![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 73 to 97 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by lil' jimi on May 30, 2004, at 17:26:40
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
thank you Shelli ...
excellent points
very well said.much appreciated, at least by me,
~ jim
Posted by shar on May 30, 2004, at 20:14:37
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 think anything that helps Lar get back here (if he still will) is a good thing.
Shar
Posted by spoc on May 30, 2004, at 21:24:27
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
I’m in favor of addressing the primary matter at hand -- whether Larry can come back sooner or not -- expeditiously as well. But maybe it's not so easy to separate the larger issue of whether it’s official and above-board now that this kind of thing is an option. And that an unbiased process for it will be in the works. Dr. Bob wasn’t and surely wouldn’t ask if people merely liked Larry and missed his contribution. I think he was reconsidering the circumstances around his actions. But the current feedback issue may be clouded for some by whether they’d be condoning treatment they didn’t -- and maybe can’t expect to -- receive themselves. Then it does take on the connotation of popularity that people fear. But bear with me, this post is at the same time all about the specifics of Larry.
I’m a person who can remove the element of favoring Larry completely, since I didn’t know him. And I wouldn't expect to win a popular vote myself. Rather, my thing is that I was very happy to find this place, then crestfallen over principles once I started reading archives. Even if I could have been *guaranteed* I would never be in those positions, it wouldn’t have comforted me. It changed my perception of other things, and (what would have been) my natural progression here.
And I’m only guessing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Larry himself is out there caring more about the principles here than whether or not he can get back to posting as soon as possible. I bet he might not put his own short-term gratification first in that way. I doubt he's thinking that this only happens to him, but rather that it's a groundless pattern of dealing with certain people, and I believe he cares about that. And would like to see something good come out of his experiences.
It occurred to me that some people who might otherwise weigh in may not be familiar with Larry’s block history, or remember it clearly. They may not know whatever the magnitude is of what we are being 'protected' from through his absence, or its 'gravity' relative to other things we see sanctioned and not sanctioned. This weigh-in can't be informed and balanced any other way, and this stuff is not so easy to search out, especially for those not up to it. So I thought it might help get people up to speed to link the progression, which I’ve done below. Note that I see whatever topics were being discussed as pretty much irrelevant to the matter of how he has been dealt with.
I think Larry is a good, rule-abiding person who got caught in those extreme interpretations of semantic technicalities. And, isolated and taken out of context to what else had been going on in these situations. For a very long time, he had even been a vocal defender of The Rules. He did his best, while retaining important standards at the same time, and I think it showed. In the circumstances leading up to his blocks, even if he could or should have known at all that something was risky about what he was about to say, how could he know that he was not allowed to speak as candidly as the rest had been doing.
Maybe there should be more use of, and consistent affording of, Please Rephrases. Or at the very minimum, issuance of the “heads up” of a PBC prior to a subsequent block for violations with a gray area as to the interpretations possible. Some posters who are, for instance, withdrawing from a med or suffering the lifelong haunting of a serious prior addiction, for which the pain never goes way, *will* do things like spew every vile word in the book and tell others they are crazy and stupid. So if they persist in doing that here, sure, they need to learn. If nothing else, that in the future, they have the option -- and should use it – of staying the heck away from their computers at those times. But that is not the kind of obvious and unrepentant thing that is going on in Larry’s cases. But he quickly lost warnings before his blocks.
And maybe, if after someone is blocked, another person (or the blocked person him/herself via email) points out another clearly qualifying but overlooked offense on the thread, it should have to be addressed. And, if not resulting in sanctioning of that poster too, at the least, a block reduction or retraction should then have to go in the favor of the extinguished poster. Or, their presence reinstated long enough to be able to publicly address things. For that matter, even when a PBC is leveled, if the recipient can point to something else equal on the thread, it should *have* to be dealt with too.
