![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 174 to 198 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 12:15:02
In reply to re: thoughts (completely too long), posted by lil' jimi on June 18, 2004, at 2:29:17
Very well written. It is interesting that you can see logic in your own block when that logic escaped many of us.
I think this exercise has pointed me in a different direction. As argument became synonomous with tilting against windmills, I have decided, not without great difficulty, to use it as a life lesson, and can now use babble as a way to experiment on some things for myself.
How often have we heard that the trick to sucessful arguing is to put things in terms of your own feelings? That combativeness will cause the other party to become defensive? That this defensiveness defeats our purpose of making a point? With force civility rules, we have a good chance to practice these skills before foisting them on friends and family.
So, to put a positive spin on it:
The brutal truth (about people) is nearly always uncivil.
>> but the simple truth doesn't need to be
The truth is like any other powerful tool: it can be used as a weapon
>> but it doesn't have to be.Welcome back - you are a shining star on a foggy night.
Mel
Posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 13:35:44
In reply to re: thoughts (not too long for me) » lil' jimi, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 12:15:02
....but everything's relative.
Dang, dang, dang! All new entries sound so good that I kind of wish I could just live up to the fiction that I can put something behind me so well that nothing could spur me to comment more. But alas, that's just not me I guess.
So, with loads of due respect, I just wanted to add that from my vantage point, the issue was not whether it is safe to deliver truths. That the essence (I always was here for the larger picture) was the very variance in interpretation of what passed and didn't pass itself; occurring in patterns either for or against; and not always related to any identifiable degree of offense or nature of offense. And that whether someone had received previous admonishments or even numerous previous admonishments did not consistently get used as the foundation for future administrative actions. That of course there will be some degree of oversight and some degree of inconsistency, as administration is not performed by a computer program. But that the degree of variance could be seen to be considerably greater than that explainable by chance.
Now, ok, like Jimi said, I *can* see where the subject matter being handled at the time of his block could be seen as hazardous under the principles he has just espoused. And in that way, that it could be concluded that that kind of thing is best avoided. But that is only one of many types of subjects or purposes being engaged in at the times blocks or reprimands are handed down -- or aren't, inexplicably. 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.
Ya know, you'd think there would have been a psychological study by now on the effect of randomness on the efficacy of punishment! ;- ) <----- <if I could change the font, that wink would be much bigger>
Know that I was encouraged by the recent evidence that change is possible (while I would enjoy hearing something about what, if any, general impact it will have, because that has implications too. But I'm just not curious or motivated enough to ask). And I appreciate the apologies given in some senses. So I don't want to take away from any of that and I'm even satisfied to say that I'll have faith for now that something did happen here and things will indeed get more consistent. But I just wouldn't feel quite right leaving this at having been a matter of realizing what the causative factor almost always is, and the simplicity of now being able to avoid it. I think there was more to it than that.
Happy Friday everyone. :- )
Posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 16:17:38
In reply to re: thoughts (not TOOOOO long for me either.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 13:35:44
There has been a study of randomness of punishment. My childhood.
I think one of the larger points made by Jimi was that a poster's larger "civility history" seems to be considered in dealing out punishment. Of course every "rule" has an "exception" but it looke to me that there is a general trend to give some benefit of the doubt to folks that are generally supportive - at least when the letter of the law is broken but not the spirit of the law.
Again there are exceptions to every rule, but it also seems to me to be a trend that posters who are generally argumentative get punishment of some sort as soon as the letter of the law is broken.
Posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 17:48:48
In reply to re: thoughts (not long at all.....) » spoc, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 16:17:38
I'm still just scatching my head a bit (because I thought we were surmising most of this time that that is how it *should* be but often or "patternistically" wasn't, including the incidence of not being sanctioned; and the role of previous sanctions, etc.), but the good news is it doesn't really itch anymore!
One thing that did occur to me is that while I only discovered this place in March, I became more than anything a voracious archive reader. SO -- I am reading things in a very condensed fashion and as such they may have more of an impact and/or appear more prevalent than the actual pace at which they are typically seen. Indeed, the kinds of things I have been referring to in this thread are not much related to what I've seen since I got here (although my way of reading the current board actually has me skipping most of it). I also saw that starting in April and continuing for a few months is the slowest annual traffic time at PB. The archives from when the population was denser show many more positing that some kind of pattern exists. So that had an effect; and maybe I further assumed that many of them finally left disheartened, when it could be largely just related to the season and natural turnover.
