![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 30. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Voce on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:45
In reply to Re: blocked for week » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on January 9, 2006, at 0:00:52
Wait I'm confused.
Alex didn't post to her in the subject line.
So even if you don't post to the person in the subject line but say words meant for them, that they may or may not read, that's against the rule?
Just wondering....Voce
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:45
In reply to Re: blocked for week » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on January 9, 2006, at 0:00:52
Dr. Bob
This is at least the t hird time Alex has broken the D.N.P rule.. exactly the same way, including the apology.
Why still only one week?
I don't want more, I don't want more than that for just about anyone.
I'm wondering about the inconsistancy.
Theresa went from one week to 3 for different "incivilites"
Larry Got 6 weeks, for posting to someone who asked him not to post to her, and doing that only ONCE
Alex does the same thing repeatedly and her block stays at one week..
Why?
..
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:45
In reply to Re: blocked for week » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on January 9, 2006, at 0:00:52
I thought Alexandra's "apology" appeared to be made to the board at large, and technically ok under the rules. She made it in response to her own post, she didn't use "you", she didn't check the previous poster's name, and if she had, it would have been her own. She mentioned only her own behavior.
It looked to me like she followed the DNP rules. What could be done differently? Should she have addressed the apology to you, as administrator, for any disruption? Should she have started a new thread addressed to the board apologizing in general for her behavior on a specific instance or in general?
Did the block have anything to do with babblemails referred to in a post that I didn't quite understand since I only see what's on the board?
It would seem a shame if someone can't express remorse for their actions, if not to the poster in question, then at least to the universe.
Posted by wildcard on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:46
In reply to Another technical question » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 8:38:14
I must say that it is very possible to stay within the stated civility rule walking so close to the bordering grey area that it appears to many that you stepped over. Just my thought.
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:46
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 9, 2006, at 9:08:37
I don't think it's a very good thing for people to not be allowed to express regret while still able to stay within the civility guidelines.
Posted by wildcard on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:46
In reply to Re: Another technical question » wildcard, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 9:11:10
I see what you mean. It's good to be big enough to apologise, however when any behavior is repeated and an apology seems to make it okay, I think that is abit unfair. Just my take on it re: of who the person is.
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:46
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 9, 2006, at 9:16:53
I frequently find myself expressing regret for the same behaviors.
I think it's because we've got a tendency to do the same things over and over out of habit and natural tendencies, rather than think up new things to do.
The purpose isn't necessarily to get around any rules, or to be forgiven. In fact, in this case it couldn't have been because no rules had been broken at the time the post expressing regret was written.
Posted by wildcard on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:46
In reply to Re: Another technical question » wildcard, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 9:22:13
Well then why did DBob put the block on this person, especially after they repeatedly said he is fair and does the best he can? It's obvious that Alex and I disagree a lot but I'm only asking b/c when I read that thread, I thought the apology was directed at the original poster (not saying that's good or bad) and that a dnp means re: of what you have to say you cannot post to them. No it didn't say to~Ct but she as well as DB thought so...Just wondered.
Posted by wildcard on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:47
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 9, 2006, at 9:33:55
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this block is not seen as fair. That is what a lot of the posts on this board are about~fairness.
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:47
In reply to Re: Another technical question » wildcard, posted by wildcard on January 9, 2006, at 9:43:55
That's why I am asking for clarification. The block doesn't seem to be congruent with past practices, and I was trying to figure out where I'm misunderstanding the rules.
Posted by Voce on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:47
In reply to Another technical question » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 8:38:14
> I thought Alexandra's "apology" appeared to be made to the board at large, and technically ok under the rules. She made it in response to her own post, she didn't use "you", she didn't check the previous poster's name, and if she had, it would have been her own. She mentioned only her own behavior.
>
> It looked to me like she followed the DNP rules. What could be done differently? Should she have addressed the apology to you, as administrator, for any disruption? Should she have started a new thread addressed to the board apologizing in general for her behavior on a specific instance or in general?
>
> Did the block have anything to do with babblemails referred to in a post that I didn't quite understand since I only see what's on the board?
>
> It would seem a shame if someone can't express remorse for their actions, if not to the poster in question, then at least to the universe.>
Dinah--thanks for wording that better than I could.
Voce
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 10, 2006, at 1:15:47
In reply to Re: Another technical question » wildcard, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 9:22:13
Well Pop my balloon of self-righteousness..
I didn't read the thread, I just read the post from Dr. Bob.
That's a good point, or question Dinah.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 3:00:01
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 9, 2006, at 9:33:55
> So even if you don't post to the person in the subject line but say words meant for them, that they may or may not read, that's against the rule?
>
> VoceYes, if words are "meant for" someone then I think I'd consider them "to" them...
> I thought Alexandra's "apology" appeared to be made to the board at large
>
> Dinah> when I read that thread, I thought the apology was directed at the original poster
>
> wildcard> This is at least the t hird time Alex has broken the D.N.P rule.. exactly the same way, including the apology.
>
> Why still only one week?