This all may sound petty, but as we know, it's exactly the stuff that results in so much anguish and fear of favoritism. I don't think it's at all easy for people to shrug it off to an innocuous shortage of time to review all posts, or being too late now when it may have only been between minutes and a day or two. The other party or parties have not gone and turned over new leaves by now or anything. Everything is preserved in writing here for all time. Able to be referenced again if pointed out, and also to stay stuck in the craw (whatever a craw is) of the poster who is feeling singled out. This isn't about wanting to see more people punished either. It's just about consistency.
In any event, for those unfamiliar, here’s the history:
Dec 23, 2003
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031217/msgs/292735.html
Not being the first, only or somehow strongest expression of ... "dissatisfaction" appearing on the thread, the words resulting in the block were:
> The problems we have are the result of you saying, in so many words, what I'm doing wrong... That is a boundary violation.
>
> I erroneously thought xxx was receptive to having ideas about her problem suggested to her... Apparently, she was not…Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Sorry, but I've already asked you to be civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
Bob
=========January 5, 2004
No PBC or Please Rephrase. That, I think, is intended to reflect that the person should and *could* have learned already. When they *really* could have known that what they were about to say was verboten. Such as someone persisting in swearing, or attacking others (by the definition most of us would probably agree on), with no discretion or forethought as to their words.
Here, things didn't delineate neatly like that. And, as in other blocks of Larry, I feel that some warning that in at least one person’s eyes, things were getting off track, would have been helpful. The following was on Admin, discussing concerns over the original topic and related matters, *not* Lar continuing to ask a poster for sources (but for that matter, the masses had been grateful for his disspelling of alarm):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/296967.html
> It is perfectly reasonable to want to examine the data/research/information used to arrive at such a conclusion
Sure. But if no data/research/information are forthcoming?
> claims of "wiping hardware" and "deep destruction" are more than just simple opinion. They are provocative and threatening.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but the last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
Bob
========January 21, 2004
Again, there was no PBC, no Please Rephrase. The maximum, tripling of the block time, was leveled for this one (Larry was responding to negative things said about him in his absence, that he couldn’t respond to previously, as he was blocked: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/303226.html).
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/303549.html
For:
> I can only react with amazement that anyone would display morals/ethics that would lead to a post such as this one
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. It may be somewhat moot, but the last time you were blocked it was for 2 weeks, so this time it's for 6.
Bob
=======
The thing is, what happens to one person DOES matter. Shorthandedness and time shortages can be overcome, we are being quite provincial to say otherwise. If the fate of one person didn't matter, why are exceptional efforts made to sometimes do things like repeatedly contact someone's ISP when they appear to be in danger. For that matter, blocked posters may leave here and become dangers to themselves. And no, they can't predict that when registering. Larry is just one person, but his circumstances matter. And the fact that he is popular has nothing to do with why that is as it should be.In fact, I see addressing this whole matter -- and finally choosing as bias-free of a solution as possible -- as having the potential to stand up for and protect *underdogs.* Because preferences are a part of life -- there's the type radiating from authority figures but also the type radiating from peers. So something uniform and removed from the interactions here is called for.
Posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 3:26:58
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
this has come to me slowly here ... very slowly
it seems to me we have peculiarly inverse symmetry being dealt to us with this issue:
on the first hand
we had an incident where dr. bob had chosen to reduce a poster’s block without any mention to babble posters ... ... this had specific consequences for many posters, myself and larry included ... these consequences were negative personal impacts for myself and for lar ... ... ... my attempts to post about these inadequacies failed to meet the standards of civility and i was banned ... posting about it now is extremely complicated emotionally for me ... ... the fallout from that incident raised a significant hue and cry about administration’s stealth process for reducing her block ... ... ... dr. bob allowed as he would consider informing the babble posting public before exercising his discretion by reducing a blocked person’s sentence ...the particulars of that poster’s block; the quality and magnitude of the negative impact on babble caused by this poster’s actions, make for the sharpest contrast imaginable to lar’s block ...
