![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 19, 2006, at 8:00:41
It occured to me that a DNP posted on one board may not be seen right away by the person who's been asked not to post. I suppose there could be a scenario where the person who's been asked not to post is happily posting away on another board before they get to the board where the DNP is posted. So they are not intentionally breaking the DNP, because they don't yet know about it.
What do we do in that case? And how would we know?
Maybe this has been addressed before.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on June 19, 2006, at 9:25:17
In reply to DNP's and notification, posted by gardenergirl on June 19, 2006, at 8:00:41
zazenduck asked me to not post, but if I had answered something on politics before I saw it would I be in trouble?
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 19, 2006, at 9:37:12
In reply to DNP's and notification, posted by gardenergirl on June 19, 2006, at 8:00:41
> It occured to me that a DNP posted on one board may not be seen right away by the person who's been asked not to post. I suppose there could be a scenario where the person who's been asked not to post is happily posting away on another board before they get to the board where the DNP is posted. So they are not intentionally breaking the DNP, because they don't yet know about it.
>
> What do we do in that case? And how would we know?
>
> Maybe this has been addressed before.
>
> ggI have been asking for that to be addressed since the rule first began. I have asked that question repeatedly.
I've also asked why I got blocked for a change to the DNP rule that was not made public, other than in the musings of a small handful of Babblers on some obscure sub-thread. Upon being notified of that rule change, I obeyed. But I got blocked anyway.
I have asked this question many times before. It touched a nerve.
The DNP is a bad rule. It should be temporary. Expiry in 24 hours? A week?
I don't even agree with the premise it supposedly relies on. What happened to personal responsibility? As in, "Don't read posts by X. They seem to upset me."
Lar
Posted by curtm on June 19, 2006, at 14:42:22
In reply to Re: DNP's and notification, posted by Larry Hoover on June 19, 2006, at 9:37:12
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 1:32:27
In reply to Re: DNP's and notification, posted by Larry Hoover on June 19, 2006, at 9:37:12
DNP's are bad rules because:
1. A person can rescind one, and restore it, in a single post. What is this, a permanent monologue? That should not be allowed, period.
2. DNPs encourage grudges. How does it help anybody to have old grudges come out of the dark of failing memory, only to be activated on somebody else's whim? What is that? Vengence?
3. DNPs encourage externalization of emotional response. Whatever your feeling, it is internal. Blaming another person for your own feelings is a guaranteed way to build problems in relationships, not repair them.
4. It reduces personal responsibility. If I don't like The Simpsons, I watch a different channel. I don't try and make The Simpsons stop broadcasting. If someone's style doesn't suit you, don't read their posts.
5. DNPs should have very brief expiry. No more than 48 hours, IMHO. And, a person throwing DNPs around should have some limits placed on that. Some reasonable limits.
6. The FAQ still does not reflect the functional form of the DNP rule. That is well over one year after I first brought that up. This is now at least the fourth time I've brought it up in 2006.
7. DNPs should entirely limit any references to the parties involved, either second or third party references. It is not fair to be able to talk about someone, if you aren't allowing them to enter the conversation. Any reference, any reference of any kind, should be a rescinding of the DNP.
8. Get rid of the harassment issue entirely, if you're not going to follow it, Bob. I got blocked when I was the target of harassment.
9. Allow simple acknowledgements of the DNP, to ensure that it is even known about. Recipient should say "Okay", or "Sorry" or something, or it should not even be in effect.
10. Create a master list somewhere. Nobody reads all boards.It's a bad rule, inside outside downside. Bad rule.
It stifles communication, when the simple act of acknowledging a problem is often all it takes to move on.
It punishes the wrong person, as often as not.
It punishes both persons, as often as not.
It puts punishment in the hands of Babblers, unique among all other rules. It needn't even be justified. Anybody can just throw one around. Watch.
Do no post to me, gardenergirl.
It should be very sparingly applied, but to do that would require true site monitoring, rather than the haphazard and intermittent monitoring still in effect.
You wonder why I get frustrated? Really?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 1:33:05
In reply to Do not post to me gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 1:32:27
DNP rescinded.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 1:05:11
In reply to Do not post to me gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on June 20, 2006, at 1:32:27
> It occured to me that a DNP posted on one board may not be seen right away by the person who's been asked not to post.
>
> ggNotification is an issue, they might not see it even if they're on the same board. Hmm, my plan is to implement a DNP form:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/526100.html
Instead of sending an email, which the person might not see right away, either, what if it just waited until the next time they posted and notified them then?
--
> It stifles communication, when the simple act of acknowledging a problem is often all it takes to move on.
Maybe often, but not always.
Should we agree to disagree regarding this? I'm sorry if you feel frustrated, powerless, or devalued, that certainly isn't my intent.