Archive reading is piecemeal, unless one reads across all boards from each given time frame, which I don't. And in the archives it is easier to latch onto and selectively hunt down supporting data. Could be several or all of the above factors that resulted in me seeing things however I did, that magnified what in reality may be less common than it seemed. I wouldn't want to do that, and apologize for any extent to which I might have. :- )
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2004, at 19:56:07
In reply to re: thoughts (completely too long), posted by lil' jimi on June 18, 2004, at 2:29:17
> I have been blessed with supportive, loving friends, some of whom have posted valiantly here against all odds. I remain deeply grateful for their affection and thoughtful kindness ... And their beautiful compliments of which I am less than worthy.
Isn't this a great group of people? :-)
> I have received some insights from my ponderings and in discussions with friends
>
> it is easy to imagine perfectly justified and totally honest things that would not be "civil" nor even civil.
>
> It amounts to a form of enforced Gandhi-like Golden Rule
>
> "Thou shalt not accuse nor put down Others."
>
> putting it in this light makes it perfectly clear how and where I violated the commandment and it makes sense and that's cool.I really appreciate your reflecting on all this and sharing your insights, thanks.
> I could imagine that it might be helpful if posters could be informed of time frames for an administration response, if only provisionally or even very speculatively.
That's a good point. I'll try to respond within a couple days? But I get tied up sometimes, and run into technical difficulties sometimes, and need time to think about it sometimes. If you don't hear back from me, bug me about it?
Welcome back,
Bob
Posted by gabbix2 on June 18, 2004, at 20:32:36
In reply to re: thoughts (not long at all.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 17:48:48
No need to apologize Spoc, many very supportive valuable posters did leave disheartened, and upset with what they percieved and still percieve as erratic and prejudicial judgements. I'm hoping that this latest turn of events shows that things are changing for the better, but for a lot of people, me included, it's too late to feel part of the community anymore.
Posted by Shar on June 19, 2004, at 12:10:55
In reply to re: thoughts, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2004, at 19:56:07
I'm wondering if your expansive and generous mood could extend a little further? Obviously, the Babblers appreciated your equanimity in dealing with Larry's block--I thought it set a most excellent example for everybody, and made many people feel 'heard' who hadn't felt that way previously.
I believe Zen has one week or less before she can return. She has been so sorely missed by so many, I'm wondering if she could be given a break and allowed back now? Or, how about if I take her remaining time and don't post for a week so she could come back?
She could use the support, and we could use the sight of her posting again!
Thanks for your consideration,
Shar
Posted by karen_kay on June 19, 2004, at 13:00:36
In reply to Now.....About Zen » Dr. Bob, posted by Shar on June 19, 2004, at 12:10:55
i agree 110%! i'd be willing to sit out a week for zen to come back now and receive the support she needs. please let us know mr bob. she is very missed right now and i think she could use the support of the wonderful babble gang right now too.
thank you shar for the wonderful suggestion. i hope you are doing well (forget doing well, i hope you are fantastic!!!).
Posted by gabbix2 on June 19, 2004, at 13:09:41
In reply to Re: Now.....About Zen » Shar, posted by karen_kay on June 19, 2004, at 13:00:36
Me Three! (((Hi K.K, Hi Shar, Hi Zen))) squish
Posted by SebastianMentalmouth on June 19, 2004, at 14:25:07
In reply to Re: Now.....About Zen, posted by gabbix2 on June 19, 2004, at 13:09:41
yes pleeeeeease Dr Bob let our Zen come back. I'll serve her last week gladly just say the word!
and thanks for all your wonderful work here
((((Dr Bob))))*shy sqish
> Me Three! (((Hi K.K, Hi Shar, Hi Zen))) squish
Posted by lil' jimi on June 19, 2004, at 17:00:58
In reply to Re: Now.....About Zen, posted by gabbix2 on June 19, 2004, at 13:09:41
> Me Three! (((Hi K.K, Hi Shar, Hi Zen))) squish
Me five.
I think that we must ask Zen to go through the formality of requesting her block reduction.
I believe this is a requirement for consideration for block reduction, at least that's the impression that I get.On this presumption, I ask Zen to help us help her friends get her block reduced by making her own request of Dr. Bob by email for her block to be reduced. Please, Zen?
I further ask, presumptively, that Dr. Bob grant her putative request.
