![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 23 of 23. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Miller on April 14, 2003, at 15:32:00
Dr Bob,
I have been trying my best to think of a way to a solution to our current problems regarding other posters.
This is my thought: when people are not civil, you block them. Is there any way that a person to be set up to "block" another poster for two days at a time?
Example: Miller and Justyourlaugh are having heated postings. Miller says something that really hurts JYL but isn't necessarily uncivil. JYL could go into a designated part of the web page that would require from JYL to state that she is blocking Miller from posting to her. The blocking would, of course, not be valid towards you are any of your deputies.
In two days time, Miller and JYL have both calmed down. Miller apologizes and JYL accepts. They live happily ever after.
Or...in two days time Miller senda another barb JYL's way and she blocks for another 2 days.
I understand what you are saying about threads leading to other places. But, if a person is sending another into a hurtful state, they shouldn;t be allowed to continue. They always have the option to start another thread on the same subject.
I know it would be a lot of work on your part, but we are worth it, right? :)
I am just thinking about when I first started. It was such a mess. If I, or anybody else, would have been blocked (by you) over it, the results may have been really bad. As it happened, we all lived happily ever after. (Until this crisis.)
Sincerely,
-Miller
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 16:02:10
In reply to Dr. Bob-- a thought..., posted by Miller on April 14, 2003, at 15:32:00
> I have been trying my best to think of a way to a solution to our current problems regarding other posters.
Thanks, the more ideas, the better!
> This is my thought: when people are not civil, you block them. Is there any way that a person to be set up to "block" another poster for two days at a time?
>
> Example: Miller and Justyourlaugh are having heated postings. Miller says something that really hurts JYL but isn't necessarily uncivil. JYL could go into a designated part of the web page that would require from JYL to state that she is blocking Miller from posting to her.You wouldn't be able to post to her, or you wouldn't be able to post to anyone? And it would be a system that wouldn't let you post to her (like the one for people I block), rather than just a request that would be up to you to honor or not?
If you mean an automatic system that would keep you from posting to her specifically, I think it would be hard for the server to tell if a post by you is to her or not...
> In two days time, Miller and JYL have both calmed down. Miller apologizes and JYL accepts. They live happily ever after.
Even with the policy as it's current form, you could still apologize in a general way. It just couldn't be directed to her. Although I guess you could also just direct it to her and hope she didn't object to an apology...
> I know it would be a lot of work on your part, but we are worth it, right? :)
You sure are! :-)
> I am just thinking about when I first started. It was such a mess. If I, or anybody else, would have been blocked (by you) over it, the results may have been really bad. As it happened, we all lived happily ever after.
Thanks for putting yourself in the shoes of someone who might be blocked,
Bob
Posted by Miller on April 14, 2003, at 16:47:37
In reply to Re: block another poster for two days, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 16:02:10
Well, I really don't think it should be so hard for the server. The reason being is that the server is now able to FIND posts designated for a specific person, right?
My thought wasn't that another person could block someone from posting altogether, just to them directly.
As far as being on "an honor system" to respect the request, I thought that is the problem we are now having; that people aren't respecting those requests. So, no, I wasn't thinking of an "honor system". I was thinking a system such as yours that the program simply won't let the blocked poster enter a message to a designated person.
If a person was as forward as to post a seperate message on a thread not designated to the harmed party, it would then be up to you to decide if the post was uncivil.
Does this make sense to you? I'm not confused, but I may be confusing you.
Anyway, my whole point is to leave the situation as much in our hands as possible. I think of it kind of like a situation of a teacher/student. It hurts more to be reprimanded by a teacher than it does by your peers.
-Miller
> > I have been trying my best to think of a way to a solution to our current problems regarding other posters.
>
> Thanks, the more ideas, the better!
>
> > This is my thought: when people are not civil, you block them. Is there any way that a person to be set up to "block" another poster for two days at a time?
> >
> > Example: Miller and Justyourlaugh are having heated postings. Miller says something that really hurts JYL but isn't necessarily uncivil. JYL could go into a designated part of the web page that would require from JYL to state that she is blocking Miller from posting to her.
>
> You wouldn't be able to post to her, or you wouldn't be able to post to anyone? And it would be a system that wouldn't let you post to her (like the one for people I block), rather than just a request that would be up to you to honor or not?
>
> If you mean an automatic system that would keep you from posting to her specifically, I think it would be hard for the server to tell if a post by you is to her or not...
>
> > In two days time, Miller and JYL have both calmed down. Miller apologizes and JYL accepts. They live happily ever after.
>
> Even with the policy as it's current form, you could still apologize in a general way. It just couldn't be directed to her. Although I guess you could also just direct it to her and hope she didn't object to an apology...