this, when added to larry’s instrumental contributions to the discussion in the first incident ... about the inequity of not informing the babble community ... come to mind with fresh relevance now ... ... because it was larry who insisted that we should have an open process when the reduction of a block is being considered ... larry championed this innovation more than anyone ... ...
you see dr. bob not only allowed this poster to have her block reduced ... ... he was complicit in her returning to babble with a “new” identity with which to perpetrate her masquerade ... ... and we were told that this was indulged because dr. bob felt she was going to be supportive and could make a positive contribution ... ... there was some debate about this to say the least ... ... i tried to make my contributions to it ... ...
on the scale of the magnitude of possible malignancy of actions for which a poster could be blocked, where 10 would be the worst and a zero would not be blocked ... ... lar was a one half on his worst day ... ... as for this other poster, our rules of civility prohibit me saying any more under threat of i forget how many weeks of ban which hang over my head from my past crimes ... ... every one of which was committed under the influence of this particular issue/case ... ...
on the second hand,
we find
one of the most beneficial of babble posters who was/has been consistently and genuinely supportive in exceptionally useful ways for untold large numbers of posters and readers,
who i first got to know when he came to my rescue when i was panicked out of my wits by our subject on the first hand (see above),
who was the major force and voice of reason in addressing the inequities of dr. bob’s actions allowing her to return unannounced ... ...
who had barely rubbed the rules rough at all ... ... and then, ONLY for the protective benefit of those who someone was trying to panic ...
was banned for 6 weeks
for being in violation of a technique of language construction ... ... for which he was not afforded the graciousness of a commonly used “please rephrase” ... or any gentler warning or guidance or support ... ... only summarily shown the you-are-blocked exit, thank you very much ... ...if the potential for being supportive is still a criterion for reducing a block as dr. bob said it was for this other person, then larry has long ago earned a lifetime immunity from blocks ... ... or at the very very least to have this block eliminated ...
(with some plausible explanation for the leniency given to others, but which larry has to go through this subjugation to be considered for, maybe?)
i am trying to point out the day and night differences between these incidents and the posters involved
... besides being posters, there are no salient parallels ... ...
one, babble needed to be protected from ... ...
the other, babble needs the protection of.and that lar fomented and instigated having ban reductions done openly .... .... ....
seems ironic ... feels ironic
.... this inversion of things in this peculiar reversed symmetry
... ... it feels even odder to me ... ...
... how must it feel to larry? ...
... (what must he be sending to dr. bob, as he must be reading all of this with the special interest of those who have been judged and sit outside while their judgment is discussed?)this near perfect symmetry of what might pass for poetic justice to some gives off too much of the aroma of contrivance ... ... you know the badly written scripts in the movies where in protagonist suffers his comeuppance as the reversal of his situation has the shoe on the other foot? .. ... ... is it hard to imagine that there could be a possibility of trumped up charges brought on order to perpetrate such a deliberate plot twist?
perhaps only i, in my weakened, unrecovered mental state would see any of these things ... ...
but what force would free my fragile friends from feeling that these fragments fit the form of such an easily imaginable malice?
blocks have an essential role for babble: not an issue.
reducing blocks is not an issue because it has been done, at least once that we know of.
discussing reducing blocks is not an issue because we are doing that now.the only issue is larry’s block:
why did you propose to reduce larry’s block, dr. bob?
what point did larry make in his emails to you that moved you to consider reducing his block?
shouldn’t we be discussing that (whatever it is) if we are expected to make a contribution to your personal deliberations about larry’s fate?
was it merely the request to reduce his block that made you broach this issue here?
should we be discussing the particulars of your decision to ban larry?
are we to search out the inadequacies of the process you employed for banning larry?what do you feel would be worthwhile to have discussed here about reducing larry’s ban?
are we just going through the motions here? merely paying lip service to the notion of having this discussion?
is this just a matter of form?how is discussing reducing larry’s ban meaningfully useful to anyone?
