![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 8:56:37
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you make a determination as to if the following can remain unadmonished
There are two parts to the post that I feel accused and put down by.
[...anyone can launch a fillibuster...]
Someone is being accused here and I feel that there is enough infomation for the person to be thought of as me. It is my understanding that a fillibuster has the effect of not allowing others to speak. In this administrative forum, anyone can post and I appreciate others responding. I consider it to be a false accusation toward me, if the poster in question is me, that a fillibuster is being launched
I feel that the next statement accuses someone, and I feel that there is enough infomation for the poster to be thought of as me. The part is,[...anyone can {maliciously} vandalise the board...]. I am not vandalising the board, nor am I being malicious. I am responding to the function of the administrative board to redress parts of the forum. Anyone can add to the discussion or not read the discussion. I do not think that the board is going to be {vandalised} by any discussion, for that is what a discussion board is for, to discuss so that the board can be more supportive. I appreciate an administrative board. It does give others a venue to express concerns. You write that you are open to feedback in some way and thw administrative board has in the past been used by others for such and I am only another participant here using the opportunity to have dialog with the administrator like others .
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395217.html
Posted by mair on September 26, 2004, at 9:46:21
In reply to Lou's request for a determination, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 8:56:37
I think Scott is just positing an opinion that perhaps there should be some rules or guidelines about numbers of posts and his statment just reflects some of the problems which might arise from the lack of rules or guidelines. The fact that Lou may be a poster who employs the style in question is not to say that his posts have the results Scott fears.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 11:25:30
In reply to I don't think I agree, posted by mair on September 26, 2004, at 9:46:21
Mair,
I do like your contribution that says that some rule could be made to have a quota for posts, but would not that rule have to be well-defined and applied equally? If there was such a rule, could you find this rule on any other forum? If so, could you point this forum out to me that has such a rule?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 11:57:18
In reply to Lou's reply to Mair » mair, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 11:25:30
Mair,
You wrote,[...the fact that Lou ...a poster who employs the style in question is not to say that his posts have the results Scott fears...].
Have you read this post by Scott?
Hi Lou,
[...if it is your intention to submit a series of 100 posts ...I would persoally deem any such effort as a purposeful attempt to disrupt the proceedings ...and a threat to my personal interests in how this site functions...].
You wrote,[...the fact that Lou..uses this style..does not say that his posts have the results Scott fears...].
I interpret from Scotts writings that :
A.I am the subject, for he says, {Hi Lou}
B.Scott writes that he personnally deems an effort {by me}as [....an attenpt to disrupt...]
C. Scott writes also that it is {my} posts in the future , if a large amount, say 100, that he would consider ,[...a threat to {my personal} interests...].
I have shown this to an English Language expert and he says that the structure of the posts, due to the grammatical construction, shows that Scott does put forth the idea that he fears that there would be the result in question and that I am the subject in question.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394601.html
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 26, 2004, at 11:58:05
In reply to Lou's reply to Mair » mair, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 11:25:30
> Mair,
> I do like your contribution that says that some rule could be made to have a quota for posts, but would not that rule have to be well-defined and applied equally? If there was such a rule, could you find this rule on any other forum? If so, could you point this forum out to me that has such a rule?
> LouI'm going to jump in here, Lou, because this is the crux of my own argument. In the existing civility code, it is not permitted to "harass or pressure others".
The problem is, what is the functional definition of that? I wholly support seeing a well-defined expression of the boundaries of such a condition. I was blocked for asking for references too much. The other party was replying to me, and alluding to the existence of references, of evidence, at each turn. However, I was blocked for asking to see that evidence, just as frequently as I was told that it was in existence. I don't know what bob believes is the threshold, but apparently, I exceeded it. In my view, however, the other party was the one being uncivil. That other poster expressed his own opinion that he was not in accord with the civility guidelines. I was blocked for agreeing with him.
I have already expressed my view as to where I think such a clearly defined limit to the number of requests should lie.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394934.htmlI was told that a request not to post to me is automatically cancelled the moment I post to that party. I think the same standard should apply here. If I request information or clarification, and that party does not reply, it is over. If they do reply, though, their reply cancels my request. It is null and void. That permits me to request again, if I am still unsatisfied with the response. However, in the absence of a topical reply, I am constrained against renewing my request, under penalties appropriate to being uncivil.
I can well understand that such a guideline might lead you to feel that you might bear a particular burden in adhering to it. However, I have felt that very sting. My own efforts at civility have gone unrecognized, in my perhaps not so humble opinion. I have had to drastically modify my writing style, eliminating passive voice, for example.
