![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 48. Go back in thread:
Posted by kid47 on March 3, 2004, at 12:06:26
In reply to Re: Orwellian nightmare, posted by Dr. Bob on March 3, 2004, at 0:52:14
> > The right to say "I'm offended" doesn't seem much to ask.
>
> That's a nice I-statement, it's fine to say it. :-)
>
> Bob>>*I* found the handle to be offensive.
I don't usually post to matters concerning "blocks, PBC's, etc. I find this alleged transgression involving civility "guidlines" to be incomprehensible. The vague and capricious nature of these "guidlines" and their enforcement makes it extremely difficult to express meaningful thoughts and feelings; this to a group with many who already have difficulty expressing themselves. I think most of us try our best to adhere to what I would call a very....."fluid" civility policy. I do find myself on occasion questioning the motives behind the interpretation and enforcement of perceived civility breaches. I understand for any community to exist, there must be some type of protocol established. Possibly there are some of us here who need instruction and supervision on "civil" communication. But there are instances, and this qualifies, when for the life of me, I can't figure out what possible *positive* motivation is behind a decision to block someone from posting. I am not going to rehash the facts of this particular incident. They speak for themselves. I would ask that some rational explanation of how the above posts are mutually exclusive when they appear to me to be expressing identical sentiments. In the past, responses to similar requests have run the gambit from reasonable to feeling dismissive. An attitude of "well, it's my ball and if you don't like the rules go play somewhere else", no matter how "thoughtfully" worded feels to me childish and demeaning. The admission of imperfection in the system does not necessarily justify the imperfection. It would be GREAT if once or twice a year the administration here would just publicly state, "I've reconsidered" with regards to a block. If the administrations concerns are as forthright and altruistic as I believe they are, and not about taking the opportunity to merely demonstrate control and arbitrarily force compliance, this particular instance presents a perfect opportunity to portray that. Many of us, especially those with mental disorders, perceive a stinging sense of unfairness in our world. Wouldn't it be nice if occasionally we were allowed to feel some measure of recourse?!?
These are my thoughts, feelings and perceptions only and are not intended to put anyone down or pressure them in any way. If anyone feels put down, pressured, offended, tortured, assaulted, deceived, hurt, ripped-off, humiliated, slighted, smited, decalcified, clarified, homogenized or is just plain upset by anything I've said here, I am truly
sorry.kid
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 3, 2004, at 19:20:13
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Karen_kay, posted by Dr. Bob on March 3, 2004, at 0:48:09
Oh Karen Kay....I hope you will e-mail me...I miss you.
I am so sorry Karen....
Dr. Bob has the last say in blocking, it's his site, he makes the rules, we just have to live with them and respect them.
I hope you come back to psycho babble.
we are waiting for you.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 3, 2004, at 20:08:02
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by Jai Narayan on March 3, 2004, at 19:20:13
KK,
It's just a matter of wording. What you said expressed your sentiments and clearly indicated that it was your reaction. Your reaction is your truth. Anyone who feels put down by that must be operating from their own issues and not your truth. Rephrasing would just be a semantic argument, and I know my time and yours is better spent being suppotive.I'll miss you and look forward to your return!
gg
Posted by gabbix2 on March 3, 2004, at 20:22:06
In reply to It's just semantics, KK, posted by gardenergirl on March 3, 2004, at 20:08:02
Amen!
Posted by mair on March 3, 2004, at 22:39:08
In reply to It's just semantics, KK, posted by gardenergirl on March 3, 2004, at 20:08:02
Posted by mair on March 3, 2004, at 22:41:00
In reply to Re: Orwellian nightmare, posted by Dr. Bob on March 3, 2004, at 0:52:14
Please tell us how you think the statements are different.
Posted by Elle2021 on March 4, 2004, at 0:13:37
In reply to It's just semantics, KK, posted by gardenergirl on March 3, 2004, at 20:08:02
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 1:09:38
In reply to Re: Orwellian nightmare » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on March 3, 2004, at 22:41:00
(in honor of the book of rules in one of my son's favorite shows, The Fairly Oddparents)
I am in a quandary here.
