![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:40:52
In reply to Re: any chance we could..., posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:08:19
After thinking further about interactions I have observed here, I will suggest that, if the administrator intends to make his third denial of a poster's complaint that they or someone else might feel put down the standard by which he excludes further complaints, when he does not sustain a complaint about a particular post, he would do well to explain his reasons.
Not responding to complaints, responding with a question that does not offer a finding or responding with a sparse "I think it's acceptable" doesn't seem conducive to the purpose of publicly sanctioning people so the community will better understand reasons behind what is allowed and what is not.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:22
In reply to Re: any chance we could..., posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:08:19
> I want to emphasise that I object in the strongest way to the so-called three complaint rule being used to restrict general querries about particular phrases.
>
> For example, if a person writes "UserName X was mean to me here" and another posts to the admin board "can a person write on Psycho-Babble that a particular member 'was mean to me'", thereby making the querry without citing a particular post where the statement was made, that is not a complaint -- that is a request for information.I don’t know about anyone else, but the queries I've been talking about are the ones that include identifiable quotes from and/or links to the poster and posts being challenged, thereby drawing attention not only to whether or not what was said is "OK", but also asking (even if indirectly) if said poster is civil. I don't think I'd object to someone asking "Is it within the guidelines of this forum to use the phrase ‘beating it [a subject] to death’?" But I do object to queries that point very specifically to what I or someone else has said. I object to it especially if the person asking 1) Has not asked the poster what he/she meant, or 2) Is not the subject of the post or thread, or 3) Is not actively participating in the thread, or at least the part of the thread being challenged. (Some threads here go on for years, with different posters entering and leaving along the way.)
> Otherwise, the so-called "three-complaint rule" would exclude anyone from the administration board who posts twice but does not win the approval of the administrator.
>
> And if a person finds cases where similar statements are treated differently and cares to inquire about why such statements were treated in the way they were, instead of complaining specifically that they feel hurt or put down, again that is a question about administration and it is part of the accepted ethical obligations among professionals studying this new venue for medical support and information that such questions, when submitted, be made available for review by professional peers. Any effort to hide from any reviewer the scope or nature of questions about administration of a group such as this raises questions about whether a particular forum intends to follow particular ethical guidelines.If I’m following you right, I agree with some of what you've written here. But I would be very much interested in your opinion on my proposed variation on the 3-complaint rule. (I had problems with it, too, as I saw it proposed.)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511068.html
Posted by Phillipa on June 12, 2005, at 20:25:53
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:22
The person asking about civility should be involved in the Thread being questioned. Otherwise it's like triangulation. Kind of Borderline. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:31:51
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:22
>
> I don’t know about anyone else, but the queries I've been talking about are the ones that include identifiable quotes from and/or links to the poster and posts being challenged, thereby drawing attention not only to whether or not what was said is "OK", but also asking (even if indirectly) if said poster is civil. I don't think I'd object to someone asking "Is it within the guidelines of this forum to use the phrase ‘beating it [a subject] to death’?" But I do object to queries that point very specifically to what I or someone else has said. I object to it especially if the person asking 1) Has not asked the poster what he/she meant, or 2) Is not the subject of the post or thread, or 3) Is not actively participating in the thread, or at least the part of the thread being challenged. (Some threads here go on for years, with different posters entering and leaving along the way.)
> If I’m following you right, I agree with some of what you've written here. But I would be very much interested in your opinion on my proposed variation on the 3-complaint rule. (I had problems with it, too, as I saw it proposed.)
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511068.html
>
I think we're fairly close in our opinions, though my recognition of any merit in the proposal is not based on a personal recognition of the merit, but rather, recognition that others consider it to have merit. I don't agree with the use of the word "civil" as a synonym for "compliant with terms of service" so of course I have concerns about anyone suggesting anyone else is not civil.I have no problem wording querries without citing the basis for the querry, and in my estimation based on archival reading, the practice of citing a post might have evolved from the administrator's request that such citations be included, after some people offered general querries that seemed to better serve the intent you seem to express in your proposal.
Otherwise, my critique of your point #3 is that some people, myself included, might avoid participating in threads where it appears there is confusion over what language will be deemed acceptable.
For example, I have stored on my hard-drive a message I wrote that suprises even myself, wherein I describe the health risks associated with inhaling tars, carbon-monoxide and pyrobenzines associated with a titration of a particular substance, laws against which were called, apparently with the administrator's endorsement, "hypocritical" "pathetic" and "a joke." I will not publish the accurate and potentially life-saving (or at least life-extending) information until and unless I believe the thread is moderated in such a way that I can consider internal inconsistencies in my own behavior, values and judgements without one aspect of my potentially changed behavior or judgements being considered "hypocritical". I am not even certain I could, within the tolerance of administrative practices here, call my own shortness of breath, possibly shortened lifespan or occassional dullmindedness pathetic, in the way policies protecting others from realizing similar conditions have been called pathetic. I can say with certainty that an environment that discourages self-criticism is generally recognized as not condusive to self-improvement, and an environment where one's self-criticisms are associated with policies deemed to by "hypocritical" has presented to me such a situation.