it can not be because anyone has reason to fear lar is going to skulk into babble under some other guise to garner the ill-gotten confidence of unsuspecting posters and have them at the disadvantage ... ... this is where we experience the absurdity of the attempt to reverse the circumstances from the first hand ... ... we could put that shoe on the other foot, but it does not fit ... ...who could need to be protected from larry?
if this discussion were to be able to help get larry’s ban reduced (eliminated is too much, right? ... uh, like why?) surely that should be as good as done ...
but, independent of this or any other discussion, reducing or eliminating lar’s ban is solely up to you, of course, dr. bob, so that by any objective measuring, what we write now can hardly matter ... ...i do find this ironic element here deeply perplexing ... .... .... ...
has this been too long? ... sorry ... ... i am just staring to get warmed up here ...
take care,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 4:06:24
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by spoc on May 30, 2004, at 21:24:27
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2004, at 13:18:20
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
> Perhaps there should have been a reminder at the beginning that people who are uncomfortable publically expressing their opinions have the option of e-mailing their feelings privately.
That's a good idea, thanks, I'll try to remember to do that next time.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2004, at 13:19:25
In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 3:26:58
> the quality and magnitude of the negative impact on babble caused by this poster’s actions
> one, babble needed to be protected from
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 1 week, so this time, I'm making it for 2.
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
Posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » lil' jimi, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2004, at 13:19:25
I'm really disappointed that Jim wasn't given the opportunity of a "Please be civil" instead of being summarily blocked, particularly since he expressed how it was "extremely complicated emotionally" for him to write the post in the first place. If you know him at all, you know he's the sweetest guy in the world who would never post anything wrong intentionally. I know, I know, you say you don't go by intent. I've seen a lot of people say a lot of things here; but it is my opinion that the courtesy of a "Please rephrase" would not have gone amiss in this case.
I'm even more disappointed that none of his questions and concerns about Larry's block which resulted in this two week break have been addressed. I think he deserves at least that much for offering so much time and concern for our friend Larry and for speaking openly about a topic that is still very painful for some people here.
I'll trust that you're still in the process of drafting a well thought out response to Jim's direct questions, Dr. Bob?
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
"gone amiss" ..
i was wondering if you thought that other posters were offended or ignoring dr bob's "please rephrase"..
i think it is important for posters not to feel pressured at any time..
dr bob is the "umpire"
we can protest and replay..but he is the one that puts us in the box...right or wrong he had the stripes...
i do not want to imagine the "choas" if there were no blocks...
jyl
Posted by Sabina on June 2, 2004, at 10:13:01
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
Your post seems to be bringing points that I was never broaching or contesting, which I found more than a bit confusing. Obviously, I did not explain myself clearly enough, for which I apologize. Hopefully, Dr. Bob will be able to make some sense out of it. I was actually posting to him about a very specific issue; but since you directed a reply to me, I will do my best to answer you.
> "gone amiss" ..
> i was wondering if you thought that other posters were offended or ignoring dr. bob's "please rephrase"..I’m not sure why you chose to include this one fragment from my original post out of context. I’m not certain if you fully took it's meaning as I intended or how it refers to your next sentence. Actually, I don't know what the next sentence means at all. I suppose I wasn't aware of any "other posters" who may potentially be offended by or ignoring a "please rephrase" request. I must have missed something here; but please don't enlighten me!
Pertinent sidebar: 'Cause see, I really don't want to go around and around on this. I was only trying to post to Dr. Bob out of frustration that Jim got blocked and never even got the courtesy of having his direct questions to Dr. Bob answered. It was like, Larry could no longer ask questions, so Jim did. Now Jim's gone, and I’m asking questions. Like...when's Dr. Bob going to answer Jim's questions? :-)
> i think it is important for posters not to feel pressured at any time..
Of course. I don't believe I advocated otherwise anywhere in my post.
> dr. bob is the "umpire"
Quite right, and precisely why I was writing to him to air my grievances.
> we can protest and replay..but he is the one that puts us in the box...right or wrong he had the stripes...
Please see my previous comment.
