![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2007, at 22:56:21
I understand you now wish for us to use the report post option....but.....what if a deputies actions or even lack of them are part of the issue one wishes to report regarding that post? What should we do in that case? I am sending you in email a post I find in question so I do not get a PBC for questioning a deputy's action or lack of it as that could lead a deputy to feel accused or put down..correct?
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2007, at 23:32:12
In reply to For Dr Bob on reporting post ....and deputies, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2007, at 22:56:21
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2007, at 8:57:22
In reply to For Dr Bob on reporting post ....and deputies, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2007, at 22:56:21
Reporting a post should be done by email or through report this post feature. If reporting a deputy involves reporting a post that is not made by a deputy in the course of their normal duties, the same actions should be taken. Reporting posts under any context should be done by email or the report this post feature.
Reporting deputies was addressed by Dr. Bob in response to a post by Lou and a reply by me. You might find these URL's useful.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685609.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685616.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685858.html
I think Dr. Bob should clarify the rules on reporting posts and the rules on reporting deputies or deputy actions in the FAQ, though.
You're *always* safe emailing Dr. Bob personally not only to report what you wish to report but also to ask if you can do it on board, if you wish it to be public. If Dr. Bob gives the ok, it's obviously ok.
I hope this helps.
Dinah
Posted by ElaineM on January 23, 2007, at 10:49:59
In reply to For Dr Bob on reporting post ....and deputies, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2007, at 22:56:21
[Dinah, thanks for putting those in. I'm afraid I find them difficult to follow, so I hope it gets re-stated somewhere at some point like you suggested. Maybe I'm just dumb though :)]
THis is slightly different but also on the topic of reporting so.....
If I submit a post through the report button does it come back with an explanation saying "yes, appropriate measures will be taken" or "No, It's being left to stand because....." . Like, does it explain back to you the specific reasons why your own request for an application of a rule is being turned down for that post?
thanks, El
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2007, at 10:58:08
In reply to on reporting a post, posted by ElaineM on January 23, 2007, at 10:49:59
I'm not entirely sure, but I think that if actions are taken, no reply is necessarily given since the results are clear. And that if no action is taken, no specific reason is necessarily given. But I'm not sure of that, because my practice, if I don't think a reported post actually is uncivil, is to leave it to Dr. Bob, because he might.
Posted by ElaineM on January 23, 2007, at 11:37:36
In reply to Re: on reporting a post » ElaineM, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2007, at 10:58:08
I guess Bob can respond to the "does a rejection contain an explanation" part of the question too.
Cause if we're not allowed to talk about requests on the board, or ask how, or why rules are or aren't applied, then I thought perhaps keeping it "out of the public" would result in more information being exchanged, and clarification -- which is all most of us want. Well, what I want.
If we can't get concrete feedback even through the new "submit a post" rule then there's no way to get that. I'm trying to see how keeping things off-board can still keep communication lines open, and not limit the exchange of information. Plus, I wouldn't want to put time into something if it could be arbitrarily erased from an inbox without an explanation - you know?
I just want stuff to be clear.Sorry, I'm gonna be a b*tch and ask another question :( [I think I'm gonna have to ask alot today] but...
This may have been discussed before, but is there a vague timeline for requests we send (or deputies forward) to Bob to be addressed by. It doesn't have to be exact, I'd just want to be able to tell that something was still underconsideration, or if it had somehow been mistakenly overlooked or something. (I haven't sent anything now - but for future reference) [you can link me if a sorta "response time" has been decided before]
thanks, El
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2007, at 11:56:50
In reply to Re: on reporting a post » Dinah, posted by ElaineM on January 23, 2007, at 11:37:36
Hmmm... It's supposed to be two days, but clearly Dr. Bob isn't around every two days.
So I'm not sure what the other deputies do, but if I have a practice of leaving things that I don't think are uncivil for Dr. Bob, it obviously might go longer than that.
I don't know. Maybe we could kick around ideas, or maybe the other deputies have ideas.
It could just be me that is uncomfortable responding that something *is* civil without giving Dr. Bob a chance to look at it. I think my thinking is that reasonable people can disagree and though I don't think it's uncivil, someone obviously does, so it's up to Dr. Bob to decide?
I do know that if it's clearly a misunderstanding, someone tries to respond promptly, and usually lets the other deputies know that they've done so. And if a deputy thinks it's uncivil, they'll at least act on board and perhaps also reply, promptly.
Maybe some other deputies could chime in, since I'm limited to just what's on my mind. And Dr. Bob of course.
Posted by ElaineM on January 23, 2007, at 13:13:41
In reply to Re: on reporting a post » ElaineM, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2007, at 11:56:50
>>>>Maybe some other deputies could chime in, since I'm limited to just what's on my mind. And Dr. Bob of course.
Sure. I'm not specifically talking about anything current. Just since using the report button has been a hot-topic, I've become aware that I don't know all about it.
thanks for trying though :) El
Posted by muffled on January 23, 2007, at 14:14:13
In reply to Re: on reporting a post » Dinah, posted by ElaineM on January 23, 2007, at 13:13:41
Sounds like you deputies need to have another meeting in the 'special' room LOL! But seriously, it seems like some new stuff has come up and it would be helpful to you deputies if you could ask some questions in chat, cuz its WAY easier to communcate that way.
