Muffled
Posted by 1musketeer on June 27, 2007, at 9:45:05
In reply to Please be civil » henrietta, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:30:47
Posted by 1musketeer on June 27, 2007, at 9:46:51
In reply to Please be civil » gardenergirl, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:20:43
carrot person.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 10:59:41
In reply to Re: Please be civil..sorry D, just saw PBC for, posted by 1musketeer on June 27, 2007, at 9:46:51
but since the PBC was for this issue, please do not refer to anyone as a carroteer or carrot person.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by 1musketeer on June 27, 2007, at 11:15:38
In reply to I thank you for the apology, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 10:59:41
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42
In reply to shaken and profoundly OUTRAGED-diff. from stirred? (nm), posted by zenhussy on June 26, 2007, at 15:09:39
> shaken and profoundly OUTRAGED-diff. from stirred?
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others.
But please don't take this personally, 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
PS: According to the current system:
previous block: 48 weeks
period of time since previous block: 147 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: no
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 147 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 15 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 48 - 15 = 33 weeks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:43
In reply to Please be civil » henrietta, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 27, 2007, at 8:30:47
> Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions.
These posters were asked to be civil a couple weeks ago, so I'm going to block them for 1 week instead:
dispatcher
gardenergirl
fayeroeHenrietta has been blocked before, and I'm also going to block her for 1 week:
previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 7 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 7 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to her previous block, that takes her back to 0. And if we go from there, that's 1 week.
Happyflower has been blocked before, and I'm going to block her for 2 weeks:
previous block: 2 weeks
period of time since previous block: 9 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: yes
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 9 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to her previous block, that's 2 - 1 = 1 week. And if we double that, that's 2 weeks.
I hope they don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like them or think they're bad people.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:47
In reply to Re: perception of privilege » Dr. Bob, posted by confuzyq on June 23, 2007, at 1:07:12
> mostly it is just about fairness and consistency, and I just don't see the justification in implying otherwise in such cut-and-dried scenarios.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if the hypotheses you put forth are more about a particular angle you'd like to examine at the moment ... In those cases I'd be more comfortable if you'd just come out and say that X is an angle you would simply like to hear discussed.You're right, I didn't mean to imply that it's only envy, or even mostly envy, just that envy might be a particular angle, one that might be helpful to discuss.
To be fair :-) I started a separate thread to discuss fairness and consistency:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/766608.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 0:50:31
In reply to Re: deputy decisions, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:43
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 1:04:38
In reply to sigh. You missed me :-( (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 0:50:31
maybe cuz you thot it was a diff me?
But alla me in the same body.
This is known and accepted.
We take full responsibility for all this body does, says etc.
So if we do wrong things, then it should be punished all the same.
Does it feel bad to come in swinging your sword against your people?
You away so much.
Then you come back and talk full sentences.
So good.
But then the sword is swinging...
I am sad bout this.
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 1:06:18
In reply to Re: BOB, posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 1:04:38
I guess what I wished I could know, and I ascared to ask Bob, is DO you feel much emotions? S'ok if you don't.
I just dunno what to make of you and you REALLY scaring me LOTS right now :-(
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 1:18:11
In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42
This looks like one of those times when the formula might not be the single best criterion for block length. Wouldn't it be more consistent to set her block length more on similar blocks given on the same thread rather than on her block history?
It was a very heated thread.
Posted by Honore on June 29, 2007, at 1:20:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42
Could I point out a potential problem with the blocking system or at least its application in cases where someone has had a long block, as with zenhussy?
As the absolute length of the block increases, the reduction, while it may be of the same percentage, and be produced by an identical formula, still has a disproportionate effect, because of the absolute lengths of time involved.
This seems to me to cause some systemic unfairnesses. I have no idea what caused zen to have such a long block, but it somehow seems out of justice to me for someone to achieve several years of good behavior (or two, anyway) without a block, and yet only to have the length of their block reduced by a small number of weeks, even if the percentages work out.
Maybe this isn't well-worded, but I hope it captures the general idea that over two years of good behavior somehow seems incommensurable with a block of 33 weeks. This may primarily be a fuzzy concept, but there is something about absolute time that conflicts with a formula for calculating blocks derived in a context where one usually thinks of blocks of fairly short periods of time.