On the one hand, I have long watched Dr. Bob's admin actions with interest and while I'm occasionally surprised in both directions, I usually see a general method to his madness (so to speak). I think there are some rules that aren't included in the FAQ's but that are applied relatively consistently and explain some of the apparent inconstencies in moderating.
On the other hand, I'd feel like a b*ttinsky know-it-all if I presumed that I was correct in my observations and shared them. Not that I don't trust Dr. Bob to correct me if I'm incorrect. But I'm just afraid that such an attempt on my part would be... offensive. And unwelcome. And again, possibly incorrect, since they're based on observation and not on any actual concrete knowledge.
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 1:52:57
In reply to Re: Da Rules, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 1:09:38
I'm trying to learn discretion in my old age, but obviously don't yet have the hang of it. :(
Posted by All Done on March 4, 2004, at 1:54:13
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by Jai Narayan on March 3, 2004, at 19:20:13
> From Jai
[Dr. Bob] makes the rules, we just have to live with them and respect them.
Karen,I'm just proud of you for respecting *yourself* enough to know what you needed to do regardless of the rules.
See you in a week, sweetie!
All Done
Posted by gardenergirl on March 4, 2004, at 7:05:39
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 1:52:57
I don't know, Dinah. I think your observations would be welcome. It sounds like you have a lot of data to base them on, and I trust your judgement.
gg
Posted by mair on March 4, 2004, at 8:07:43
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 1:52:57
Dinah - I can't imagine why you thought your post to be indiscretionate. I think you understand Bob about as much as anyone can.
Mair
PS: I hope you can see how we struggle here. Most of us look at the 2 statements as being identical. One is ok; the other merits a block. Common sense seems to be lacking
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 9:53:50
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please » Dinah, posted by mair on March 4, 2004, at 8:07:43
Mair, I have gotten in so much trouble over the past few weeks over things I had no idea were troublesome. I'm really doubting my judgement here, and worry that this will be one more example where it's lacking.
But I'll try, and hope I don't live to regret it. :(
I fully trust Dr. Bob to tell me if my observations are incorrect.
About the "I" statements. I'll use a movie as example as it might be clearer. These two statements are not identical, and in no way appear identical to me.
I was offended when I saw the movie.
The movie was offensive. (Or I found the movie offensive. Or The movie offended me.)
The first statement is a statement about me, about my reactions, and really isn't about anyone or their movie. I could be offended for many reasons, and I could list them all as long as I didn't accuse the movie or the movie maker while doing so. But my being offended doesn't mean that the movie was objectively offensive. My being offended is a statement of my values, not an indictment of someone else's. Now, could the moviemaker feel put down by my remarks about being offended? Yes, certainly, so the thin civility lines get a bit blurred there.
But if I turn from giving a statement of my own values to a negative statement of someone else's, I've left the "I statement" format behind. Even if I include the word "I" in it. Because the "I statement" doesn't refer to the words used, it refers to the subject or object of the descriptors. So if I change it to "I was offended by the movie" or "I found the movie offensive" I am changing it from a statement totally about me to a claim that the movie was to blame for offending me. The subject is still me, but there is now an object added, the movie (or moviemaker). It's no longer a statement entirely about me, it's now a statement about me *and* the movie. If I move it to "The movie was offensive.", that's now a statement entirely about the movie, and not at all about me. I think there is no doubt on the board about a statement entirely about the movie. I think the trouble comes when the statement includes I *and* the movie.