Therefore, a requirement that a person participate in a thread before requesting clarification about the contents of a thread would seem counterproductive to me. If people want the three-complaint policy, I'm sure those seeking clarification can find general ways to seek clarification IF the administrator will afford time to offer such clarification and IF the administrator will allow citations of posts, or quotations from posts in the context of asking why he ruled one way on some occassions and another way on others and especially if the administrator does not then request people to post links to other's posts then use compliance with his request as the first, second or third expression of a complaint contrary to his proposed new rule intended to reduce inquiries about his definition of something even he could not define until he saw it.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 22:08:58
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » Minnie-Haha, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:31:51
> I think we're fairly close in our opinions, though my recognition of any merit in the proposal is not based on a personal recognition of the merit, but rather, recognition that others consider it to have merit. I don't agree with the use of the word "civil" as a synonym for "compliant with terms of service" so of course I have concerns about anyone suggesting anyone else is not civil.
It seems you prefer precise language, and there are times when I insist on it too, especially when I'm struggling to understand something or make myself absolutely clear. I use “civil” as a shorthand sometimes in these kinds of threads for longer terms like “compliant with terms of service” or “conducive to civic harmony and welfare… but also the mission of support and education.” But I think we’re basically talking about the same thing right? Guidelines for how to post, or “behave.”
> I have no problem wording querries without citing the basis for the querry, and in my estimation based on archival reading, the practice of citing a post might have evolved from the administrator's request that such citations be included, after some people offered general querries that seemed to better serve the intent you seem to express in your proposal.
>
> Otherwise, my critique of your point #3 is that some people, myself included, might avoid participating in threads where it appears there is confusion over what language will be deemed acceptable.
>
> For example, I have stored on my hard-drive a message I wrote that suprises even myself, wherein I describe the health risks associated with inhaling tars, carbon-monoxide and pyrobenzines associated with a titration of a particular substance, laws against which were called, apparently with the administrator's endorsement, "hypocritical" "pathetic" and "a joke." I will not publish the accurate and potentially life-saving (or at least life-extending) information until and unless I believe the thread is moderated in such a way that I can consider internal inconsistencies in my own behavior, values and judgements without one aspect of my potentially changed behavior or judgements being considered "hypocritical"…I followed this debate for awhile, but it was too much for me. I never formed an opinion one way or the other, but I do very much understand your bafflement (Is that a word?) I have been misunderstood too, IMO, and surprised to be blocked when I thought I was absolutely posting within the civility guidelines. So I follow your complaint in general. I do think PBCs and blocks sometimes get administered quickly here in some instances, and not so in others, and when I set the two “offenses” side by side – Well, it doesn’t feel right.
> Therefore, a requirement that a person participate in a thread before requesting clarification about the contents of a thread would seem counterproductive to me. If people want the three-complaint policy, I'm sure those seeking clarification can find general ways to seek clarification IF the administrator will afford time to offer such clarification and IF the administrator will allow citations of posts, or quotations from posts in the context of asking why he ruled one way on some occassions and another way on others and especially if the administrator does not then request people to post links to other's posts then use compliance with his request as the first, second or third expression of a complaint contrary to his proposed new rule intended to reduce inquiries about his definition of something even he could not define until he saw it.
If I’m following you here, I could see, yes, perhaps referring to a thread you’re not actively involved in, but which closely resembles one of your own posts or threads that has resulted in a PBC or block. My complaint is with habitual challenges to others’ civility. I should expect anyone might make these kinds of requests from time to time, but when they come up daily, sometimes several times a day, that’s what I object to. I think you understand me, don’t you?
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 23:46:14
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 22:08:58
I should expect anyone might make these kinds of requests from time to time, but when they come up daily, sometimes several times a day, that’s what I object to. I think you understand me, don’t you?