>
> Gabbix2Well, I don't have a formula, but it was somewhat unclear to whom she was posting, she was expressing remorse, I hadn't increased Larry's block...
Bob
Posted by crazy teresa on January 10, 2006, at 7:24:02
In reply to Re: Another technical question, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 3:00:01
So it's ok to send babblemail to a poster who's asked you not to post to them?
Posted by AuntieMel on January 10, 2006, at 8:15:28
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dr. Bob, posted by crazy teresa on January 10, 2006, at 7:24:02
Doesn't a DNP mean no babblemail?
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 9:42:24
In reply to Re: Another technical question, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 3:00:01
Well, that didn't exactly answer the intent of my question. Which is that if one has inadvertantly offended another, and been asked not to post to that person, but wishes to express regret, in general, and not by posting to that person, for their part in any discord on the board, how would one go about it?
Because Alexandra seemed to be saying "I'm sorry that sometimes I ...", and I can't see how it's in the best interests of the board to not allow expressions of regret at least to the board in general.
But then people get in trouble for it. :(
Now babblemailing is different altogether. I think babblemailing after a DNP should have the same effect as posting after a DNP.
But that doesn't change my original question.
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 9:48:12
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dinah, posted by Gabbix2 on January 9, 2006, at 16:17:39
:)
The point may be moot, but it's still a point that I'm interested in learning the answer to.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 10, 2006, at 12:07:21
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 9:48:12
Oww
My head hurts. Dr. bob is one of two people who can do that to my head..make it feel like it's being twisted in directions it should not go..
I think the non-comittal answers work.
That way no one can come back and say "But you said on this day..."
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 17:47:49
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dinah, posted by Gabbix2 on January 10, 2006, at 12:07:21
True enough. But it does make conversing difficult with him!
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 10, 2006, at 17:53:57
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 17:47:49
: )
Well, I kind of meant they work for Dr. Bob..
As for conversing with him..
That's what I meant about my headbeing twisted in directions it should not go.. ~~: >[Actually I gave up e-mailing him once about my Block. Dr. Bob was quite willing to keep going.
But it was more painful to try to get an answer than it was to just settle for the block.
I think he KNOWS..*insert maniacal Bob laughter*
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 10, 2006, at 18:01:07
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 17:47:49
I actually dated a man who was like that. Though he was more..indecisive.
I really did. I had to leave the room if he was making a decision with someone else because it was too hard to listen to.It's much easier in person. You can hold up flash cards that say "YES" "NO" and they must only choose *one*.
You also have a lot more leverage, they can't slither out of it .. because you can grab them by the hair and stuff ...
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 18:04:02
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dinah, posted by Gabbix2 on January 10, 2006, at 18:01:07
You're right. I usually throw up my hands and give up way before I "finish" a conversation with Dr. Bob.
I'm getting better, though. There was a time when I'd persevere until I was batty. Now I give up early on.
(I can't imagine dating someone like that. If it lasted long, you must have been an absolute saint.)
Posted by crazy teresa on January 10, 2006, at 20:11:52
In reply to Re: I would like this answered, too, posted by AuntieMel on January 10, 2006, at 8:15:28
That's what I've been trying to get answer on for a couple of days now!
I really would like to know the answer the question.
How is it helpful to anyone when the communication gap is like the Gand Canyon?
It only adds to the frustration here.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 10, 2006, at 22:08:39
In reply to Re: Another technical question, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 3:00:01
I can understand that if someone receives a DNP from another, they might wish to say they were sorry. In alex's case, this resulted in a block, I assume from her post. We still don't know the answer to the babblemail question.
Anywho, what if a poster started a new thread, say on Admin or Social and apologized there? It could be a "standard" and safe way to apologize without directing any words or posts to the person who requested the DNP. Maybe allow them one post to say "I'm sorry" wihtout referring to the other.
Any thoughts on this or alternatives?
Maybe an Apologies Board? ;) No replies, just all apologies all the time. No wait, that might bring out behavior I'm trying to quash. Phooey.
Sorry.
D'oh!
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 23:25:14
In reply to Re: Another technical question » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 9:42:24
> So it's ok to send babblemail to a poster who's asked you not to post to them?
>
> crazy teresaMy guess is that if someone doesn't want to be posted to, they probably don't want to be babblemailed, either. But they could always specify otherwise.
--
> Well, that didn't exactly answer the intent of my question. Which is that if one has inadvertantly offended another, and been asked not to post to that person, but wishes to express regret, in general, and not by posting to that person, for their part in any discord on the board, how would one go about it?
>
> Because Alexandra seemed to be saying "I'm sorry that sometimes I ...", and I can't see how it's in the best interests of the board to not allow expressions of regret at least to the board in general.
>
> DinahThanks for not giving up. :-)
Maybe one way to operationalize it would be, *could* the post be read as being to the poster who asked not to be posted to? If so, then it's not clearly to the board in general. For example:
i never meant to hurt you
- is clearly to the posteri never meant to hurt
- is ambiguous, and the poster could feel posted toi never meant to hurt her
- is clearly to the board in generalBob
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.