I think the trouble is compounded by the fact that enforcement of the rules appears more arbitrary than it is, in fact. Sometimes I'm surprised (in both directions) but generally I see a method to Dr. Bob's "madness". If Dr. Bob comes to the board and sees an emerging situation, and there is an uncivil post and some replies that use statements that include both "I" statements and statements about the post or poster, especially if they're subtle, he probably won't flag the posts that are subtle. But after an administrative action is given on the thread, scrutiny by Dr. Bob gets a lot more close. So every post after that, no matter how subtle the inclusion of non-I statements, are more likely to get a PBC or a Please Rephrase. I wonder if Dr. Bob would like us to consider that a PBC or block is adequate commentary on the post he's already noted as uncivil? But if we choose to comment on a post or on a thread that's already received an administrative action, it's wise to double and triple check our replies (more than we usually would) for statements that don't meet "I statement" criteria. In other words, statements that are not solely about "I" but include references to he she or it.
And of course anyone who's been around Babble for any length of time knows that once a person has received a PBC on a subject, or on a thread, even really slight infractions directly after that (especially on the same thread) will bring down a block. Perhaps because that is seen as a direct flouting of the PBC? I don't actually think it is in many cases. In many cases, I just think it's a misunderstanding about "I statements" or a misunderstanding about what Dr. Bob found offensive, because Dr. Bob isn't always crystal clear, I'm afraid. So the wisest choice after a PBC is either an "I'm sorry" if you are, or silence if you aren't. But really really careful scrutiny of your posts for possible infractions to be sure. I have a civility buddy, and those who have off board contact might consider having a civility buddy. Or it might be wise to email Dr. Bob, although it usually takes him days to get back to you by which time the moment has passed (perhaps not a coincidence?).
And finally, most unfortunate PBC's and blocks take place when someone is trying to protect or help someone else, or feels offended on someone else's behalf. It is perfectly fine to post to Dr. Bob on Admin, perhaps a link to the post you find offensive with a request that he check it out. Or you can email him. I don't think he gives blocks or PBC's for emails to him. And if you want to express support for the poster, the safest way to express support is a post that doesn't refer at all to the post that might be considered uncivil.
"I have never ever found you, X, to be a doo-doo head. I have always found your contributions to be very valuable. (possibly adding your belief that most posters would agree that X has never been a doo-doo head)."
Second safest would be a post that is careful about "I statements".
"I have never ever found you, X, to be a doo-doo head, and I was surprised and saddened and angered to see a post in which you were called a doo-doo head."
Marginal, and probably unwise after the poster who called someone a doo-doo head has already been admonished by Dr. Bob would be
"I have never found you, X, to be a doo-doo head and I was very angry at the unkind post (or poster)."
Even more marginal, and depending on Dr. Bob's interpretation would be
"I have never found you, X, to be a doo-doo head, and that post (poster) made me angry."
And of course, a PBC'able offense whether or not Dr. Bob has already done something would be
"Y is a jerk. I can't believe Y called you, X, a doo-doo head, and you should just ignore that filthy post."
But that's just my interpretation, and may be way off. And I hope no one is offended either by my presumptuousness or by my observation of Da Rules, because they are just observations, nothing more.
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 4, 2004, at 10:33:50
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please » mair, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 9:53:50
Thank you for putting this together.
It certainly helps me to understand.
I just wish I could always remember it!!!
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Posted by kid47 on March 4, 2004, at 11:52:51
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please » mair, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 9:53:50
>>>>I was offended when I saw the movie.
>>>>The movie was offensive. (Or I found the movie offensive. Or The movie
offended me.)I'm no English major, but these statements are both subjective expressions of being offended.(IMO) If the above option had been made clear to KK I'd be willing to bet she would have changed her syntax rather than being blocked. (although I certainly can't speak for her) It's just a shame that it has come to this type of hair splitting, when there are good people being run off these boards when they seem especially to need them. The sometimes micro inspection of certain posts, while completely ignoring obvious infractions is a bit maddening. Would'nt it make sense & save time to focus on the blatant posting violations & let the more ambiguous ones slide? I just feel the administration might better serve this sight (which hopefully is important) with less attention to minutia. This issue has been hashed & rehashed. I think it will continue to haunt these boards untill there is some type of civility policy reform or there is no one left here but a bunch of "Stepford" posters.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this. You are as insightful as you are gracious.kid
Posted by gabbix2 on March 4, 2004, at 12:56:45
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please » Dinah, posted by kid47 on March 4, 2004, at 11:52:51
I do understand the difference between the two statements. One can be seen as a generalization,
a judgement that the sole intent of the statement was to offend. The alternate wording is a personal ownership of the feeling of being offended, in other words, perhaps the statement was not meant soley to offend but someone was offended.The problem *I* have is and echo of what Gardnergirl and Kid47 have already said.