>
I understand your objection to the sort of posts in question, and appreciate that your objection reflects actual difficulties you encounter. But while I understand your objections, I see the daily presence of such posts as conveying a different meaning. I don't see such routine questions about administrative decisions at other boards, which could lead to the conclusion that administration of other boards is not as questionable.I see them as evidence that the administrator is operating the board in such a way people can easily and routinely find occassions to ask about what presents to them confusion about administrative involvement, or possibly as evidence that the administrator has not articulated his terms of service in a way that is easy for some people to understand. His statement that even he doesn't know what he expects until he sees something that doesn't fit his expectation tends to support my view that he can never accurately explain his expectations until he develops in advance a vision of what he expects and commits himself to evenhanded administration of that vision.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:38:28
In reply to Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by Racer on June 11, 2005, at 14:51:55
> Instead of posting a link here, asking that a post be reviewed for civility, how about a function to allow posts to be sent via email
I think there are pros and cons to different approaches:
> When posters are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by email, and that would have the advantage of being less embarrassing. If done with sensitivity, however, posting offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity “behind the scenes,” and allowing others to contribute to the process.
http://www.dr-bob.org/download/CP_3_6_p935-950.pdf
Bob
Posted by Racer on June 14, 2005, at 1:24:20
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:38:28
> > Instead of posting a link here, asking that a post be reviewed for civility, how about a function to allow posts to be sent via email
>
> I think there are pros and cons to different approaches:
>
> > When posters are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by email, and that would have the advantage of being less embarrassing. If done with sensitivity, however, posting offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity “behind the scenes,” and allowing others to contribute to the process.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/download/CP_3_6_p935-950.pdf
>
> BobFair enough, and makes sense. I am still more than a little bothered by what I'm seeing here, though, and wonder if a rule like, "Before posting on Admin, try to work it out with the poster involved" might help?
That's just off the top of my very tired and rather pointy head, so don't spend too much time musing on it...
Peace.
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:49:53
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:38:28
Your end of it still would be public, if you found that something wasn't civil. Wouldn't that still accomplish your goal?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:37:56
In reply to Re: Another suggestion » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:49:53
> Your end of it still would be public, if you found that something wasn't civil. Wouldn't that still accomplish your goal?
It would accomplish:
> clarifying the limits for others
but not:
> modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity “behind the scenes,” and allowing others to contribute to the process.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 8:14:03
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:37:56
All right, how about after one or two requests for review per month (about any posts, not about posts for a specific poster), done publicly on the Admin board, future requests would still be allowable, but not publicly.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 9:01:57
In reply to Re: Another suggestion » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 8:14:03
Dinah,
You wtote,[...after two requests...future requests...not publicly...].
Are saying that you agree that my requests, or anyone elses requests, to Dr. Hsiung on the administrative board should be limited to no more than two per month and then the rest would be emailed to him? If so, could you write what your justification, if any, for that could be?
If you reply to me, could you cover the following?
A. What could I or anyone else do to get the determination that I request if Dr. Hsiung does not answer my emails or others emails to him?
B. If your proposed policy has the effect of stilling someone's voice here, are you in favor of that?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:14:59
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-stlvoic » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 9:01:57
I'm suggesting that the same be true for anyone. It would also be a protection for you.
I don't think it would still anyone's voice, because the complaint could still be made to Dr. Bob. Notice I do not want him to limit the number of complaints made privately to him. I think those should be unlimited, unless he specifically asks a person to stop for a particular reason. And if he finds the post objectionable, he can act publicly.
What it might do is ease a lot of the hurt feelings and resulting anger. Don't you think decreasing hurt feelings and resulting anger would be a good thing?
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 11:01:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-stlvoic » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:14:59
Dinah,
You wrote something like,[...don't think it will still your voice to email Dr. Bob...]
Sorry, but behind the scenes does not allow others to know of my voice, particulary if Dr. Hsiung does not reply to my email in a timely manner or not reply to me st all.
I think that I emailed you and Dr. Hsiung with my request to addtress that post that wrote something like,[...those that honnor any other God besides Jesus are not saved...] and it is still there unaddressed? You say that I can email you. But does that mean that you will reply in a timely manner or at all?
Now there are posts that I have emailed Dr. Hsiung about and they are still unaddressed as to if they are acceptable or not. Not replying does not necessarrily mean that they are acceptable because of past posts in regards to that. In one case, about the calling of another an id*ot, did he not write something like that I would not have the opportunity to hear from him one way or the other as to if the post is acceptsble or not?
There is a post that offers a link to a web site that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. I can not find that post . Is it deleted? If so, why is it deleted and others not?
What about if a poster that I am not allowed to request a determination about posts another post and I email Dr. Hsiung and he does not answer my email. I cna then email you and bypass the 3 post rule?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 11:05:42
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-stlvoic-2 » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 11:01:33
You can always email me. I can't act unless a situation is escalating. I would guess that if Dr. Bob does not reply to an email or act on the information, then that is an official equivilant to "I think this post is fine." You can ask him if that is indeed equivilant.
When I email Dr. Bob with a concern, and he neither responds or acts on the board, I assume he considers the post to be ok.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 11:19:44
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-stlvoic-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 11:05:42
Dinah, You wrote something like,[...if Dr. Hsiung does not act on the post you assume it is acceptable...] That is why there is a grear want for me to not allow any policy that has the potential to still my voice.
You see, the post, for example, that writes something like,[...anyone that honors another God besides Jesus is not saved...] is left anadressed as to if it is acceptable or not so thaeafore there is the potential for others to think that the statementin question is acceptable here.