> i do not want to imagine the "chaos" if there were no blocks...
I was not protesting any block whatsoever. What I *did* say was that posters are commonly given PBC's and "please rephrase" options instead of being summarily blocked, as happened to Jim. I feel that it would not have gone amiss for him to have been given this opportunity as well.
Again, I apologize for my shortcomings in explaining myself sufficiently. I hope this helps. On a personal note, I hope you are doing better today.
Posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 7:00:22
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
Sabina, I agree with you. I know Jim and he has a huge heart and I believe that he was just trying to get answers while hoping that things would improve. It seems that if you question things (which is what this board is for) you're very likely going to be punished. But if you scrape and bow, you're in like flynn..........That's why I never post on administration but I HAD to say something about Jim. xoxox to Jim!!!
Posted by spoc on June 3, 2004, at 11:25:14
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 7:00:22
...my own participation was based on thinking this could all be a positive thing... And, that something which could reasonably be interpreted as a signal had been given that perhaps it was the right time at last to have these discussions again... But no input or feedback from where it matters was forthcoming, so I guess maybe that time hadn't come after all...
This is draining stuff and has all been done before, but I had thought maybe this time it was to be different and worth it. However, everything is still unacknowledged and in the dark (as may be the actual process that went into whatever verdict is issued in the primary case at hand)... I know many don't like to see these discussions and I wouldn't have wanted to do it for naught, if it was guaranteed to go the way of all the others...
If the validation of a dialogue of some type had been afforded, we might not just look like rebels without a cause posting over here... I thought it had been more or less *conceded* this time that there probably *was* a cause...
But it's so dark in here, I feel kind of uneasy and maybe a little ill over having risked/bothered to come out on this matter, only for us to receive no input or answers or feedback... which is tantamount to negative (behavior stopping) feedback. I think we did have good reason to believe a discussion was being encouraged and might be responded to ... Now I just feel exposed and somehow embarrassed.
But underneath it all I do know that this is valid and that to have at least tried to exercise a voice over very fundamental humanistic principles is better and healthier than not to have, so I have to fight the guilt I am prone to when the lesson I could learn from it would be regressive and faulty.
I get confused when a discussion like this is addressed with the statement that having punishments available is good and necessary, because I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, that there shouldn't be any. I don't see where it addresses what's at hand. It's just being said that one size does not fit all; the punishment should fit the 'crime' (if it's to teach positive conflict resolution and result in "improved" posters); and that consistency and the fate of individuals does matter. And that objections to improvement based on time/assistance factors and possible complications like biases surely *can* be worked out and overcome. Without requiring unreasonable additional resources or effort.
It's true that we are all free to go elsewhere at any time for any reason. But as important as positivity, good logic, education and constructive solutions are supposed to be to the very essence and reason for existence of this place, it's hard to believe that the bottom-line answer would be given that people should just leave rather than ask for things to be fair and make sense. In general, I thought all the concerns about supportiveness and civility were supposed to be teaching us that doing the best/right thing whenever possible is the best/right thing to do...
This place is *indeed* a great resource and I know everyone is grateful for that, but isn't it also more or less someone's current life work that we are contributing to, not just a service? Towards that, any reasonable improvements would seem like they'd be a positive thing on both ends. At what cost and based on what principles the shiny surface was achieved matters too...
This site is actually a very fascinating human interest story -- I'd almost be surprised if an outside source doesn't see the potential for a documentary or book about it someday. So we might as well all put on our Sunday finest and do things as right as possible!
Well, I have contributed some (probably old) suggestions, and was not out of others, nor the commitment to helping iron out logistical wrinkles. But given no reason to think this could be any different than all the other threads like this (or seen as the constructive interaction it could have been), I guess I (finally?) no longer see the point...
Posted by fayeroe on June 3, 2004, at 11:50:50
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by spoc on June 3, 2004, at 11:25:14
This place is *indeed* a great resource and I know everyone is grateful for that, but isn't it also more or less someone's current life work that we are contributing to, not just a service? Towards that, any reasonable improvements would seem like they'd be a positive thing on both ends. At what cost and based on what principles the shiny surface was achieved matters too...
