![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 11:20:29
DR. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure, the following;
I would also like for you to consider the following if you are going to post a reply to me in this thread.
You have in your FAQ that there are exceptions to rules and you have given them for your [...3 consecutive post...] rule.
Now the exceptions indicate that there could be the exception made due to {a >need< to post [without waiting] for another to post after 3 posts}.
I ask,: If that is the case,could {my need} to teach, by breaking down into individual parts that may take 7 consecutive posts before one can see what I can uncover, that there are statements here that have the potential IMO to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew that are being let to stand, without repudiation, be just as supportive as the need that others have to post what they think that they need to post and thearfore I could also post without waiting?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692051.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2006, at 22:23:33
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 11:20:29
DR. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure, the following;
The 3 consecutive post rule has brought out that IMO the rule is only to keep one from posting more than 3 consecutive posts to their own post. This is because;
A. posting to aspects from different people is not part of the posts that one is replying to their selves and that is an exception
B. a diary is exempt because it is self-contained
C. A meltdown could be the same as a diary, but psychologically important to not wait for others to respond
D. a correction is not a {follow-up}, nor are other posts that are also not follow-ups.
E. A time separation is not counted, such as a day.
F. You have exceptions that also accoomodate one's need to post about something.
Putting all of this together, I come up with that the forum is to focus on support and education and I agree that the exceptions are needed to allow support and education, for if a rule denied one to offer support and education, it would be contradictory to the mission of the community.
This is why , as some have asked me, why this is so important to me to discuss this rule here, for I see that it has the potential to be non-supportive if it denies others to offer support and education. The rule does not prevent one from responding to different people in one post, but it does prevent one from responding with 4 consecutive posts to different people in the thread.
Members can reply if there are any number of posts by any member. The less confident member does not mean that that member is not confident, for it means that the member is less confident than another member. But that member could be greatly confident and being less confident does not mean that the member has no confidence, only less than someone else. A less-confident poster could still be confident.
I am asking you to consider removing this rule from the FAQ if you think that it is uncivil or unsupportive in any way to prevent one from offering education or support from that education.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692964.html
Posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 17:18:46
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-3conpost, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2006, at 22:23:33
I think that you might have part of the rule mistaken. In my understanding, and granted, it's only in my understanding, it is perfectly alright to post as many posts in a row as you want within a thread as long as they are all responses to specific people. So if 20 people respond to you, you can respond to all 20 of them in separate consecutive posts. You just can't post more than 3 consecutive posts with no one else replying to you in the middle.
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 19:20:22
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-3conpost » Lou Pilder, posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 17:18:46
SD,
You wrote,[...if 20 people respond to you (or if you are responding to 20 others), you can post 20 consecutive posts being a response to each one.
I have seen many do that, maybe not 20, and agree with that, for if that exception was not listed, one could possibly be kept from offering support to them if they could not post their response to them because of the rule.
This is my point. If the rule could keep one from offering support or education, then the rule could IMO contradict the mission of the forum and the rule could IMO be uncivil. With all the exceptions, then what does the rule accomplish if it prevents one from responding to a member in 4 consecutive posts, while they could post 20 consecutive posts to different members, and what could be its purpose, for the {less confident member} will see 20 consecutive posts and that is OK. What do you think is then, in your opinion,the purpose of the rule?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on October 15, 2006, at 20:34:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-3conpost » Lou Pilder, posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 17:18:46
> I think that you might have part of the rule mistaken.
I don't think there's an exception related to the amount of time that has passed since a previous post either (as in "E"). I think I assumed that once, but I was mistaken. (Of course I could be wrong.)
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 20:49:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-3conpost » sunnydays, posted by gardenergirl on October 15, 2006, at 20:34:08
Friends,
It is written here,[...I don't think there is an exception to the amount of time that has passed..I assumed that once...]
This came up recently and another posted that if a day elapsed, that the rule was moot.
The intent of the rule is under the intent of the mission of the forum which is support and education. To deny anyone from offering their support or education IMO is a contradiction to the mission of the forum and IMO any rule the keeps one from offering their suppoert or education is not supportive and IMO uncivil.
Whatever rules are in a communty, the constitution of the community overrules any rule that is in violation of it. The constitution here is that no one can tell another not to post, for that is uncivil, and any rule that says that another can not post IMO is also uncivil and not supportive.