Also it would be nice if he gave us a whistle should(when) Zen make(s) her request.I hope that my presumptiveness has not been too presumptive, aka rude.
More later,
~ jim
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 19:50:14
In reply to re: Now.....About Zen, posted by lil' jimi on June 19, 2004, at 17:00:58
> Also it would be nice if he gave us a whistle should(when) Zen make(s) her request.
I'm afraid the whistle will need to come from her, sorry...
Bob
Posted by Shar on June 19, 2004, at 20:10:44
In reply to re: About Zen, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 19:50:14
Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying, Dr. Bob. She can't whistle here because she's blocked. And, I believe she has whistled already, off the board (have you checked your email?). I can't blow the whistle on her, because I'm not positive that she whistled to you, but I know she can't whistle here. UNLESS, that is, in your most excellent and wonderful wise ways, you grant a request to reduce her block OR let one of us proxy for her last week of time-2-B-served.
Hoping like crazy,
SharP.S. To all who responded, y'all are just great! And, I love getting squished! Thanks!
> > Also it would be nice if he gave us a whistle should(when) Zen make(s) her request.
>
> I'm afraid the whistle will need to come from her, sorry...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 20:39:22
In reply to re: About Zen » Dr. Bob, posted by Shar on June 19, 2004, at 20:10:44
> > > Also it would be nice if he gave us a whistle should(when) Zen make(s) her request.
>
> She can't whistle here because she's blocked. And, I believe she has whistled already, off the boardSorry, what I meant was, whistles to you all should come from her. And no, they can't be here, so they'd need to be off the board.
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 19, 2004, at 22:12:24
In reply to re: About Zen, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 20:39:22
Bob - Would you please tell the sitdown strikers to stop it? It just can't be swaying your judgement if they can't insert their comments into the fray! Please tell them to stand back up and type. And, I miss them all too much. Thank you. Emmy
Posted by Shar on June 20, 2004, at 1:21:41
In reply to re: About Sit down strikers » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on June 19, 2004, at 22:12:24
Did I miss something (or many things)?
Am I a sit-down striker? What are they (what am I) supposed to *not* be doing?
TE, your post totally went (whoooosshh) right over my head! What did you mean? (In 8th grade language, if you're willing.)
Confusedly yours,
Shar
> Bob - Would you please tell the sitdown strikers to stop it? It just can't be swaying your judgement if they can't insert their comments into the fray! Please tell them to stand back up and type. And, I miss them all too much. Thank you. Emmy
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 2:50:54
In reply to re: thoughts (not too long for me) » lil' jimi, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2004, at 12:15:02
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.
> Very well written.
Thank you. You make me feel good to think something I wrote has helped someone.
> It is interesting that you can see logic in your own block when that logic escaped many of us.
My loving friends don't know that they cut me more slack than they should. And I kind of tricked us. Well, I tricked myself and some good people who like me fell for it.
I posted something(s) that could make a person feel accused. That’s all the logic to my block. In my past I had received PCBs. Those are for the noobs who are afforded some leniency for being unfamiliar with the axiom of the “civil” universe.
There is escalation of the severity of sanctions for each poster’s civil violations’ repetitions sorta: Rephrase, Be Civil, then Block 1 week, Block 2 weeks, et cetera.
On the particular subject I touched, I had been banned twice before already, and should therefore reasonably expect to be banned for going there after my previous experience. I called this “complicated”. It is not complicated if I don’t go there. I felt I should make that parallel with Dr. Bob’s handling of the reduction of Lar’s block. They are the only two times we have been informed of block reductions.
Then I let myself believe that what I was posting was below the radar for being able to possibly make someone feel accused. (“It’s not that bad, Jim.”) I was wrong, in more ways than one of course, but besides my indulgent self-deception, I had not understood the nature of “civil” here. Here, “civil” is an absolute. There are no degrees of “civil”. Almost every statement either could or could not make a person feel accused. It is either possible or it is not. If something is capable of making a person feel even the slightest accused, it is not “civil”. What I posted was not “civil” and I was blocked. Trying to make the comparison and contrast to Larry’s virtuousness was too tempting to avoid. This made it seem “complicated”.
You also wrote:
> So, to put a positive spin on it:
The brutal truth (about people) is nearly always uncivil.
>> but the simple truth doesn't need to beIndeed. “Civil”’s limitation on the truth only disallows accusations and insults, no matter how true or justified those accusations or insults may be. This still leaves a vast territory for truth(s) to work.
