![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Glydin on July 3, 2006, at 15:36:02
I need a little help with this. As far as I remember, the 3 post rule came about FOR THE MOST PART due to a specific posting behavior from the past. That does not appear to me be an issue at this time. My question:
If I begin a thread and I wish to respond to a number of folks who posted back to me INDIVIDUALLY on separate posts and I wish to do this in one “swoop” of posting (so to speak) - would that, if over three posts in a row be violating the 3 post rule? Technically, I’m thinking it would, but I'm not sure. I try not to post more than three consecutive posts, but would it be acceptable?
I apologize in advance if this has been addressed before, if so, I have missed it.
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2006, at 16:03:14
In reply to 3 post rule (dare I say it) clarification, posted by Glydin on July 3, 2006, at 15:36:02
Replying to posts individually is an exception to the rule.
Posted by Glydin on July 3, 2006, at 16:35:06
In reply to Re: 3 post rule (dare I say it) clarification, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2006, at 16:03:14
I did not know that and now it's good to know.
Thanks for your time, Dinah
Posted by TexasChic on July 3, 2006, at 20:16:29
In reply to Thank you » Dinah, posted by Glydin on July 3, 2006, at 16:35:06
So you're not supposed to post more than three in a row? Does that mean if I've posted three times in a row to a thread I started, I can't post to it again until someone responds to it? I don't get it. Sometimes I have an ongoing thread that I update over time even though no one has responded. Is that what this rule is refering to?
Also, how are we supposed to know this rule if we don't read admin (which I rarely do)? Maybe I'm dumb but I've tried to find a page of rules and never could.
Respectively
-T
Posted by Glydin on July 3, 2006, at 22:55:35
In reply to Questions, posted by TexasChic on July 3, 2006, at 20:16:29
> So you're not supposed to post more than three in a row?
~~~ As far as I know, there is still that guideline in place (exception as per above) as well as not beginning more than three threads in a row. There was another discussion around mid May 06 on the 3 post rule on this board but I can't see where the rule was removed. As I've said, I do believe it was a specific rule for a specific situation that got made into a general rule. I do remember feeling that didn't seem correct to me... nor does it now.
> Also, how are we supposed to know this rule if we don't read admin~~~ Good Point and as far as a list of specific guidelines addressing "stuff" such as this issue - I don't know if such a thing exists or not. Kinda a sad commentary for my four year veternship here.
Posted by llrrrpp on July 3, 2006, at 23:41:13
In reply to Re: Questions » TexasChic, posted by Glydin on July 3, 2006, at 22:55:35
> ~~~ Good Point and as far as a list of specific guidelines addressing "stuff" such as this issue - I don't know if such a thing exists or not. Kinda a sad commentary for my four year veternship here.
I have also tried to find such a list of rules, or guidelines, to no avail. It's especially hard, when my brain is already super medicated to try and figure out what's civil and what's not.
Didn't Larry Hoover offer to assemble & concatenate a list of rules? Maybe I'm misremembering. My brain's as mossy as the north face of a coastal redwood.
-ll
Posted by TexasChic on July 6, 2006, at 13:06:05
In reply to Re: Questions » Glydin, posted by llrrrpp on July 3, 2006, at 23:41:13
How are we supposed to know the rules (other than the 'be civil' one)? Would we get blocked for something we didn't know was against the rules? Or are we just supposed to inforce these rules ourselves? Like telling someone they shouldn't post more than three times in a row after they've already done so.
I'm just trying to figure this out. I'd hate to get blocked for something I didn't even know about!
-T
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2006, at 17:36:15
In reply to So Dr. Bob,, posted by TexasChic on July 6, 2006, at 13:06:05
> How are we supposed to know the rules .. ? Would we get blocked for something we didn't know was against the rules? Or are we just supposed to inforce these rules ourselves? Like telling someone they shouldn't post more than three times in a row after they've already done so.
Well, of course you're supposed to read the FAQ. I know, that doesn't apply in this case, since these rules aren't in it yet. I've been wondering whether to keep them, but I haven't come up with a better idea, so I guess I will.
I'm totally in favor of posters helping each other be aware of the rules, I think that's one way of supporting each other.
Finally, you'd be alerted to the rule with a PBC or something like that before you were blocked...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 13, 2006, at 0:25:53
In reply to Re: knowing the rules, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2006, at 17:36:15
Dr. Bob. (hands on hips) I'm quite certain Babblers could come up with a dozen better ideas. Maybe you ought to broaden your sources of inspiration from yourself alone to other heads.
I'm certain I've floated quite a few, but if my ideas have missed the mark, perhaps it's because I'm not entirely sure exactly what your goal is. Perhaps you just haven't explained it yet in a way I understand. But I'm willing to keep working on it if you are. If you prefer, I can email you guesses and you can tell me when I get it right.
I freely offer my brain to be picked clean of any scraps of ideas that might be useful. Eliminating the three post rule is a goal worth fighting for, don't you think?
Posted by Dinah on July 13, 2006, at 0:28:56
In reply to Re: knowing the rules » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 13, 2006, at 0:25:53
Sorry, Dr. Bob. I know it's pushy of me. But I never have liked that rule, and knowing you're open to revoking it but for the lack of a better idea makes me really really want to help you look for a better idea.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 13, 2006, at 8:02:06
In reply to Re: knowing the rules, posted by Dinah on July 13, 2006, at 0:28:56
I absolutely agree. And from my brief thread, no one seemed to feel that turn-taking was a problem here. But then, I suppose those who feel it's a problem could be less likely to speak up.
The only difficulty I have with someone who posts more than 3 in a row is that I have to scroll a bit more. I think I can handle that. ;) And given that I don't read all threads and rely on the "new" indicators, it's really not any harder to find what I want to read, except for rolling the little wheel on my mouse.
Time to start doing finger exercises! :D
I would like to see the rule revoked, and frankly, I don't see that anything needs to go in its place.
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on July 13, 2006, at 11:30:28
In reply to Re: knowing the rules, posted by gardenergirl on July 13, 2006, at 8:02:06
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 19, 2006, at 20:15:43
In reply to Re: knowing the rules, posted by gardenergirl on July 13, 2006, at 8:02:06
> Dr. Bob. (hands on hips) I'm quite certain Babblers could come up with a dozen better ideas. Maybe you ought to broaden your sources of inspiration from yourself alone to other heads.
>
> I'm certain I've floated quite a few, but if my ideas have missed the mark, perhaps it's because I'm not entirely sure exactly what your goal is.
>
> DinahI'm open to other ideas, the goal is to promote sharing of the boards...
> I absolutely agree. And from my brief thread, no one seemed to feel that turn-taking was a problem here.
>
> I would like to see the rule revoked, and frankly, I don't see that anything needs to go in its place.
>
> ggI'd like fewer rules, too, but IMO, it was a problem before and could potentially be one again, so I do think something would need to go in its place...
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.