If a day goes by, that does not mean that others can stop another member here from offering support in that thread. Another here also wrote that if a day goes by, the rule does not count and there was no objection to that member's statement from other members or the administration, be it the deputies or DR.Hsiung.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 20:57:51
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 20:49:32
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...I don't think there is an exception to the amount of time that has passed..I assumed that once...]
> This came up recently and another posted that if a day elapsed, that the rule was moot.
> The intent of the rule is under the intent of the mission of the forum which is support and education. To deny anyone from offering their support or education IMO is a contradiction to the mission of the forum and IMO any rule the keeps one from offering their suppoert or education is not supportive and IMO uncivil.
> Whatever rules are in a communty, the constitution of the community overrules any rule that is in violation of it. The constitution here is that no one can tell another not to post, for that is uncivil, and any rule that says that another can not post IMO is also uncivil and not supportive.
> If a day goes by, that does not mean that others can stop another member here from offering support in that thread. Another here also wrote that if a day goes by, the rule does not count and there was no objection to that member's statement from other members or the administration, be it the deputies or DR.Hsiung.
> Lou
Friends,
Also, there is a thread where there are more than 3 consecutive posts by the same poster and there is a day separating the 4th.
None of the 3 deputies or DR. Hsiung sanctioned that in relation to any violation of the rule in question. This leads me by the nature of the convention told to me here, that if something is not sanctioned, then the forum can consider that it is civil.
Lou
Posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 21:25:18
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-pprc, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 20:57:51
If a policeman sees someone driving 1 mph above the speed limit but decides not to pull them over and ticket them, does that mean that they were in fact not breaking the law by speeding? Personally, I think that they were still speeding, even if the police officer did not enforce the law.
Similarly, on the boards, I think one can reasonably conclude that it is not possible on a board this large to sanction every instance of a rule infraction, and sometimes there is discretion as to whether or not to do so. I don't think that anyone should assume that just because something isn't sanctioned it is by definition civil, just as in life one cannot assume that just because all laws are not enforced all the time, it is okay to sometimes break the laws.
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 21:48:50
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-pprc, posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 21:25:18
Friends,
It is written here about that if posts go unsanctioned that they are to be considered to be civil.
This came up in the past and it was very important and there was much discussion about it. There was IMO opportunity for the administration to say otherwise, but I think that that was not done by them and was left to stand that if {...Dr. Hsiung makes a pass and does not sanction a post, then it is considered to be civil...]. Dr. Hsiung to my knowlege did not refute that.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 11:12:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-pprc, posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 21:25:18
> I think one can reasonably conclude that it is not possible on a board this large to sanction every instance of a rule infraction, and sometimes there is discretion as to whether or not to do so. I don't think that anyone should assume that just because something isn't sanctioned it is by definition civil, just as in life one cannot assume that just because all laws are not enforced all the time, it is okay to sometimes break the laws.
That's the way I see it, too, thanks,
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on October 16, 2006, at 11:23:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-pprc, posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 21:25:18
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2006, at 14:00:07
In reply to Re: if something isn't sanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 11:12:33
> > I think one can reasonably conclude that it is not possible on a board this large to sanction every instance of a rule infraction, and sometimes there is discretion as to whether or not to do so. I don't think that anyone should assume that just because something isn't sanctioned it is by definition civil, just as in life one cannot assume that just because all laws are not enforced all the time, it is okay to sometimes break the laws.
>
> That's the way I see it, too, thanks,
>
> BobFriends,
It is written here that,[...just because a post is not sanctioned, that does not mean it is civil...].[...I (Dr. Hsiung) see it that way to..]
Now this brings up the following, that a member requesting a determination for acceptability does not know if the unsanctioned post is civil or not, for it could be civil, or it could not be civil. So could not asking if it is or not, IMO, be a reasonable question by a member here?
Then could not asking be reasonable and also be conscientious?
I base this on the mission of the forum, that it is for support and education and that those depend upon civility.
I ask,
A.Is it civil or supportive to limit a member to ask the deputy or owner of this site to find out if an unsanctioned post is uncivil?
B. Is it good for the community as a whole to have a policy that states that the deputies do not have to intervene?
C. Is it supportive or civil in a mental-health community to allow statements to remain unsanctioned if a member requests that they be sanctioned, if the statements are uncivil?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2006, at 17:06:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-pprc, posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 21:25:18
Friends,
It is written here,[...it is not possible on this board to sanction every instance of a rule infraction...]
Let us look at some aspects of this. Could not every instance of a rule infraction be sanctioned if;
A. Each post was looked at by the administration and they followed their policy and rules by applying them equally? If not, why not?