Thx for the work you do Dinah.
Muffled
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 23, 2007, at 18:49:56
In reply to Re: For Dr Bob on reporting post ....and deputies » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2007, at 8:57:22
Thanks Dinah I understand now..well as much as I understand much on here :) I wish and this is just a wish that it was all spelled out in the FAQ's so I didn't have to ask these things because I do not wish to make any of the deputies feel upset but how can I ask if I don't ask on here :-/ You rock thanks
:-)
> Reporting a post should be done by email or through report this post feature. If reporting a deputy involves reporting a post that is not made by a deputy in the course of their normal duties, the same actions should be taken. Reporting posts under any context should be done by email or the report this post feature.
>
> Reporting deputies was addressed by Dr. Bob in response to a post by Lou and a reply by me. You might find these URL's useful.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685609.html
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685616.html
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685858.html
>
> I think Dr. Bob should clarify the rules on reporting posts and the rules on reporting deputies or deputy actions in the FAQ, though.
>
> You're *always* safe emailing Dr. Bob personally not only to report what you wish to report but also to ask if you can do it on board, if you wish it to be public. If Dr. Bob gives the ok, it's obviously ok.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Dinah
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2007, at 1:32:42
In reply to Re: on reporting a post » Dinah, posted by ElaineM on January 23, 2007, at 11:37:36
> I guess Bob can respond to the "does a rejection contain an explanation" part of the question too.
Usually, but sometimes it comes down to a judgment call, so the "explanation" might just be that it seems OK to me.
> Cause if we're not allowed to talk about requests on the board, or ask how, or why rules are or aren't applied, then I thought perhaps keeping it "out of the public" would result in more information being exchanged, and clarification -- which is all most of us want.
Remember, it's fine to ask general questions on the board, and general answers may be more useful information.
> is there a vague timeline for requests we send (or deputies forward) to Bob to be addressed by. It doesn't have to be exact, I'd just want to be able to tell that something was still underconsideration, or if it had somehow been mistakenly overlooked or something.
If it's been more than a couple days, please feel free just to ask again.
Bob
Posted by ElaineM on January 24, 2007, at 23:28:31
In reply to Re: on reporting a post, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2007, at 1:32:42
>>>>>>Usually, but sometimes it comes down to a judgment call, so the "explanation" might just be that it seems OK to me.
I was hoping for an Always. That in the case of judgement calls there would be a:
"Seems OK to me, cause I *believe* they did ...whatnot..." or
"Seems OK to me, cause *I personally* don't "hear" that in their tone...." or
"Seems OK to me, cause it could be argued that "ignored" just stood for "unheard"..."
Something along those lines. I assumed you'd just always be confident in the fairness of your personal opinions, and that it wouldn't really be a problem putting some of them into words (it wouldn't have to be much - a sentence or so). It probably wouldn't even take as long to type out as the PBCs or Blocks would've.Do you think that that could be the practice -- to include not only explanations for the clear-cut rejections, but also ones (I'd like to say "especially") for the de facto rejections? Cause those are the ones that usually cause the most rifts on the board, and most confussion. Those are the ones that (most likely) individuals will be submitting through the "Notify" button -- the clear cut ones will most likely be caught by a deputy already.
Explanations are usually all that people want -- all I ever want -- see a small checks and balance system.
>>>>>>>>Remember, it's fine to ask general questions on the board, and general answers may be more useful information.
Yes, but a General question will only appear so if more than a small amount of people could possibly be connected to the subject matter. But if you say it's alright as long as it's phrased in generalities, then I'll take your word :) (if that's what you're saying)
>>>>>and general answers may be more useful information
Except in the cases of something unique or particularily confusing, I totally agree!
Did you know that that's why it can feel so frustrating the times when you respond with only another question, instead of a general answer?>>>>>>>If it's been more than a couple days, please feel free just to ask again.
Cool.
Thanks, El
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2007, at 0:48:50
In reply to Re: on reporting a post » Dr. Bob, posted by ElaineM on January 24, 2007, at 23:28:31
> I assumed you'd just always be confident in the fairness of your personal opinions, and that it wouldn't really be a problem putting some of them into words
>
> Do you think that that could be the practice -- to include not only explanations for the clear-cut rejections, but also ones (I'd like to say "especially") for the de facto rejections?It is in fact the practice to include some sort of explanation. I just wanted to be clear that it might be an opinion.
> > Remember, it's fine to ask general questions on the board, and general answers may be more useful information.
>
> Yes, but a General question will only appear so if more than a small amount of people could possibly be connected to the subject matter.Even if it would apply to only one current poster, it's still a general question if it includes future posters, too.
> Did you know that that's why it can feel so frustrating the times when you respond with only another question, instead of a general answer?
Sorry, I know it can be frustrating to deal with me!
Bob
Posted by ElaineM on January 25, 2007, at 10:23:17
In reply to Re: on reporting a post, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2007, at 0:48:50
>>>>>> Do you think that that could be the practice -- to include not only explanations for the clear-cut rejections, but also ones (I'd like to say "especially") for the de facto rejections?
