![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jane D on January 13, 2002, at 16:09:50
This is a response to a thread on psycho babble at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89940.html
Let's hear it for mob rule!Like Dinah I remember middle school without much fondness. "If you are friends with X you can't be my friend". "If you don't help me attack Y I will attack you". "If you don't agree with everything I say we are not friends". For those of you who haven't lived thru it (some people say that it is mainly a "girl thing") - trust me - it's brutal and counterproductive. Today's corporate culture shows you a very watered down version (and is also counterproductive).
THE ORIGINAL POST from JohnX2 and was replied to by Dinah
From JohnX2:
> >
> > Hi Big Brother,
> >
> > Over on the Silicon Investor Newsgroup,
> > you should see the complete and utter disregard
> > of courteousy shown towards others. Yet many of the
> > groups are well monitored using a DEMOCRATIC process
> > whereby the users of the group vote whether or not
> > to ban someone fom posting from the newsgroup.
> > Until this policy or some other non Orwellean
> > process is adopted, I will no longer be posting
> > to psycho-babble. Things have gotton out of hand.
> >
> > good day,
> > john.From Dinah:
>
> I just got a terrible flashback to middle school and high school. Sometimes "democratic" doesn't mean fair. Why would a "democratic" poll be any better than Dr. Bob simply posting the rules and enforcing them? Most people who are blocked realize in advance that they will be blocked, whether for incivility or for violating the illegal drugs source policy. Fair warning is given. So you might say these people choose to block themselves in order to make a point. Fair enough. They have the right to do so, although the offending posts might be deleted and so the point might never be made.
> Yes, you might say, but the majority will have decided on the rules and who gets blocked, so the majority will be better off. This brings me back to my school memories. The majority may be better off, but who will protect the minority? This site is also supposed to be supportive for those people who don't necessarily subscribe to the majority view. Currently it is. And I am one vulnerable and often minority view babbler who hopes that the site will always remain that way.
> Just my humble opinion.
> Dinah
>
> Incidentally, this is really a PB Admin discussion, and I suppose I should have posted this there and provided a link, but I really don't know how to do that. Is there a tutorial?
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2002, at 18:36:14
In reply to Re: take a poll if someone should be blocked! - NO, posted by Jane D on January 13, 2002, at 16:09:50
> This is a response to a thread on psycho babble at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89940.html
>
>
> Let's hear it for mob rule!
>
> Like Dinah I remember middle school without much fondness. "If you are friends with X you can't be my friend". "If you don't help me attack Y I will attack you". "If you don't agree with everything I say we are not friends". For those of you who haven't lived thru it (some people say that it is mainly a "girl thing") - trust me - it's brutal and counterproductive. Today's corporate culture shows you a very watered down version (and is also counterproductive).
>
> THE ORIGINAL POST from JohnX2 and was replied to by Dinah
>
> From JohnX2:
> > >
> > > Hi Big Brother,
> > >
> > > Over on the Silicon Investor Newsgroup,
> > > you should see the complete and utter disregard
> > > of courteousy shown towards others. Yet many of the
> > > groups are well monitored using a DEMOCRATIC process
> > > whereby the users of the group vote whether or not
> > > to ban someone fom posting from the newsgroup.
> > > Until this policy or some other non Orwellean
> > > process is adopted, I will no longer be posting
> > > to psycho-babble. Things have gotton out of hand.
> > >
> > > good day,
> > > john.
>
> From Dinah:
>
> >
> > I just got a terrible flashback to middle school and high school. Sometimes "democratic" doesn't mean fair. Why would a "democratic" poll be any better than Dr. Bob simply posting the rules and enforcing them? Most people who are blocked realize in advance that they will be blocked, whether for incivility or for violating the illegal drugs source policy. Fair warning is given. So you might say these people choose to block themselves in order to make a point. Fair enough. They have the right to do so, although the offending posts might be deleted and so the point might never be made.
> > Yes, you might say, but the majority will have decided on the rules and who gets blocked, so the majority will be better off. This brings me back to my school memories. The majority may be better off, but who will protect the minority? This site is also supposed to be supportive for those people who don't necessarily subscribe to the majority view. Currently it is. And I am one vulnerable and often minority view babbler who hopes that the site will always remain that way.
> > Just my humble opinion.
> > Dinah
> >
> > Incidentally, this is really a PB Admin discussion, and I suppose I should have posted this there and provided a link, but I really don't know how to do that. Is there a tutorial?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 20:32:04
In reply to Re: take a poll if someone should be blocked! - NO, posted by Jane D on January 13, 2002, at 16:09:50
> Over on the Silicon Investor Newsgroup,
> you should see the complete and utter disregard
> of courteousy shown towards others. Yet many of the
> groups are well monitored using a DEMOCRATIC process
> whereby the users of the group vote whether or not
> to ban someone fom posting from the newsgroup.
>
> JohnX2There are multiple groups there, some with complete and utter disregard of courtesy, but others that are well-monitored? And the former don't have that democratic system, but the latter do? So it's the system that makes the difference?