AMEN!!!!!! Thanks for the reminder that this is a "research project" for the good doctor. And I am also in agreement with everything else you said. I've gone out on a limb before and ended up feeling like the village idiot when the core problem was NEVER addressed.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:19:34
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 1, 2004, at 15:12:15
> I'm even more disappointed that none of his questions and concerns about Larry's block which resulted in this two week break have been addressed.
Sorry, could you repeat the questions? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:22:37
In reply to re: blocked for 2 weeks » Sabina, posted by justyourlaugh on June 1, 2004, at 17:51:18
> i was wondering if you thought that other posters were ... ignoring dr bob's "please rephrase"...
I'm not sure what you had in mind, but that did remind me of:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/351378.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 3, 2004, at 17:48:56
In reply to re: please rephrase » justyourlaugh, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:22:37
sorry ,
sometimes even i do not know what i am talking about..
?
jyl
Posted by Sabina on June 3, 2004, at 18:45:44
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:19:34
> > I'm even more disappointed that none of his questions and concerns about Larry's block which resulted in this two week break have been addressed.
>
> Sorry, could you repeat the questions? Thanks,
>
> BobThe questions are in the latter part of Jim's post that resulted in his block. I can only assume that you read the entire thing, since you are the one who found phrases in it to be uncivil. If not, here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/352296.html
Hopefully, your answers will include the information for which we've all been waiting - whether or not you plan to reduce Larry's block and when is he welcome back. Unless your post on the 28th of May "How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?" was some sort of an announcement and I just didn't get it. I haven't invested my time and energy in this thread for fun or because I like to stir things up, but I am becoming quite frustrated at the way things have (not) progressed in this matter. There's got to be a way to deal with this sort of thing in future instead of all this 'round and 'round, waiting, and still nothing seems to be resolved.
I'll say thanks and be quiet now...if you actually answer the questions and help us get this situation resolved, that is. ;-)
Posted by spoc on June 3, 2004, at 20:30:47
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 3, 2004, at 18:45:44
Posted by chicklet on June 3, 2004, at 20:54:50
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2004, at 16:19:34
>>>> Sorry, could you repeat the questions? Thanks, Bob
That WAS a joke, right?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2004, at 2:24:51
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 3, 2004, at 18:45:44
> The questions are in the latter part of Jim's post that resulted in his block. I can only assume that you read the entire thing, since you are the one who found phrases in it to be uncivil.
I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
> Hopefully, your answers will include the information for which we've all been waiting - whether or not you plan to reduce Larry's block and when is he welcome back... There's got to be a way to deal with this sort of thing in future instead of all this 'round and 'round, waiting, and still nothing seems to be resolved.
Sorry about the uncertainty, but I'd like to give this some more time, in case there's more discussion on this thread or by email. Thanks for your patience,
Bob
Posted by chicklet on June 4, 2004, at 3:45:57
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2004, at 2:24:51
>>>>> I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
?
I've cut and pasted it for you, Dr. Bob. Could you please read it thoroughly so that we can come to some agreement here?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by lil' jimi on May 31, 2004, at 3:26:58In reply to re: Lar's block, posted by gabbix2 on May 30, 2004, at 16:32:20
this has come to me slowly here ... very slowly
it seems to me we have peculiarly inverse symmetry being dealt to us with this issue:
on the first hand
we had an incident where dr. bob had chosen to reduce a poster’s block without any mention to babble posters ... ... this had specific consequences for many posters, myself and larry included ... these consequences were negative personal impacts for myself and for lar ... ... ... my attempts to post about these inadequacies failed to meet the standards of civility and i was banned ... posting about it now is extremely complicated emotionally for me ... ... the fallout from that incident raised a significant hue and cry about administration’s stealth process for reducing her block ... ... ... dr. bob allowed as he would consider informing the babble posting public before exercising his discretion by reducing a blocked person’s sentence ...the particulars of that poster’s block; the quality and magnitude of the negative impact on babble caused by this poster’s actions, make for the sharpest contrast imaginable to lar’s block ...
