![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 66. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 19:49:50
Someone mentioned this before, but as the DNP is taken so seriously, I think it would be a good idea to specify that it has to be in the subject line.
I wouldn't have known Henrietta had requested that I not post to her until someone told me recently, I still don't know where it is, but that's not important I trust the person who mentioned it.
It likely wouldn't have been an issue, but if it was someone I posted to regularly it easily could have been.
Or perhaps you should allow the D.N.P'd person to at least acknowledge that they've seen it?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 1:29:47
In reply to Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 19:49:50
> Someone mentioned this before, but as the DNP is taken so seriously, I think it would be a good idea to specify that it has to be in the subject line.
I think that's a good idea. And another reason to revise that section...
Bob
Posted by Ron Hill on July 9, 2005, at 16:04:20
In reply to Re: Is it permissible to..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 1:31:19
> > Someone mentioned this before, but as the DNP is taken so seriously, I think it would be a good idea to specify that it has to be in the subject line.
> I think that's a good idea. And another reason to revise that section...
> BobYa think?
So let me see if I’ve got this right. On the one hand, you openly admit that the section is in need of multiple revisions. And yet, at the same time, you refuse to reduce Lar’s block even after you recognize the inadequacy of your written rules?
Go figure!
-- Ron
------------------
For readers unfamiliar with the particular section that Dr. Bob is referring to, I’ll include a block, copy, and paste of the section below. It should be noted that this is the only section in the FAQ guidelines that mentions the do not post (DNP) option. Clearly, the focus of the rule, as currently written, is harassment.<start FAQ section>
What can I do if I feel harassed here?
First, I'm sorry if that happens. I try to keep the atmosphere supportive, but unfortunately it isn't always. To help, please be civil even if you feel harassed.
I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, but if that's not possible, you can, as a last resort, ask another poster not to post to you anymore. If you think you need to do that, follow these steps:
Identify a post by them to you that makes you feel harassed.
Ask them not to post to you anymore by replying to that post with the "add name of previous poster" box checked. Please be civil when you do so; "please don't post to me" is enough. If it's not clear to me why their post makes you feel harassed, I may ask. I may also decide their post isn't civil, but that's a separate issue.
Save the URL of your request to them.
If they do post to you after that, let me know the URLs of their post to you and of your earlier request to them. Please be civil when you do so.
If you post to them, it's OK for them to post to you in response. Your request stays in effect unless you change your mind, which you may do at any time (and are encouraged to do at some time to reopen lines of communication).
Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.
<end FAQ section>
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
ha•rass P Pronunciation Key (h -r s , h r s)
tr.v. ha•rassed, ha•rass•ing, ha•rass•es
1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
[French harasser, possibly from Old French harer, to set a dog on, from hare, interj. used to set a dog on, of Germanic origin.]
ha•rass er n.
ha•rass ment n.
Synonyms: harass, harry, hound, badger, pester, plague
These verbs mean to trouble persistently or incessantly. Harass and harry imply systematic persecution by besieging with repeated annoyances, threats, or demands: The landlord harassed tenants who were behind in their rent. A rude customer had harried the storekeeper. Hound suggests unrelenting pursuit to gain a desired end: Reporters hounded the celebrity for an interview. To badger is to nag or tease persistently: The child badgered his parents for a new bicycle. To pester is to inflict a succession of petty annoyances: “How she would have pursued and pestered me with questions and surmises” (Charlotte Brontë). Plague refers to a problem likened to an epidemic disease: “As I have no estate, I am plagued with no tenants or stewards” (Henry Fielding).
Usage Note: Educated usage appears to be evenly divided on the pronunciation of harass. In a recent survey 50 percent of the Usage Panel preferred stressing the first syllable, while 50 percent preferred stressing the second. Curiously, the Panelists' comments appear to indicate that each side regards itself as an embattled minority.[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 16:14:27
Recently you suggested that we could ask posters to not post to us anymore anytime we simply wish to "disengage" (presumably for whatever reason). In the FAQ, I believe it says you have to feel "harassed," which, while highly subjective of course, is at least narrower than simply wishing to disengage.I should think you'd want to revisit that suggestion you made given the free-for-all that's now going on. I don't want to take away anyone's right to disengage (especially not my own) but for the health of the community, I wonder if there shouldn't be clearer limits.
Just a thought.