I've wondered about a more democratic system, but there are a couple issues:
1. How would it work, practically speaking? Someone would "nominate" someone for blocking? There would be a page to vote at? People wouldn't be able to vote more than once? The page would take votes for a set period of time?
What about people with more than one posting name? What about people who register just to vote?
2. I also have a division-of-labor philosophy. If members of the community focus on support, and I focus on administration, both the support and the administration will be better. This is something I tried to say in that article:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
3. Is the issue that these boards aren't monitored well, or that they're not monitored democratically?
--------
> The majority may be better off, but who will protect the minority? This site is also supposed to be supportive for those people who don't necessarily subscribe to the majority view. Currently it is.
>
> DinahWhen I was looking around for that "eternal vigilance" quote, I came upon another:
> I believe ... that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society; that action ... by representatives chosen immediately and removable by [citizens], constitutes the essence of a republic... These, my friend, are the essentials in which you and I agree; however, in our zeal for their maintenance, we may be perplexed and divaricate as to the structure of society most likely to secure them. --Thomas Jefferson, 1816
> http://www.britannica.com/elections/pri/Q00073.htmlI do worry that a majority might "abuse its strength". Since I'm not removable, this might not qualify as a republic, but I guess we can still be perplexed and divaricate. :-)
--------
> As I understand clinical research, when patients are chosen to participate in a study, first they must meet certain criteria in order to be considered as possible candidates. Once they meet those criteria, however, shouldn't anyone who meets those criteria be allowed to participate, regardless of their point of view? I understand that you cannot eliminate people from a clinical study just because you fear they might cause the results to be skewed in a particular way. Dr. Bob, are you eliminating clinical subjects/deleting posts that will cause an outcome that is opposite to the one you are counting on or hoping for? Are you manipulating the data?
>
> Bekka H.That's a good question. I think it depends on what's being studied.
For example, say drug A is known to have a particular side effect, but drug B is known to reduce that side effect. So you might want to study using them together. Is it manipulating the data to allow the use of drug B? If you're just studying drug A, it would be, but not if you're studying the combination.
A separate, though IMO also relevant, issue is that you wouldn't want to endanger people by just letting them have side effects...
So, to return to the board, this isn't a study of a free-for-all community, it's a study of a community that's hosted in a certain way. And its results won't be applicable to free-for-all communities, or even necessarily to communities in general. Does that make sense?
Bob
Posted by JGalt on January 13, 2002, at 22:33:17
In reply to Re: polls and studies, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 20:32:04
John,
I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. While as you know I have a libertarian political philosophy, this board is provided for by Dr. Bob. He set it up, it is his board, and thus he is allowed to make the rules as he sees fit (this isn't communism, we don't supposedly own the board, the creater of the board does), and the people will choose by whether or not they stay whether or not his board/study is successful. Such is capitalism.
As far as I've seen (and please do correct me if I'm wrong on this), the only time he bothers to delete a post is if a person mentions where to obtain illegal material domestically or drugs from overseas. I believe he is just trying to stay within the bounds of the law set forth by our own draconian government. I believe they are the ones you should be complaining to. If it were okay to talk about such issues, this site would likely be monitored much more closely by our friends in washington, and perhaps the names of the people who talked about those issues would be put in a database for little use outside of evidence should they be brought to criminal trial for something related. I don't think any of us want that. The other thing is, this is a petty issue, if one wishes to talk about where to obtain them, then it is probably best that they discuss it in personal email. Alternatively there are many free lists of international pharmacies that are not scammers on the net, and they are not too hard to find with a simple search engine. I know of many other sites that have discussion boards devoted exclusively to the topic. That is how I, and most people I know, go about finding such items. I believe that this one simple rule (if indeed this is the only one he deletes posts/bans for as I have seen) is quite easy to get around through conventional means as I described above, and this is the best discussion board I have found on the net regarding depression. And unlike our government, I'm pretty sure Dr. Bob isn't going to abuse his infinite power over this board by adding more rules or things he bans for. To do so would be foolish for him, as it would drive people away if they were unable to discuss the almost complete range of topics we are currently allowed to discuss here.
As you have said you will no longer be posting on here, feel free to email me about this issue if you would like to discuss it.
Respectfully,
JGalt
Posted by fi on January 16, 2002, at 11:19:32
In reply to Re: polls and studies, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 20:32:04
Its much simpler to leave it as it is. There are *loads* of chat rooms where anyone can say anything they like, so its not like temporarily blocking someone from here (on the very limited grounds Dr Bob uses) is blocking their only route to the vast online community on the net.
Its hard enough coping with life, and for some of us coping with psychological problems, without getting drawn into polls on blocking people. Posting messages uses up emotional energy, as well as time. I'd rather use both of these on supporting each other in the usual way, and leave any blocking to Dr Bob.
Tho of course I am not one of these people who thinks that the US government is a big baddy over-regulating everything. But then I'm from the UK, and respect the fact that that approach is rife on the net over the pond.
Fi
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.