*****It is in fact the practice to include some sort of explanation. I just wanted to be clear that it might be an opinion.Sweet, that's what I wanted to know. And I'll remember that you could sometimes be explaining your opinion rather than a fact :)
>>>> Yes, but a General question will only appear so if more than a small amount of people could possibly be connected to the subject matter.
****Even if it would apply to only one current poster, it's still a general question if it includes future posters, too.This is what i was confused about and hoping to have clarified -- So thanks. I'm more than satisfied with your explanation.
>>>> Did you know that that's why it can feel so frustrating the times when you respond with only another question, instead of a general answer?
****Sorry, I know it can be frustrating to deal with me!Aw, No worries :) I've never heard of *anyone* who does their job perfectly 100% of the time. Actually I find you quite efficient and non-frustrating when you are sticking closer to only contributing by giving straightforward administrative answers. [Like, if I asked the owner of an establishment I was at to clarify the rules of conduct there, and how they were enforced, I don't think they'd reply... "But what do *you* think?" - you know?] ANything else makes it difficult to know if you are commenting as a regular person, as a pdoc, or as a friend. All of which would be fine -- I guess -- if such a practice was common knowledge (and forewarned).
If it's a plainly requested administrative question could there be an agreement that you could always just answer it with equally plain information? (I'm not saying the reverse happens *all* the time, just that I wonder that if you were even more open and straight-forward in the Administrator role, if it would shorten, or even lessen, the conflicts that rule-confussion creates)
I appreciate you trying to answer the questions I've been asking though with more plain statements - honestly.
thanks,El
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2007, at 1:21:12
In reply to Re: on reporting a post » Dr. Bob, posted by ElaineM on January 25, 2007, at 10:23:17
> If it's a plainly requested administrative question could there be an agreement that you could always just answer it with equally plain information?
Do you think there should be?
Just kidding! :-) Sorry, but sometimes questions can be less straightforward than they seem. And sometimes instead of just telling you what I think the answer is, I'd like to find out what you think the answer should be.
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on January 26, 2007, at 7:42:26
In reply to Re: on reporting a post, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2007, at 1:21:12
> > If it's a plainly requested administrative question could there be an agreement that you could always just answer it with equally plain information?
>
> Do you think there should be?
>
> Just kidding! :-)
Posted by ElaineM on January 26, 2007, at 11:45:12
In reply to Re: on reporting a post, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2007, at 1:21:12
>>>>Just kidding! :-)
Ba-doo-boom-ching! :-) Are you deflecting?
>>>>>>>Sorry, but sometimes questions can be less straightforward than they seem. And sometimes instead of just telling you what I think the answer is, I'd like to find out what you think the answer should be.
Yes, I realize that (it would be a perfectly satisfactory way to spark internal dialogue in someone, perhaps to even prompt a debate) but it sounds like a rather therepeutic response (in the first case), or even only a researchers tool (in the second) - just not really "administrative" that's all, and so not as useful on this specific board, in my opinion. It wasn't my intention to say that questions couldn't also be "less than straightforward", just that they weren't as *definitive* as plain statements. As a suggestion, you could always make a concrete statement about your administrative opinion when asked for an administrativeve response, *and then* finish off with a question or two, just so you would be saying something definitive - best of both worlds maybe? I do think your questions-only responses could fit in in an interesting way on the other boards though - Psychology, or Social perhaps?
You're a slippery one :)
peace, El
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2007, at 1:09:37
In reply to Re: on reporting a post, posted by ElaineM on January 26, 2007, at 11:45:12
> As a suggestion, you could always make a concrete statement about your administrative opinion when asked for an administrativeve response
Would it count as a concrete statement to say that I couldn't give an opinion without more information? :-)
Bob
Posted by ElaineM on January 27, 2007, at 14:30:16
In reply to Re: on reporting a post, posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2007, at 1:09:37
>>>>Would it count as a concrete statement to say that I couldn't give an opinion without more information? :-)
Zing number two....wanna go for a hat trick?
No but seriously. Ya, that would be a concrete statement, though it could maybe make you seem like a less than efficient administrator or something. I just assumed that you knew the rules the best(since you created them) and that you'd be able to answer questions by knowing that stuff. But you know what they say about those who assume - *flick on the head* for me. To be fair, you're no better than us, and have every right to need to ask for input before you understand something more.....and are *then* able to say something definite.
But for the times that you intervene in a thread to say something, I'd hope that you'd do so through having a *working knowledge* of the situation and an administrative or personal opinion already *somewhat formed* -- at least enough to be able to give something more to the questions that could be relevant to it, and the rules that could potentially apply.
But you can contine giving answers in question form. I don't care much anymore anyways. My desire to learn about how this board faciliates answer-giving has kinda been exhausted in this little two-step. [which is fine. I'm not in a place to debate anymore now anyways] I didn't get all the responses I was hoping for, but I got some. Which is better than nothing, and so satisfying.
focused on something else now
but thanks for the back and forth,
ELps. Feel free to go for #3 though - promise the net will be empty :-)
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.