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 16:19:46
In reply to Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 19:49:50
you raise an excellent point, gabbii. even if it's in the subject line there's no guarantee that the person it's directed to will see it. i don't always look at all the posts on all the boards. i think this speaks to the need for there to always be at least one warning before blocking someone who's posted to someone who DNP'd them. or at the very least, evidence that they were aware of the DNP when they did it.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:09:06
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 16:19:46
Though people do get a warning before they get a blocking.
I wonder if someone has broken a DNP before and then claimed they never saw the DNP request...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:20:29
In reply to Dr. Bob, do you want to revisit your lax DNP rules, posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 16:14:27
It would be good to revise them - but I don't see how it is crucial.
The message is:
If someone requests you not post to them then do not post to them.
How hard is that?
If you have issues about whether they are allowed to request you not post to them it is probably wise to have a discussion with Dr Bob and WAIT until you get a response from him.
Clear as day I would have thought...
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 18:27:24
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, do you want to revisit your DNP rules » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:20:29
yes, well, whether it's crucial or not, that's not the point of this thread. i'm not asking whether i can ignore someone's DNP -- just whether the rules should be changed for the future. i kind of think that they should be.
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 18:34:30
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:09:06
I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about giving people warnings before they are blocked. At least not a DNP warning. (They might've gotten a warning for being uncivil or something, then six months later they violate a DNP--without necessarily even knowing about it--and boom.)
Posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:48:05
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 18:34:30
Ok. Maybe I'm wrong - but I thought you were warned specifically for violating DNP before being blocked for it.
But maybe it also depends on the nature of the post. Dr Bob probably goes easier on apologies than personal attacks, for instance.
But I have been warned for it
And then blocked on a subsequent occasion.
And I think same for Larry.
Thats why I don't get how the situation was different.
I mean, I get that the circumstances around which the DNP was issued may or may not be ok...
But either way he was requested to not post - and then he did. Same as me, same as me.
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 20:45:25
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:48:05
I'm not talking about larry or you. i'm just talking about in general. hypothetically.show me where larry got warned, though. i'd like to see it.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 9, 2005, at 22:12:41
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 20:45:25
> show me where larry got warned, though. i'd like to see it.
hi crushed...pretty sure this is the post with the *official* warning from Dinah from that day....http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511949.html
Posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2005, at 1:32:52
In reply to Harassed FAQ and Lar's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on July 9, 2005, at 14:20:58
My bad.
Thanks for moving my previous post to the appropriate thread. Every now and then I'm reminded that you're a good guy and you genuinely care about people.
Okay, enough of that; now back to the Larry war.
-- Ron
Posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2005, at 2:30:22
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, do you want to revisit your DNP rules » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:20:29
Hi Alexandra_k,
> It would be good to revise them - but I don't see how it is crucial.
I disagree. It's absolutely crucial.
> The message is:
> If someone requests you not post to them then do not post to them.
> How hard is that?Not hard at all so long as everyone knows the rules. But therein lays the problem. Generally speaking, each and every poster on this site does not necessarily have time to comb through every post to track down when and where Dr. Bob might have changed the rules via an edict hidden away somewhere within the text of a post buried in a long drawn out thread.
Instead, what we rely upon are the written rules of the site as listed in the policy sections of the FAQ. If Dr. Bob wakes up one morning and feels like changing the rules, then the appropriate changes need to be made in the FAQ.
Further, any enforcement actions taken by Dr. Bob should be based solely on the rules as written in the FAQ. Clearly, in the case of our friend Larry Hoover, the enforcement action was not based on the applicable written rule. Larry did not harass anyone within the posts in question.
-- Ron
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 9:07:13
In reply to Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » alexandra_k, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2005, at 2:30:22
>
> Further, any enforcement actions taken by Dr. Bob should be based solely on the rules as written in the FAQ. Clearly, in the case of our friend Larry Hoover, the enforcement action was not based on the applicable written rule. Larry did not harass anyone within the posts in question.
>
>Hi Ron,
I absolutely agree that rules should be directly stated in one place such as the FAQ or perhaps even a section entitled "rules of the site". However, I'm not sure I agree that Larry's posts did not harrass anyone. I think Emmy did feel harrassed, or I doubt she would have said a word. And she asked for assistance multiple times before any resolution. Whether that meets some standard of what harrassment consists of or not, I do not know. But I think Emmy's feelings and the fact that she did ask Lar not to post should count for something.I also do not think Lar intended to harrass Emmy or anyone else, and I agree with everyone else that six weeks is too long for the alleged infraction, especially if it was an infraction of a poorly specified rule.