> Do no post to me, gardenergirl.
>
> LarFor the record, a DNP to a deputy would apply to them posting as a poster, but not as a deputy.
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:34:57
In reply to Re: DNP's and notification, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 1:05:11
> > Do no post to me, gardenergirl.
> >
> > Lar
>
> For the record, a DNP to a deputy would apply to them posting as a poster, but not as a deputy.
>
> BobI thought it was very clear that I was making a rhetorical point. My DNP to gardenergirl was a demonstration. I very shortly after rescinded it, as I never intended for it to persist. It was a demonstration DNP.
I sincerely apologize if my rhetorical demonstration was mistaken for the real thing. I really thought it was obvious that it was not sincere. That it was not personal. That it was me talking with a deputy, someone above the fray, in close to purely hypothetical terms.
Gardenergirl, I'm sorry if I failed to communicate that essential point effectively. I do tend to assume that people get what I'm saying, if they don't question me further about it. I'm sorry.
It's a bad rule, Bob.
Ask gardenergirl what it felt like to have that happen to her? You trust her judgment, right?
Bob, the DNP is a bad rule, unless you take it back to its original intent, to regulate truly harassing behaviour. And, I still insist that it should have a quick expiry.
If a deputy or Bob agrees that a DNP was warranted, then wouldn't that put the harasser on notice, similar to having received a Please Be Civil warning?
How did the DNP turn into something people use as a shield, enabling them to act in the very way it was meant to prevent?
I got upset because I feel like I'm being harassed. From behind a bloody DNP!!!
And this whole second person, directing a post thing is hogwash as well. A DNP should include "do not talk about", as well as "do not talk to". Until the darn thing expires. 24 hours? 48? How long do people need to clear their heads?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 7:23:34
In reply to Re: DNP's and notification » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:34:57
> I thought it was very clear that I was making a rhetorical point. My DNP to gardenergirl was a demonstration. I very shortly after rescinded it, as I never intended for it to persist. It was a demonstration DNP.
After I posted, I thought of a better explanation. It was a simulation. A realistic simulation.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2006, at 16:25:47
In reply to Re: DNP's and notification » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:34:57
I know Larry cannot reply to this post, but I wanted to answer his question and comment a bit about DNPs. Larry, please feel free to email me about this post if you wish. I've tried to answer your question, but I've also added my thoughts about DNP's in general.
> > For the record, a DNP to a deputy would apply to them posting as a poster, but not as a deputy.
> >
> > Bob
>
> I thought it was very clear that I was making a rhetorical point. My DNP to gardenergirl was a demonstration. I very shortly after rescinded it, as I never intended for it to persist. It was a demonstration DNP.I think Dr. Bob was taking this opportunity to make a point to everyone about deputies and DNP's, not necessarily to tell just Larry based on his post. Because it would be a tricky thing if someone wanted to DNP me or another deputy. We still have our deputy duties, and I'm glad Dr. Bob agrees that we could post to another as a deputy despite a DNP if needed.
>
> Ask gardenergirl what it felt like to have that happen to her? You trust her judgment, right?Larry, if you are asking this, here is what I remember about my reaction, warts and all. I read the first post and laughed. I thought it could be a clever way of trying to avoid deputy action from me, since I had informed you I was writing a PBC to you. I also briefly considered the personal implications of a DNP from you and realized that it would be about your feelings and needs. I realized that outside of deputy actions, I had no problem respecting that.
Maybe I'm cold or in some other way repressing an emotional response, but I've never read a DNP to me that led to more than a shrug and a note to self to remember not to post. I guess I view them differently.
Finally, I read your rescind post and realized you were making a point. I was not offended.
I do think there needs to be a clearer way of notifying about a DNP. I think at the very least, it needs to be in a subject line, not just within the body of post. I also do not think there needs to be harrassment or any other identified reason, as we all can be triggered by someone else for different reasons. Although I do think that it should be used flippantly or excessively. I do not know how that could be measured and addressed, however.
I like the idea of a form, as Dr. Bob linked to. I do not think there needs to be an identified reason.
I worry about letting another post go through before acknowledging/informing, because that post could sure be a doozy. I suppose ideally, the system would have something in place that simply would not let another person post "to" someone if there were a DNP in place, but that would also get tricky. But then no one would have to worry about breaking it accidentally, as they would get a "sorry, can't make this post" message of some kind.
But I do think that the concept of DNP's is a good tool for someone to cope with triggers or conflict. I think of it as a self-care tool, and folks have a right to use it. It helps me to think of it in this way, because then it's not about me, it's about their needs. And I think that a person has the right to keep it in place as long as they need to.
gg
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.