Then IMO, there is the potential for others that read Dr. Hsiung's faith board page to have the potential to think that since that post isunaddressed then the foundation of my faith which is the same as jewdaism and some others , puts down those of other faith but that the foundation of Christianity does not.
I have asked him to correct tis and he has aas far as I can see not written a post directed ot that post on thhat thead that it is on so that others could not have the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung endorses that those that honor any other God but Jesus is not saved . If that is so, where does that put jews and others that honor another god besides Jesus in this community and could it have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings here against me by others thinking that the foundation of christiandom is favored here?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 11:25:14
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-stlvoic-hstlenvirn? » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 11:19:44
If the post has gone unadressed, then the question is answered, isn't it? The post was acceptable to Dr. Bob.
You can argue with Dr. Bob that such statements shouldn't be acceptable.
But the acceptability question has been answered, as the rules stand now.
Even if you couldn't publicly complain about a particular post, you could say that the civility guidelines should be changed to include a statement that Dr. Bob now considers civil.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 11:36:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-stlvoic-hstlenv » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 11:25:14
> If the post has gone unadressed, then the question is answered, isn't it? The post was acceptable to Dr. Bob.
>
> You can argue with Dr. Bob that such statements shouldn't be acceptable.
>
> But the acceptability question has been answered, as the rules stand now.
>
> Even if you couldn't publicly complain about a particular post, you could say that the civility guidelines should be changed to include a statement that Dr. Bob now considers civil.
Dinah,
Are you you saying, as to what you wrote in your above post, that I could request that since there is a post in the catagory that I am prohibited to post, is posted, and it is thearfore acceptable because Dr. Hsiung did not write one way or the other as per my equest for determination of such is or is not putting down those of other faiths, that I should be allowed to post the prohibited post that is spoken of on the opening page of the faith board by me by asking him?
If so, then was that not already done here by you and others and myself already when you wrote in a post something like that Lou should be allowed to post the proposed post that Dr. Hsiung writes that he will expell me for if I post it?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 11:55:38
In reply to Lou'sresponse-Dinah-stlvoic-hstlenv-dnil? » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 11:36:35
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 12:46:02
In reply to Lou'sresponse-Dinah-stlvoic-hstlenv-dnil? » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 11:36:35
Dinah,
You wrote something like that you couldn't understand my reply to you. If so, could you have dialog with me and start off with what you would like cleared up?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 12:51:05
In reply to Lou'sresponse-Dinah-stlvoic-hstlenv-dnil?dia? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 12:46:02
Are you asking if it is ok to post substantially the same thing for your faith as was ok for another poster to post about their faith?
If so, my suggestion would be to include your proposed statement in an email to Dr. Bob, along with a link to the statement that was found acceptable and that you find equivilant to your statement, and ask if it's ok to post your statement, and if not, why it differs substantially from the post you found equivilant.
I'm suggesting you contact Dr. Bob, because faith board guidelines are tricky, and unless he agreed to hold you harmless for an ok given by me, I wouldn't want to see you get in trouble for a difference in interpretation between Dr. Bob and me.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 13:29:15
In reply to Re: Lou'sresponse-Dinah-stlvoic-hstlenv-dnil?dia? » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 12:51:05
> Are you asking if it is ok to post substantially the same thing for your faith as was ok for another poster to post about their faith?
>
> If so, my suggestion would be to include your proposed statement in an email to Dr. Bob, along with a link to the statement that was found acceptable and that you find equivilant to your statement, and ask if it's ok to post your statement, and if not, why it differs substantially from the post you found equivilant.
>
> I'm suggesting you contact Dr. Bob, because faith board guidelines are tricky, and unless he agreed to hold you harmless for an ok given by me, I wouldn't want to see you get in trouble for a difference in interpretation between Dr. Bob and me.
In your post to me above, i think that I may have already done that. In your opinion, if I have already done what you propose for me to do, what could I do now?
Lou
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 13:29:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-stlvoic-hstlenv » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 11:25:14
> If the post has gone unadressed, then the question is answered, isn't it? The post was acceptable to Dr. Bob.
I guess a person might at least want a response to know that the request was received and read. (Like it didn't get lost somewhere, or buried and overlooked.)
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 15:44:16
In reply to Lou's reply-Dinah-stlvoic-hstlenv-dnil?dia?C » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 13:29:15
Dr. Bob has said that sometimes emails get buried. If he didn't answer you, do it again?
If he did answer you, how did he say the two statements were different?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 0:16:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-stlvoic-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 11:05:42
> I would guess that if Dr. Bob does not reply to an email or act on the information, then that is an official equivilant to "I think this post is fine."
Well, not really, sometimes emails get buried. Sorry, it can take persistence to get through to me sometimes.
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.