Perhaps a system of block length based on the infraction would be appropriate.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 9:32:31
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » crushedout, posted by 10derHeart on July 9, 2005, at 22:12:41
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:42:52
In reply to Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » alexandra_k, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2005, at 2:30:22
I think people tend to notice DNP requests because they typically occur within the context of a heated discussion. The poster is posting to the thread and someone else responds to what they have said with a DNP request. I think people tend to find them as they look for responses to their posts.
That being said it is surely possible to miss one.
I'm not so happy with the 'free for all' DNP requests either. I have had a few of those when I do not believe I have done anything wrong. Nevertheless I have honoured the request because I figure DNP means DNP. Well... I got blocked for breaching one not so long ago. I intended it to be comments to the general reader. Dr Bob saw it as being directed. Unfortunately he can't make admin decisions based on peoples intentions (or people would attack others and say 'I was only intending to vent my frustration'). So as far as the content of my post went... I could see that there is an ambiguity there.
And the lesson of the story is that you have to be VERY careful posting after reading the post of someone who has requested DNP. You have to be VERY careful that your post will not be seen as a reply to that persons post.
DNP means DNP
That being said I did struggle with not seeing what I had done to deserve a DNP. But I just figured they needed time out. And so that should be respected.
It is a shame when people throw them around.
But that being said... Its their decision I suppose. Better to get a DNP request than to have them snap and attack me.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:55:11
In reply to Re: and after that, he didn't post. (nm) » 10derHeart, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 9:32:31
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/508196.html
then
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/508404.html
And then in the very next post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/508409.html
Which, while being an apology is yet another post to Emmy.
So this latest bit really was just the latest bit in a very long and complicated saga...
And how many warnings is one supposed to get before being blocked????
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:56:09
In reply to Re: but unfortunately before that he did., posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:55:11
i don't think...
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:10:35
In reply to Re: but unfortunately before that he did., posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:55:11
You would understand Larry's point of view.
You and Gabbi and Dinah did a lot of 'do not post' with 'undirected' apologies over a very long time.
Posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 11:15:02
In reply to Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 19:49:50
> Someone mentioned this before, but as the DNP is taken so seriously, I think it would be a good idea to specify that it has to be in the subject line.
>
> I wouldn't have known Henrietta had requested that I not post to her until someone told me recently, I still don't know where it is, but that's not important I trust the person who mentioned it.
> It likely wouldn't have been an issue, but if it was someone I posted to regularly it easily could have been.
> Or perhaps you should allow the D.N.P'd person to at least acknowledge that they've seen it?I agree with you. I can completely understand how someone could be unaware of a DNP even if it is in the subject line. Is it possible that Dr. B could create a DNP page where it lists who has a DNP against who and a link to the official DNP post? That way each person could check it on their own to see if their name is there. And if they disagree with the nature of the DNP, they could bring it up in Admin. Since DNP's are public knowledge anyways, this wouldn't cross any privacy lines.
Or could it be a DNP page where the person could fill in a form showing the name of the person they are invoking the DNP on, the thread in question, and the reason the person wants the DNP? Then it could be added to what I mentioned above. An email could then be sent to the person being DNP'ed letting them know about the request.
Just two ideas. Maybe there's an easier way, but I don't read every post and can easily miss a DNP.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:58:03
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » Ron Hill, posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 9:07:13
I agree, I think what makes a person feel harassed is personal and can't be decided by a set of rules.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:59:02
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:10:35
I wondered about that too..
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 12:04:37
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:59:02
Posted by TamaraJ on July 10, 2005, at 13:35:08
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » Ron Hill, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:42:52
Sorry, but I have to agree with AuntieMel's comment in the thread above, and reiterate that I would think of all people you would understand Larry's point of view. I am so confused, my head is spinning. I am trying to reconcile what you have been saying during this discussion and other recent ones on this subject, with your statement in the thread where Larry was blocked (this was after the two, three? times you violated Gabbi's DNP requests were raised):
"All I know...
Is that those kind of requests tend to produce a 'f*ck that I'll continue just to spite you' kind of response.
I'm not proud of that...
But there it is."http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512722.html
I am also trying to figure out why, in spite of Gabbi asking you not to post to her in the following post/thread, you did so in a subsequent thread?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512971.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/523027.html
I guess I must be missing something . . .Tamara
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.