However, none of us exist in a vacuum. Many rules are created to minimize harm, rather than to optimize benefits. In minimizing harm, some will be more harmed than others, but perhaps none are unscathed. I think this is such a case.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 12:11:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Mair » Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 26, 2004, at 11:58:05
Larry,
I have read you post to me and it is very informative about your feelings as a discussant here and how therules have been applied to you.
There was a similar discussion here about clarification and such and it is my understanding that Dr.Hsiung responded to those that objected to others posting to them, for any reason, to just write, some sort of statement that says, [Do Not Post To Me].
Then if the poster that has been told to not post to that poster requesting to not post to them , posts to them, then that is harressment.
In my case, I have not been the recipiant of any [ do not post to me...] statements in this discussion, and if I do hav eone directed to me, I will abide by it.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:05:41
In reply to Lou's request for a determination, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 8:56:37
> There are two parts to the post that I feel accused and put down by.
> > As things stand now, anyone can launch a filibuster comprised of an unlimited number of posts.
> > As a matter of fact, anyone can maliciously vandalize the board in this manner under the current posting policies.
I'm sorry you feel accused and put down, but (1) that's inevitable to some extent in administrative discussions, and (2) I took them as general statements.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:20:14
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:05:41
> I'm sorry you feel accused and put down, but (1) that's inevitable to some extent in administrative discussions, ... .
> BobDr. Bob, are you saying in this response that the admin. board discussions are less likely to result in a PBC or some other action because it's "inevitable" that feelings will be hurt? Kind of like proceed at your own caution or perhaps "watch yourself"?
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 14:50:48
In reply to Re: Lou's request » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:20:14
Good question. I've seen people get blocked for statememts on admin - ZenHussy comes to mind.
Posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 15:14:03
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:05:41
> I'm sorry you feel accused and put down, but (1) that's inevitable to some extent in administrative discussions, and (2) I took them as general statements.
>
> BobDr. Bob,
Isn't inevitable *to some extent* to feel accused and put down in a discussion about politics, religion, or methods of therapy for example - anything where there are at least two possibilities for different points of view? Isn't that why you have civility guidelines? Are you saying they don't apply as much here on Admin as they do elsewhere?
And by saying you took them as general statements, do you mean that in order to be considered uncivil, they need to be directed to a certain poster?
Laurie
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 16:43:26
In reply to Re: Lou's request » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:20:14
> are you saying in this response that the admin. board discussions are less likely to result in a PBC or some other action because it's "inevitable" that feelings will be hurt?
>
> ggNo, what I meant was, I think sometimes there's tension between administration and support. I can administrate better if people inform me about questionable posts, but that's inevitably somewhat accusatory.
> by saying you took them as general statements, do you mean that in order to be considered uncivil, they need to be directed to a certain poster?
>
> LaurieNo, but sometimes specific situations lead to general issues being discussed, and I think the latter is important to be able to do.
Bob
Posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 16:58:31
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 16:43:26
> No, but sometimes specific situations lead to general issues being discussed, and I think the latter is important to be able to do.
>
> BobDr. Bob,
Do you truly believe this is an instance where a specific situation led to a general issue being discussed? As Scott mentioned in an earlier post today, it does not seem that there are many other posters who post multiple responses to one given post. Are you concerned about it becoming a problem among the PB population as a whole?
Laurie
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:57
In reply to Re: Lou's request » Dr. Bob, posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 16:58:31
> Do you truly believe this is an instance where a specific situation led to a general issue being discussed?
Yes. You might not have an accident every day, but one might be enough to start you looking for insurance...
Bob
Posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 20:18:17
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:57
> > Do you truly believe this is an instance where a specific situation led to a general issue being discussed?
>
> Yes. You might not have an accident every day, but one might be enough to start you looking for insurance...
>
> Bob
Thank you for for taking the time to respond to all of my questions, Dr. Bob. I don't agree with the new rule and I definitely have problems with the circumstances under which the rule was conceived, but I also understand the need to agree to disagree at times.Laurie
Posted by Atticus on September 28, 2004, at 11:30:34
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:57
>Yes. You might not have an accident every day, but one might be enough to start you looking for >insurance...
>Bob
Hmmm. I think a better analogy would be using an atomic bomb in your kitchen to prevent a housefly from breeding more flies. I really feel this is overkill in the extreme. And how long has the Psycho-Babble site been in operation without multiple consecutive posts ever becoming such a cause celebre? Might be a good idea to step back and apply a little perspective here rather than digging in your heels. Everyone makes mistakes in judgment. Could be, just could be, you did with this three-post-limit rule. But then, I've never seen you admit to a mistake anywhere on this site. Never. Why is that? What's up, doc? ;) Atticus
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 28, 2004, at 13:32:44
In reply to Going over like a lead balloon » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on September 28, 2004, at 11:30:34
"And how long has the Psycho-Babble site been in operation without multiple consecutive posts ever becoming such a cause celebre?"