> The truth is like any other powerful tool: it can be used as a weapon
>> but it doesn't have to be.Indeed, again. No tool has to be a weapon. It is hoped that here in the land of “civil”, weapons would not be necessary. Since offense is illegal, no offensive weapons are allowed. However I keep my defensive weapons sharp. That would be my skepticism. Very little is what it seems.
> Welcome back
Thank you.
> - you are a shining star on a foggy night.
I wouldn’t want to make anyone feel accused or put down, you know, but I feel we need to work on your night there or I am going to really have to get cracking on my shining here. I mean, I am not worthy. And thanks.
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 3:34:19
In reply to re: thoughts (not TOOOOO long for me either.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 13:35:44
Hi Spoc,
> ....but everything's relative.
I *think* we are referring to the ... "not too long" part?
> I just wanted to add that from my vantage point, the issue was not whether it is safe to deliver truths.
Okay.
> That the essence ... was the very variance in interpretation of what passed and didn't pass itself; occurring in patterns either for or against; and not always related to any identifiable degree of offense or nature of offense. And that whether someone had received previous admonishments or even numerous previous admonishments did not consistently get used as the foundation for future administrative actions. That of course there will be some degree of oversight and some degree of inconsistency, as administration is not performed by a computer program. But that the degree of variance could be seen to be considerably greater than that explainable by chance.
Yeah, some people feel Dr. Bob has been unfair, right?
> Now, ok, like Jimi said, I *can* see where the subject matter being handled at the time of his block could be seen as hazardous under the principles he has just espoused. And in that way, that it could be concluded that that kind of thing is best avoided. But that is only one of many types of subjects or purposes being engaged in at the times blocks or reprimands are handed down -- or aren't, inexplicably. 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. And Larry's case is very different from mine. It is both more complicated and more involved. We are thankful that he may plead his own case now, so I won't.
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.
> 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?> Know that I was encouraged by the recent evidence that change is possible (while I would enjoy hearing something about what, if any, general impact it will have, because that has implications too. But I'm just not curious or motivated enough to ask). And I appreciate the apologies given in some senses. So I don't want to take away from any of that and I'm even satisfied to say that I'll have faith for now that something did happen here and things will indeed get more consistent. But I just wouldn't feel quite right leaving this at having been a matter of realizing what the causative factor almost always is, and the simplicity of now being able to avoid it. I think there was more to it than that.
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.
And I in no way beleive that my explication resolves issues that Larry has/had/may have/continues to have/ whatever with the administration.
Now, are we hearing each other here, Spoc? I can miss some things... lots of things.
take care pal,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 3:54:29
In reply to re: thoughts (not long at all.....), posted by spoc on June 18, 2004, at 17:48:48
i think you are right.
~ j
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 4:09:56
In reply to re: thoughts, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2004, at 19:56:07
Hi Dr. Bob,
you wrote:
> Isn't this a great group of people? :-)Yes.
> > it is easy to imagine perfectly justified ... ...
> > [ ... ]
> > ... ... sense and that's cool.
>
> I really appreciate your reflecting on all this and sharing your insights, thanks.You're welcome.
> > I could imagine that it might be helpful if posters could be informed of time frames for an administration response, if only provisionally or even very speculatively.
>
> That's a good point. I'll try to respond within a couple days?Okay.
> But I get tied up sometimes, and run into technical difficulties sometimes, and need time to think about it sometimes.
Easily understood.
> If you don't hear back from me, bug me about it?
And easily done. The offer to bug you is appreciated.
I was really imagining you posting something about your time frame expectations/ limitations when posters are anticipating an administrative response, even if in the vaguest of terms, but this will work too.
> Welcome back,
>
> BobThank you,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on June 20, 2004, at 4:32:13
In reply to re: About Zen, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2004, at 20:39:22
Hi, Dr. Bob,
Larry's Block Reduction was broached here ... ... because ...
Was Larry's Block Reduction broached here because of his request for his block to be reduced? Something else?
Anyway, Shar, I, et al want to know how consideration of reducing Zen's block can be initiated now. If, as Shar has implied, Zen has asked for your consideration of reducing her block, what is the administrative process for ... ...
What's the next step?
What else can we do I get Zen's block reduced?Once again being presumptive, presumming Zen has made the initial request to you and presumming this IS the next step in the consideration of reducing her block:
I think it would be really great to exercise the moderator's flexibility to Zen's benefit and allow her to come back right away. Please.