Context was completely ignored.. as usual, and it was obvious in this case what Karen meant.
Once again a supportive poster has been slapped in the face for what amounts to nothing more meaningful than
"Well I do it this way because this is the way I've decided to do it"
No one on the board is better off because Karen is not here.
I'd argue that we are worse off. So what is the point exactly??
I'm not really expecting a meaningful answer.
My former Psychiatrist who I've always respected told me he felt the way the site was run, was emotionally abusive, bordering on sociopathic.
I agree with him.
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 4, 2004, at 14:20:30
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please » Dinah, posted by kid47 on March 4, 2004, at 11:52:51
Hi, Karen wants me to give you her e-mail address. She would love to hear from you.
karen_kay12@yahoo.comTake care
Jai Narayan
Posted by fallsfall on March 4, 2004, at 17:24:07
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please » mair, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 9:53:50
Posted by gabbix2 on March 4, 2004, at 18:18:49
In reply to Re: Bravo (nm) » Dinah, posted by fallsfall on March 4, 2004, at 17:24:07
It galls me that someone has to be careful how to word their opposition to violent anti-semitism lest it appear they are declaring it generally offensive. God forbid that the intolerance of racism be seen as anything but a personal quirk.
I have a feeling it's gonna take me quite a few weeks to be able to say that...
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 21:48:10
In reply to Call me Savage, posted by gabbix2 on March 4, 2004, at 18:18:49
Ahhh, Gabbi. You know that Dr. Bob never ever draws distinctions between who (or what actions) deserve protection under the civility guidelines.
Never.
Posted by gabbix2 on March 4, 2004, at 22:35:05
In reply to Re: Well, I won't » gabbix2, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 21:48:10
Ya Dinah Love, I know, but I won't ever stop protesting those "green beans" either. Though it's probably not really good for my health.
Posted by tabitha on March 4, 2004, at 23:23:11
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please » mair, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 9:53:50
I think you've really captured the civility issues around I-statements in that post. I've come to the same interpretation based on watching the admin decisions.
So Dr Bob, how about putting a nice detailed explanation like that someplace in the FAQ?
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 4, 2004, at 23:37:33
In reply to Re: Ignore above post please » Dinah, posted by kid47 on March 4, 2004, at 11:52:51
> Please tell us how you think the statements are different.
>
> mairI think Dinah did a great job above:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
> I just feel the administration might better serve this sight ... with less attention to minutia. This issue has been hashed & rehashed. I think it will continue to haunt these boards untill there is some type of civility policy reform or there is no one left here but a bunch of "Stepford" posters.
>
> kidThere's a third possible outcome, it may just continue to be rehashed and rehashed and rehashed.
It's certainly possible that I might better serve this site in other ways. OTOH, caring, wise, talented, funny, and generally wonderful posters do choose to use this site, so IMO it's not too broke. Besides:
Change is slow.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 4, 2004, at 23:51:10
In reply to Re: da rules by Dinah, posted by tabitha on March 4, 2004, at 23:23:11
> So Dr Bob, how about putting a nice detailed explanation like that someplace in the FAQ?
Or just link to hers? :-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2004, at 0:26:30
In reply to Re: da rules by Dinah, posted by Dr. Bob on March 4, 2004, at 23:51:10
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.