this, when added to larry’s instrumental contributions to the discussion in the first incident ... about the inequity of not informing the babble community ... come to mind with fresh relevance now ... ... because it was larry who insisted that we should have an open process when the reduction of a block is being considered ... larry championed this innovation more than anyone ... ...
you see dr. bob not only allowed this poster to have her block reduced ... ... he was complicit in her returning to babble with a “new” identity with which to perpetrate her masquerade ... ... and we were told that this was indulged because dr. bob felt she was going to be supportive and could make a positive contribution ... ... there was some debate about this to say the least ... ... i tried to make my contributions to it ... ...
on the scale of the magnitude of possible malignancy of actions for which a poster could be blocked, where 10 would be the worst and a zero would not be blocked ... ... lar was a one half on his worst day ... ... as for this other poster, our rules of civility prohibit me saying any more under threat of i forget how many weeks of ban which hang over my head from my past crimes ... ... every one of which was committed under the influence of this particular issue/case ... ...
on the second hand,
we find
one of the most beneficial of babble posters who was/has been consistently and genuinely supportive in exceptionally useful ways for untold large numbers of posters and readers,
who i first got to know when he came to my rescue when i was panicked out of my wits by our subject on the first hand (see above),
who was the major force and voice of reason in addressing the inequities of dr. bob’s actions allowing her to return unannounced ... ...
who had barely rubbed the rules rough at all ... ... and then, ONLY for the protective benefit of those who someone was trying to panic ...
was banned for 6 weeks
for being in violation of a technique of language construction ... ... for which he was not afforded the graciousness of a commonly used “please rephrase” ... or any gentler warning or guidance or support ... ... only summarily shown the you-are-blocked exit, thank you very much ... ...if the potential for being supportive is still a criterion for reducing a block as dr. bob said it was for this other person, then larry has long ago earned a lifetime immunity from blocks ... ... or at the very very least to have this block eliminated ...
(with some plausible explanation for the leniency given to others, but which larry has to go through this subjugation to be considered for, maybe?)
i am trying to point out the day and night differences between these incidents and the posters involved
... besides being posters, there are no salient parallels ... ...
one, babble needed to be protected from ... ...
the other, babble needs the protection of.and that lar fomented and instigated having ban reductions done openly .... .... ....
seems ironic ... feels ironic
.... this inversion of things in this peculiar reversed symmetry
... ... it feels even odder to me ... ...
... how must it feel to larry? ...
... (what must he be sending to dr. bob, as he must be reading all of this with the special interest of those who have been judged and sit outside while their judgment is discussed?)this near perfect symmetry of what might pass for poetic justice to some gives off too much of the aroma of contrivance ... ... you know the badly written scripts in the movies where in protagonist suffers his comeuppance as the reversal of his situation has the shoe on the other foot? .. ... ... is it hard to imagine that there could be a possibility of trumped up charges brought on order to perpetrate such a deliberate plot twist?
perhaps only i, in my weakened, unrecovered mental state would see any of these things ... ...
but what force would free my fragile friends from feeling that these fragments fit the form of such an easily imaginable malice?
blocks have an essential role for babble: not an issue.
reducing blocks is not an issue because it has been done, at least once that we know of.
discussing reducing blocks is not an issue because we are doing that now.the only issue is larry’s block:
why did you propose to reduce larry’s block, dr. bob?
what point did larry make in his emails to you that moved you to consider reducing his block?
shouldn’t we be discussing that (whatever it is) if we are expected to make a contribution to your personal deliberations about larry’s fate?
was it merely the request to reduce his block that made you broach this issue here?
should we be discussing the particulars of your decision to ban larry?
are we to search out the inadequacies of the process you employed for banning larry?what do you feel would be worthwhile to have discussed here about reducing larry’s ban?