Its been an issue before.. 50 something weeks ago. And a problem 20 something weeks before that..
This is an old discussion that comes round time and again.
Nikki
Posted by Jai Narayan on September 28, 2004, at 13:37:38
In reply to Going over like a lead balloon » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on September 28, 2004, at 11:30:34
Posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2004, at 22:10:38
In reply to Going over like a lead balloon » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on September 28, 2004, at 11:30:34
>
> Hmmm. I think a better analogy would be using an atomic bomb in your kitchen to prevent a housefly from breeding more flies.You mean I shouldn't be doing that every week?
;-)
gg
Posted by Atticus on September 29, 2004, at 11:37:03
In reply to Re: Going over like a lead balloon, posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2004, at 22:10:38
If you're going to do it weekly, gg, I'd recommend a neutron bomb. High radiation yield, lower explosive yield. Would kill that pesky fly but leave your cabinets and appliances (mostly) intact. God bless the late 20th century, eh? I only hope the 21st brings equally helpful household items. ;) Atticus
Posted by Atticus on September 29, 2004, at 15:15:59
In reply to Re: Going over like a lead balloon » Atticus, posted by NikkiT2 on September 28, 2004, at 13:32:44
Nonetheless, I still feel that the main thing the new posting rule has accomplished is to leave a whole lot of people here psychologically and emotionally upset and strung out. That strongly suggests to me that the rule is flawed. I was under the impression that the goal on PB was to make people feel supported and better. This rule sure ain't accomplishing that. I feel like Dr. B has lobbed a psychological Molotov cocktail right into the heart of PB. I don't see how that can be viewed as positive. The negatives here seem to be outweighing any advantages. The answer might be as simple as upping the number to something more reasonable, such as five. Atticus
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 30, 2004, at 20:05:48
In reply to Re: Going over like a lead balloon » NikkiT2, posted by Atticus on September 29, 2004, at 15:15:59
> I still feel that the main thing the new posting rule has accomplished is to leave a whole lot of people here psychologically and emotionally upset and strung out. That strongly suggests to me that the rule is flawed.
New rules have had that effect before, it could also suggest that people value familiarity...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 30, 2004, at 20:30:20
In reply to Re: Going over like a lead balloon, posted by Dr. Bob on September 30, 2004, at 20:05:48
> New rules have had that effect before, it could also suggest that people value familiarity...
>
> BobDr. Bob, I think you mistake people not continuing to complain over a done deal with people initially objecting because they hate change then getting used to it. What's the point in continuing to complain about something already done?
For example. I still hate restricted boards. It had nothing at all with it being new. I try not to read boards I can't post on. I don't offer to be a greeter because I don't post on boards that everyone can't post on.
You'll do what you wish. It's your board. But don't assume that people just don't like change and once they get used to it, everything's hunky dory.
If I don't like a new idea, you can bet I won't like it in ten years either. Because I can see some reason why the new idea isn't good. I don't just oppose them because they're new. I have enthusiastically endorsed some changes. I have suggested others. Unless I discover that my initial impression was incorrect, my opinion is *not* going to change.
If it would help you gauge how much objections have to do with change, I'd be happy to give you a monthly laundry list of all the things about Babble that I object to, and perhaps I could sort them by date the rule went into effect. Perhaps everyone else who cares to do so could do the same.
An ever-helpful,
Dinahmarie
Posted by Atticus on September 30, 2004, at 23:35:25
In reply to Re: Going over like a lead balloon, posted by Dr. Bob on September 30, 2004, at 20:05:48
Still not willing or able to admit that you might be mistaken about anything ever, I see. How would you respond to a patient who sidesteps any and all questions of fallibility? Oh, Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. Tsk. Atticus
Posted by tabitha on September 30, 2004, at 23:55:17
In reply to Re: Going over like a lead balloon » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on September 30, 2004, at 23:35:25
Hey Atticus, I could have sworn Dr Bob once admitted being wrong. It took some googling, but I found it
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2004, at 0:38:56
In reply to Re: Going over like a lead balloon » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 30, 2004, at 20:30:20
> I think you mistake people not continuing to complain over a done deal with people initially objecting because they hate change then getting used to it.
That's true, I'm sure that happens, too.
> If it would help you gauge how much objections have to do with change, I'd be happy to give you a monthly laundry list of all the things about Babble that I object to, and perhaps I could sort them by date the rule went into effect. Perhaps everyone else who cares to do so could do the same.
That might be interesting, a regular survey of what posters consider the worst (and I guess best) aspects of Babble. And of features they'd like to see added? Maybe sorted by importance to the poster?
BTW, I did look for a satisfaction questionnaire to go with the others...
Bob
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.