Honore
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 1:26:54
In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Honore on June 29, 2007, at 1:20:48
Ha you guys GOOD!!!
Honore you got smart words to say.
Dinah is good.
Oh, I am not talking of blocks, cuz I talk and talk, but my words seem to have no effect :-(
Thanks that you guys step in.
I agree w/you guys 100%.
Also I am so sad to see if bob not change it :-(
Bad bad bad.
Too much bad.
Too much sad.
I trying not to think of it.
But I scared so I posting and posting.
Sorry.
Ya you good guys
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13
In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Honore on June 29, 2007, at 1:20:48
> Wouldn't it be more consistent to set her block length more on similar blocks given on the same thread rather than on her block history?
>
> Dinah> I have no idea what caused zen to have such a long block, but it somehow seems out of justice to me for someone to achieve several years of good behavior (or two, anyway) without a block, and yet only to have the length of their block reduced by a small number of weeks, even if the percentages work out.
>
> HonoreI'm glad Zen's receiving support, and I'm open to suggestions, but I think the same formula should (in general) be used for everyone. If poster A's block is going to be determined in part by poster B's history, then shouldn't poster B's block also be determined in part by poster A's history? And shouldn't their reductions for "good behavior" be the same?
Bob
Posted by confuzyq on June 29, 2007, at 3:52:19
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13
I haven't been able to sleep yet and am not sure I'm thinking too straight at the moment, but: when the current block formula was created and implemented, wasn't it somehow partly to address objections over really long blocks; and wasn't the issue then raised (and at least put on the to-consider list) that it might thereafter not be correct to factor a long block given under the old system into a block given under the new system? That somehow those old fields needed to be leveled into more what they would have been, if played on under the new system all along..?
> I'm glad Zen's receiving support, and I'm open to suggestions, but I think the same formula should (in general) be used for everyone. If poster A's block is going to be determined in part by poster B's history, then shouldn't poster B's block also be determined in part by poster A's history? And shouldn't their reductions for "good behavior" be the same?
>
> Bob
Posted by confuzyq on June 29, 2007, at 4:34:42
In reply to Re: perception of privilege, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:47
> > mostly it is just about fairness and consistency, and I just don't see the justification in implying otherwise in such cut-and-dried scenarios.
> >
> > Sometimes I wonder if the hypotheses you put forth are more about a particular angle you'd like to examine at the moment ... In those cases I'd be more comfortable if you'd just come out and say that X is an angle you would simply like to hear discussed.
> You're right
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
...whoops, did I leave something out, let me try that again... ;-)> You're right, I didn't mean to imply that it's only envy, or even mostly envy, just that envy might be a particular angle, one that might be helpful to discuss.
I want to practice what I preach and reinforce parts that to me are good, so thank you for rethinking the above.
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:29:18
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13
I think when you get to really long blocks, that becomes somewhat problematic.
Even if we put aside the fact that autoasterisking was introduced after zen's long block...
I think the formula is fine with shorter blocks, and I wouldn't object strenuously in cases of clear incivility, particularly if the conflict was begun by the person in question.
But in this case, neither of those things is true. The thread had already escalated quite a bit.
In the past, before the formula, you generally were more lenient in cases where a thread had escalated substantially. A lot of times you let everything that wasn't flagrantly uncivil go, and a lot of times you showed clemency in the block lengths. I think that was understandable and reasonable.
Your block formula has been around long enough for people to be able to get a general idea of the consequences of their behavior, true. But your block formula doesn't preclude you from considering facts and circumstances and ruling in favor of mercy. And.... Just my opinion here, but I think that clemency and mercy are often good policy decisions, and better for the long term atmosphere of the board.
For what it's worth.
Posted by scratchpad on June 29, 2007, at 8:26:00
In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:29:18
> I think when you get to really long blocks, that becomes somewhat problematic.
>
....>
> For what it's worth.
I don't know if you believe in reincarnation, Dinah; but at the very least I believe you were a diplomat in a former life.
:-)sp
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 8:40:55
In reply to As an aside... » Dinah, posted by scratchpad on June 29, 2007, at 8:26:00
I'd like to give my parents full credit for their early training and education. ;)
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.