are we just going through the motions here? merely paying lip service to the notion of having this discussion?
is this just a matter of form?how is discussing reducing larry’s ban meaningfully useful to anyone?
it can not be because anyone has reason to fear lar is going to skulk into babble under some other guise to garner the ill-gotten confidence of unsuspecting posters and have them at the disadvantage ... ... this is where we experience the absurdity of the attempt to reverse the circumstances from the first hand ... ... we could put that shoe on the other foot, but it does not fit ... ...who could need to be protected from larry?
if this discussion were to be able to help get larry’s ban reduced (eliminated is too much, right? ... uh, like why?) surely that should be as good as done ...
but, independent of this or any other discussion, reducing or eliminating lar’s ban is solely up to you, of course, dr. bob, so that by any objective measuring, what we write now can hardly matter ... ...i do find this ironic element here deeply perplexing ... .... .... ...
has this been too long? ... sorry ... ... i am just staring to get warmed up here ...
take care,
~ jim~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>> Sorry about the uncertainty, but I'd like to give this some more time, in case there's more discussion on this thread or by email. Thanks for your patience,
Bob-it has been over a week since the possibility of a shorter block for Larry was mentioned. What are you waiting for exactly? Is it something specific? I believe that if there was to be more discussion on this thread it would have occurred by now. I also think that with the feedback many posters have provided here- and in emails to you--ample time has passed for an agreement. Why the uncertainty?
If you're just not sure and you feel as if you want to read things over, that's fine. But waiting a while isn't going to get us any closer to a decision.
Ya know?
Kar
Posted by fayeroe on June 4, 2004, at 7:35:39
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2004, at 2:24:51
I don't see how you can not read the entire post when you're PCBing or BLOCKING someone. Am I out of line if I say that reeks with "head in the sandism"? Either you're running this place or you're not. Dr. Bob, I'm a lot older than you and I know that acting like there's no elephant in my front room won't make him go away. I've learned that and so much more while working with people. Being present, totally, is what is reassuring to people who depend upon you for support. I can say for sure that Jim is always present for the people who need him. I just can't believe that you didn't read the entire post. You aren't going to catch anything. I've found that I always learn something valuable in tough situations. This whole situation, starting with Larry's block, is very distressing and more than a little frustating. Pat
Posted by Sabina on June 4, 2004, at 8:10:09
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block, posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2004, at 2:24:51
>> I don't always read every line of every post, especially if it isn't civil...
Wow. That one knocked the wind out of me.
What I've hear you saying, if you'll allow me some latitude to paraphrase, is that you block people for posting uncivil things while ignoring the civil, potentially important material left in that post that they've put theirs hearts into, then move on to something else...unless someone keeps harping on it. You pick out the bad without acknowledging the good.
It's good to know at last where I stand.
Posted by fayeroe on June 4, 2004, at 8:30:09
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 4, 2004, at 8:10:09
Sabina, I too thought that it was a joke....I was totally floored when I realized he really doesn't read an entire post.....you said it very well. Pat
Posted by AuntieMel on June 4, 2004, at 10:29:48
In reply to re: questions about Larry's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on June 4, 2004, at 8:10:09
(Grit teeth, curl toes, *stay civil*)
I think in a long roundabout way we've all just realized the root of the problem.
Those of us who participate on the board, actively or by lurking, read and reread every word of anything that might remotely have anything to do with our problems. So, we tend to not even see things that by the letter of the law are considered uncivil.
On the other hand there is Dr. Bob, very well intentioned, but overworked. The board has gotten so large there just isn't enough time to read all the stuff out here. So if something uncivil by law gets written, it can be taken out of context and a block can be issued. If he tries to read the entire body of a post that contains something uncivil, along with the surrounding posts that set up the uncivilness, then another really nasty exchanged doesn't get seen. This has the strong potential to add to the feeling of unfairness.
It seems to be a catch-22.
Mel
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.