>
> > I know it would be a lot of work on your part, but we are worth it, right? :)
>
> You sure are! :-)
>
> > I am just thinking about when I first started. It was such a mess. If I, or anybody else, would have been blocked (by you) over it, the results may have been really bad. As it happened, we all lived happily ever after.
>
> Thanks for putting yourself in the shoes of someone who might be blocked,
>
> Bob
Posted by justyourlaugh on April 14, 2003, at 17:23:02
In reply to Re: block another poster for two days, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 16:02:10
you got something you want to say to me girlfriend?lol
love
Posted by stjames on April 14, 2003, at 18:32:07
In reply to Re: block another poster for two days, posted by Miller on April 14, 2003, at 16:47:37
> Well, I really don't think it should be so hard for the server. The reason being is that the server is now able to FIND posts designated for a specific person, right?
This can only find posts that the user has flagged for you, not all posts are flagged that way.
I think users need self control and if they don't have this it is a mistake to program it in.
Posted by Dreamerz on April 14, 2003, at 20:06:03
In reply to Re: block another poster for two days, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 16:02:10
Darling Bob sweetypie...
Is this mensa?
I'm lost...but never mind.kiss
Posted by Dinah on April 14, 2003, at 21:03:58
In reply to Re: block another poster for two days, posted by Miller on April 14, 2003, at 16:47:37
> It hurts more to be reprimanded by a teacher than it does by your peers.
>
> -MillerDid you really find that, Miller? I think it was the opposite for me. Not that I ever got in huge trouble with teachers, but I did get my share of reprimands for talking too much and the like. I did get pretty upset the time the teacher put tape on my mouth, that felt like excessive punishment, but for the most part I took it that that was their job.
But a reprimand from a peer would have been different entirely. Both because a peer would lack the authority of a teacher and because a peer would be more likely to be angry or something if they reprimanded.
I like the set up here. Dr. Bob sets the rules and enforces them without emotion (or visible emotion anyway), leaving us free to be supportive to each other. I tend to get more angry if Dr. Bob doesn't tend to things.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2003, at 12:01:13
In reply to Re: block another poster for two days, posted by stjames on April 14, 2003, at 18:32:07
> Well, I really don't think it should be so hard for the server. The reason being is that the server is now able to FIND posts designated for a specific person, right?
As James said, the server could stop you if you clicked "add name of previous poster", but if you didn't, how would it know?
> As far as being on "an honor system" to respect the request, I thought that is the problem we are now having; that people aren't respecting those requests.
I'm not sure we've really tried out the new system yet. If someone doesn't respect a request, and the person who made the request tells me:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/216665.html
then I can block (or warn) them the old way.
> Anyway, my whole point is to leave the situation as much in our hands as possible.
That's one thing that's different about this policy, it wouldn't be me deciding what constitutes harassment, it would be you...
Bob
Posted by jane d on April 15, 2003, at 15:54:43
In reply to Re: block another poster for two days, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2003, at 12:01:13
I'm still in favor of people removing themselves rather than other people. What if the current anti addiction limits could be set for multiple days? 1/2 a refresh per day = 2 days for instance. It would probably have to be separate menu option since you'd want it to automatically reset to nothing after the time was up. And perhaps if it was on a separate screen you could display the names of those who have chosen to block themselves since it seems most people want to make sure that the fact that they are not posting is noticed.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2003, at 1:30:36
In reply to Re: make a multi day anti addiction limit?, posted by jane d on April 15, 2003, at 15:54:43
> I'm still in favor of people removing themselves rather than other people.
Me, too, but I think we've seen that that has its limits...
> What if the current anti addiction limits could be set for multiple days? 1/2 a refresh per day = 2 days for instance. It would probably have to be separate menu option since you'd want it to automatically reset to nothing after the time was up.
Do you think that there's a need for that? That there are people who want to do that?
> And perhaps if it was on a separate screen you could display the names of those who have chosen to block themselves since it seems most people want to make sure that the fact that they are not posting is noticed.
Blocking themselves in this case means setting an anti-addiction limit to less than 1 per day? Being listed would be required, or optional?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 3:39:30
In reply to Re: make a multi day anti addiction limit?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2003, at 1:30:36
Actually, Dr. Bob, your current anti-addiction limit doesn't work at all. While I blocked myself several times, I was able to get around that with the greatest of ease. I don't remember how now, but it wouldn't be hard to figure out.
BTW, my cookies didn't clear either when I used the office computer when my husband had my power cord.
I think anti-addiction measures work only as well as the resolve of the Babbler.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2003, at 11:19:28
In reply to Re: make a multi day anti addiction limit? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 3:39:30
> Actually, Dr. Bob, your current anti-addiction limit doesn't work at all. While I blocked myself several times, I was able to get around that with the greatest of ease. I don't remember how now, but it wouldn't be hard to figure out.