Alternatively, please show us the way to the next step.
Thanks,
~ jim
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
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 20, 2004, at 8:40:49
In reply to re: About Sit down strikers » TofuEmmy, posted by Shar on June 20, 2004, at 1:21:41
I misunderstood....there is apparently ONE sweet sitter named KK.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040619/msgs/358111.html
Can you imagine a more wonderful use for that seat? Em
Posted by Shar on June 20, 2004, at 22:24:56
In reply to re: About Sit down strikers » Shar, posted by TofuEmmy on June 20, 2004, at 8:40:49
TE,
Thanks for the link; I don't go to social too often so I missed it. I also hope Bob sees it.And, I agree, KK is a sweetie of the first order and a valuable asset to us Babblers. What an original and compassionate way to express solidarity and support for Zen.
Thank you, KK!
And, TE!Shar
Posted by lil' jimi on June 21, 2004, at 1:37:00
In reply to re: thoughts (word count assessment relative) » lil' jimi, posted by spoc on June 20, 2004, at 5:52:24
Hi Spoc,
Earlier I had written:
> > Hi, Mel,
> > Forgive me, but I must ignore your double entendre subject line. We need to keep it administrative here, you know.You have replied:
> <<<< 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! ;- )Your wink is much appreciated. I must hope Auntie Mel is not offended. Joking is a delicate thing in the land of "civil". Humor here has to not let anyone feel accused nor put down. There are a great many things which are funny which are not "civil", nor civil.
Please don't say "anatomical".
Ha!> > 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.>
> <<<<<< 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.I did leave that open to misinterpretation. "Civil"-experienced posters can and do receive PCBs. On my model of "civil", this can happen when the vet's infraction either:
1) Involves a new subject or thread for the vet;
2) Is somehow an especially technical or possibly inadvertent transgression;
3) Or so much time has elapsed since the previous infraction that everyone has forgotten it.
4) The moderator may be feeling flexible?This is where my "A poster’s history determines their rating and details of a poster's history with a specific subject impacts the poster's rating with that subject." includes the part about "a specific subject" see? A new subject can start it's own new poster rating and begin with newbie sanctions for the vet violator.
....
> > > Ya know, you'd think there would have been a psychological study by now on the effect of randomness on the efficacy of punishment! ;- )
> > ... ... the effort to increase consistency has not been seen as a priority.Oh, I think it is 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.I see one of the challenges in trying to assess consistency of enforcement is trying to make these comparisons among different "civil" infractions. It is all too easy to compare apples to oranges. Say a total tyro signs on and proceeds to go off on one of my favorite subjects. This newbie will get a PCB. If I were to say the same thing, I will be banned for 4 weeks. This is fair because I have been warned and banned before about our imaginary subject and the newbie is just learning the ropes. To know how consistent , how fair any given pB sanction is would require a thorough rundown of the given posters' past babble sanctions. I am not vigorous enough to do that myself.
> > 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 hear you. It is imaginable that folks here would see the effort I have made here, maybe decide I'm a nice, well-meaning guy, maybe like me, want to pull for me, whatever, and then read what I post and don't really detect any malicious intent nor attack mentality in an otherwise reasoned argument. I get blocked. It seems precipitious, severe, merciless. And people want me to be cut some slack because I'm a nice guy and I didn't do that much harm.
With my humblest apologies to every one of my sweet supporters, it doesn't work that way here. And, I have a history. And, I have (have had) every reason to know better.
**Could** someone feel accused by what I posted? Yes. *Poof!* I get banned. In the pB Universe, "civil" is that simple.
> 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.
Yeah, I failed to make that clear. I think that offended some of my friends. I can see where that interpretation was possible and I regret that.There are some aspects to this analysis of the consistency of enforcement which are generally applicable. Nothing about anything I said resolves everybody's issues. I'd like to offer them as tools for analyzing issues of enforcement fairness. They may not work. But they have resolved any controversy about my blocks.
But these tools not only fail to be any absolution for unfairness issues in any general terms, but there may well be issues about fairness at babble that my consistency analysis does not address at all.
There is much to be done yet.
> 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.
excellent!
>
> > i think you are right.
> >
> > ~ j
>
> <<<<< And I think you are brilliant and astute. ;- )
>
> Good to see you, and you take care too! :- DYou're going to have to teach me about the emoticons. I have always avoided them before. Thanks for your compliments. You flatter me.
see ya,
~ jim
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.