B. Posts that were questionable were sent to the administration for a determination and the deputies are to reply to the requestor as to if the statement in question is OK or not and if they say it is OK they give their rational?
C. An appeal procedure be established to have an outside impartial group of 3 people to either affirm the administraion's decision or reverse them?
D. The rules are made to be more well-defined?
E. an ombudsman be appointed to help facilitate this?
Then there is another aspect of this ...
Lou
Posted by Jost on October 16, 2006, at 21:59:59
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of SD's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2006, at 17:06:41
The short answer to Lou's question is, No.
It couldn't.
One major reason is the limited resources available, on which the sanctioning of posts would create an unbearable drain.
So, it wouldn't be best, or even better, to do what's necessary so that every infraction is sanctioned.
Actually, it also wouldn't be desirable, IMO.
Overenforcement of rules would make this a very unnurturing place. The distraction of knowing whether one is violating a rule, at all times, can stifle imagination, thoughtfulness, and many valuable forms of expression that--while they wouldn't be sanctioned,-- would simply be precluded by the preoccupation with how the rules would apply to it.
So, to me, it isn't possible, or desirable.
Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2006, at 6:45:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of SD's post-, posted by Jost on October 16, 2006, at 21:59:59
Friends,
It is written here,[...it couldn't..limited resources..create an unbearable drain..wouldn't be best..overenforcement..make..unnurturing place..distraction..violating..stifle..preoccupation..it isn't possible, or desirable...]
I have a plan that I think could be possible and IMO would not create an unbearable drain, and could be best for the community, and have the potential IMO to not stifle or distract or constitute overenforcement.
This plan of mine would eliminate blocking of members from posting and and have IMO a different way to foster support and education in a manner that could be consistant with going forward with the historical principles that have been proven to support the human condition to be brought out of the darkness of despair.
Lou
Posted by sunnydays on October 17, 2006, at 9:05:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of SD's post-, posted by Jost on October 16, 2006, at 21:59:59
> Overenforcement of rules would make this a very unnurturing place. The distraction of knowing whether one is violating a rule, at all times, can stifle imagination, thoughtfulness, and many valuable forms of expression that--while they wouldn't be sanctioned,-- would simply be precluded by the preoccupation with how the rules would apply to it.
Exactly. I don't think that it would be desirable at all. And how should all the posts be read when there are hundreds of posts and only a very limited number of people to do it, each of whom have other demands on their time? But I agree, I think it would be undesirable. It would make the board be focused on sanctions, not on support.sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2006, at 10:37:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of SD's post- » Jost, posted by sunnydays on October 17, 2006, at 9:05:29
Friends,
It is written here,[...overenforcement of rules..can stifle..preoccupation..with the rules...] [...how are all the posts to be read..focused on sanctions, not on support...].
I ask;
A. what, in your opinions is [..overenforcement of rules...]?
B. How does that, if you have an opinion, , if you have an opinion, stifle imagination,thoughtfulness and other valuable forms of expression?
C. if one could be {preoccupied by the rules} if all the posts were treated equally,if that is what is meant by {overenforcment}and you have an opinion, why would if all the posts were not treated equally dismiss this {preoccupation}?
D. If treating all the posts equally, if that is what is meant by preoccupation, caused one to be {focused on sanctions and not support}, how would not treating all the posts equally, if you have an opinion, cause one to not be focused on sanctions rather than support?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 17, 2006, at 13:48:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of SD's post-, posted by Jost on October 16, 2006, at 21:59:59
and what about those of us not in North American time zones..
It would need to be covered 24/7/365..
Hmmm
Nikki
Posted by sunnydays on October 17, 2006, at 14:21:35
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of SD'sJost's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2006, at 10:37:13
I'm sorry Lou. I can't continue this discussion anymore. I'm getting depressed more and more lately and I can't focus enough to think about my opinions. Just wanted to let you know I won't be replying to this thread anymore.
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2006, at 19:09:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of SD'sJost's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by sunnydays on October 17, 2006, at 14:21:35
sunnyday,
Please do not post to me.
Lou
Posted by Jost on October 17, 2006, at 21:40:16
In reply to Lou's request for sunnyday not to post to him » sunnydays, posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2006, at 19:09:00
Hi, Lou. Would you mind explaining why you asked sunnydays not to post to you?
I was under the impression that one did that in order to prevent someone from making unwelcome responses to one's posts.
That's not the case here, is it?
Jost
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.