I know, it's designed to be easy to cancel...
> I think anti-addiction measures work only as well as the resolve of the Babbler.
Well, I think they might help that resolve go a little further, but you're right, the person has to want to quit.
> BTW, my cookies didn't clear either when I used the office computer when my husband had my power cord.
Hmm, you tried to clear them, and your name still showed up automatically? What version of what browser were you using? And I assume it was on Windows?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 11:31:15
In reply to Re: anti addiction limit and cookies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2003, at 11:19:28
It was internet explorer, and I'm not sure about my name popping up. But if I went to the temporary internet files, it still said my email address and something about dr-bob.org. I had to make sure I went in and deleted them.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2003, at 23:50:56
In reply to Re: anti addiction limit and cookies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 11:31:15
> It was internet explorer, and I'm not sure about my name popping up. But if I went to the temporary internet files, it still said my email address and something about dr-bob.org. I had to make sure I went in and deleted them.
Hmm, was IE still open when you checked your temporary files? FYI, you can also check your cookies at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/cookies.pl
Bob
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 4:43:48
In reply to Re: make a multi day anti addiction limit?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2003, at 1:30:36
Couldn't you just block people that request it the same way you block other people? It doesn't seem like there would be so many people requesting it that it would be a lot of work. Maybe have a minimum time like a week so you wouldn't have people requesting to be blocked and unblocked over and over. And people could just post on Admin saying Self Blocked for 2 weeks or whatever they wanted .
I wish there was some way you could block people who request it from reading as well as posting.
>
> Do you think that there's a need for that? That there are people who want to do that?
>
> > And perhaps if it was on a separate screen you could display the names of those who have chosen to block themselves since it seems most people want to make sure that the fact that they are not posting is noticed.
>
> Blocking themselves in this case means setting an anti-addiction limit to less than 1 per day? Being listed would be required, or optional?
>
> Bob
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 8:45:05
In reply to Re: make a multi day anti addiction limit?, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 4:43:48
I'm willing to test this for you and report back :) I'd like six weeks please sir. Thanks.
> Couldn't you just block people that request it the same way you block other people? It doesn't seem like there would be so many people requesting it that it would be a lot of work. Maybe have a minimum time like a week so you wouldn't have people requesting to be blocked and unblocked over and over. And people could just post on Admin saying Self Blocked for 2 weeks or whatever they wanted .
>
> I wish there was some way you could block people who request it from reading as well as posting.
>
>
> >
> > Do you think that there's a need for that? That there are people who want to do that?
> >
> > > And perhaps if it was on a separate screen you could display the names of those who have chosen to block themselves since it seems most people want to make sure that the fact that they are not posting is noticed.
> >
> > Blocking themselves in this case means setting an anti-addiction limit to less than 1 per day? Being listed would be required, or optional?
> >
> > Bob
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2003, at 9:26:51
In reply to Re: make a multi day anti addiction limit?, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 4:43:48
> Couldn't you just block people that request it the same way you block other people?
I think it would work just to set the anti-addiction limit to zero...
Bob
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 12:20:11
In reply to Re: Self Blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2003, at 9:26:51
> > Couldn't you just block people that request it the same way you block other people?
>
> I think it would work just to set the anti-addiction limit to zero...
>
> BobNo I've already pardoned myself once. If it's going to work the on and off switch needs to disappear after you set it. Otherwise it might be a reminder but it's really not a barrier to posting.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2003, at 13:02:50
In reply to Re: Self Blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 12:20:11
> If it's going to work the on and off switch needs to disappear after you set it. Otherwise it might be a reminder but it's really not a barrier to posting.
But the thing is, it's hard to create a real barrier, since someone can always just register under a new name...
Bob
Posted by noa on April 20, 2003, at 2:11:01
In reply to Re: Self Blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on April 19, 2003, at 13:02:50
>But the thing is, it's hard to create a real barrier, since someone can always just register under a new name...
Bob, I would assume this isn't a problem limited to "self-blocks", but is also an issue with blocks you execute.
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 20, 2003, at 15:28:08
In reply to Re: Self Blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by noa on April 20, 2003, at 2:11:01
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 20, 2003, at 16:57:37
In reply to Reinventing myself might be a good option (nm), posted by Oddipus Rex on April 20, 2003, at 15:28:08
I WILL NEVER LEAVE BABBLE!
So Hello forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've noticed that people who say they're leaving always come back so I am trying this to see if the opposite is also true.
Posted by Dinah on April 20, 2003, at 17:27:38
In reply to I will never stop posting at Babble never ever , posted by Oddipus Rex on April 20, 2003, at 16:57:37
This is the end of the 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.