![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 105 to 129 of 185. Go back in thread:
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. ;)
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 9:45:39
In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:29:18
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 9:54:56
In reply to :-) » scratchpad, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 8:40:55
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 9:56:27
In reply to :-) » scratchpad, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 8:40:55
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 29, 2007, at 12:01:43
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13
Dr. Bob,
I'm just talking in general now. But let's assume you did something wrong and you got blocked for it for a very long time. Then you turned your life around. Maybe went on meds, got some therapy, stayed clean and sober. After YEARS of good behavior shouldn't a person be rewarded with a clean slate? I think after ONE year with no blocks and no PBC's a person should be able to start over.
Forgiveness is a wonderful thing.
MidnightBlue
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 12:35:00
In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42
*******OMG*************
stuff stays round THAT long????????????????????????//
Crap, I JUST read that.
OMG
This feels insane to me.
My head is spinning.
Getting a HUGE block after 147 WEEKS of being fine?????????????
I have no words, no words.
There is NO logic here....
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 12:52:33
In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42
> 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: no
>
> If 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.a. why we dividing by 10?
b. why we comparing to previous block length in a previous state of mind?
c. and all that stuff above, no CREDIT for those all being no?>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?
**No.
Damn I wish I could make my brain work.
But I think there's something to be said as to having an automatic 'clean slate' after a period of time (say 6 mo.)
People change, emotions that were charged and ran high, pass.
IMHO the length of blocks escalates WAAAAAAY too fast, esp for such a minor offence.
Mebbe blocks should just be 1 week. Repeated BLOCKS then escalate(after 6 mo. clean slate though).
There could be some offences that are automatically a longer block, say 2 weeks, or if no attempt at working things thru is made.
I think/hope someone with a better brain than I can somehow map this out and then we could vote on it or something?
I think we need to keep in mind WHAT we are seeking by blocking? Is it deterrent?(then at what point does deterrent become cruelty??) Is it education?(then how do we learn to sort things out if we just blocked for long times?) after a week, we could still attempt...to discuss or apologise, much longer and its just old news, the emots are gone.. WHAT is it?
My thots are some scattered, but mebbe SOMEbody can understand what I am getting at and present it to Bob in a clearcut logical way.
Then we could maybe vote?
Or Bob, will you even entertain this thots? Are you gonna get stuck on a formula? Can you break free? Or not? If not, just save us the time and say so.
M
Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 15:55:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 0:29:42
I assume this is not an elaborate joke?
I don't know what to think.
Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 15:57:41
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2007, at 3:22:13
We can forget about Zeugma then.
I think this is a very bad system.
I have difficulty beieving it is *not* a joke.
Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:01:34
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 15:57:41
Look, I'm sure I don't get this.
Zen appears on the thread.
Says that *one thing* about stirred and all that.
And gets blocked for 33 weeks?
Is this right?
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 16:03:38
In reply to Zenhussy, posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:01:34
:-(
worst of it is...
:-(
I dunno if we can change it
:-(
Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:53:55
In reply to Re: Zenhussy, posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 16:03:38
This is what happens in the engine room of babble and this is why people come here and talk about the experiments and stuff then?
Right.
Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:55:11
In reply to period of time since previous block: 147 weeks?!?!, posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 12:35:00
I gather that the assumptions behind the blocking formula come from the US justice system?
Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 17:00:45
In reply to Re: block history » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:29:18
>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.
I agree.
Posted by jammerlich on June 29, 2007, at 20:37:34
In reply to Zenhussy, posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 16:01:34
I just wanted to offer my support to zenhussy.
And to state, for the record, that I DO NOT agree with the length of her block. It strikes me as unreasonably long. To be honest, I don't think she should be blocked at all.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2007, at 0:34:33
In reply to Re: blocked for 33 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 12:52:33
> when the current block formula was created and implemented, wasn't it somehow partly to address objections over really long blocks
Right, the reduction for "good behavior" was added so blocks wouldn't be as long. In general.
> 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?
>
> confuzyqIt might've been raised, but the change only applied to new blocks. It wasn't retroactive.
--
> let's assume you did something wrong and you got blocked for it for a very long time. Then you turned your life around. Maybe went on meds, got some therapy, stayed clean and sober. After YEARS of good behavior shouldn't a person be rewarded with a clean slate? I think after ONE year with no blocks and no PBC's a person should be able to start over.
>
> Forgiveness is a wonderful thing.
>
> MidnightBlueWell, I did skip the doubling... And civility is a wonderful thing, too. Some slates may take longer to clean?
--
> I think we need to keep in mind WHAT we are seeking by blocking? Is it deterrent?(then at what point does deterrent become cruelty??) Is it education?(then how do we learn to sort things out if we just blocked for long times?) after a week, we could still attempt...to discuss or apologise, much longer and its just old news, the emots are gone.. WHAT is it?
> My thots are some scattered, but mebbe SOMEbody can understand what I am getting at and present it to Bob in a clearcut logical way.
> Or Bob, will you even entertain this thots? Are you gonna get stuck on a formula? Can you break free?
>
> MI guess for individual posters, it could potentially both deter and educate. And for the community, it keeps those posters from being uncivil for a period of time.
I might be able to break free if someone presents an alternative in a clear-cut logical way?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 30, 2007, at 6:49:44
In reply to Re: block history, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2007, at 0:34:33
I did try to give sensible reasons based on past practice.
You ignored my post in your reply.
I suppose you didn't find them as compelling as I did. :(
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.