![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 17:24:33
> Thanks for going into this more. Do you have other feelings, too? About how favoritism might affect you?
>~~~ The effect on me has been that I've allowed myself to feel some posters are more important or their needs are more important than others, including mine. I am responsible for how I feel but seeing favoritism was the catalyst.
Secondarily, I do worry, while it may be infrequent, that favoritism coupled with or due to considering midigating circumtances, a poster could be deemed unblockable despite their behavior being outside the guidelines and a blockable offense for another poster.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2007, at 17:41:02
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 17:24:33
Well put ...IMO
> > Thanks for going into this more. Do you have other feelings, too? About how favoritism might affect you?
> >
>
> ~~~ The effect on me has been that I've allowed myself to feel some posters are more important or their needs are more important than others, including mine. I am responsible for how I feel but seeing favoritism was the catalyst.
>
> Secondarily, I do worry, while it may be infrequent, that favoritism coupled with or due to considering midigating circumtances, a poster could be deemed unblockable despite their behavior being outside the guidelines and a blockable offense for another poster.
Posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 18:53:00
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » Glydin, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2007, at 17:41:02
To show my lack of heartlessness -- I have observed that posters who I thought had the "priviledge" of appearing to get adm. favoritism have had some of their board interactions very negatively effected - at least it seemed that way to me. Favors may seem good in the short term but there appears to be a price paid in the long haul.
I understand they're your decisions, not mine. My opinion is: favoritism is NOT conducive to board harmony - Taking off the "ony" may be more of what it does overall to the ALL of the community.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2007, at 19:46:24
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 17:24:33
> > Thanks for going into this more. Do you have other feelings, too? About how favoritism might affect you?
>
> The effect on me has been that I've allowed myself to feel some posters are more important or their needs are more important than others, including mine.Thanks for going into this even more. Then that's another fear, that you or your needs might be neglected. Which may be a fear that others have, too?
Bob
Posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 20:08:11
In reply to Re: favoritism, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2007, at 19:46:24
I think it might be more about self image/esteem and hoping one poster is as valuable as the next and therefore are treated equally and held to the same standards and consequences.
Having favorites and allowing concessions and (the BIGGIE) not being FULLY aware of why those consessions are being given gives way to me feeling as if there's a caste system. The end result maybe a neglecting of needs but I feel it's more about feeling equal as a community member.
Are we having a session? (Smile)
Posted by fayeroe on January 22, 2007, at 21:06:07
In reply to Re: favoritism » Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 20:08:11
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 22, 2007, at 21:11:49
In reply to Re: favoritism, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2007, at 19:46:24
Would having favorites mean to favor some and thus lead for unfairness? I would think not being fair would be not being civil...am I correct?
Thanks
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2007, at 1:10:50
In reply to Re: favoritism, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2007, at 19:46:24
> > Then that's another fear, that you or your needs might be neglected.
>
> I think it might be more about self image/esteem and hoping one poster is as valuable as the nextMeaning it could also be a fear of being seen as less valuable?
> Are we having a session? (Smile)
I do think it might be getting a little session-like. :-) But these may be fears that others have, too...
Bob
Posted by Glydin on January 24, 2007, at 6:21:36
In reply to Re: favoritism, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2007, at 1:10:50
> > > Then that's another fear, that you or your needs might be neglected.
> >
> > I think it might be more about self image/esteem and hoping one poster is as valuable as the next
>
> Meaning it could also be a fear of being seen as less valuable?
>~~~ That's a concern. Whether it reaches the level of a fear, I don't think it does for me. The value concern involves feeling as if the "playing field" isn't level. On this board, the unleveling is accomplished by judgement and governing being based on WHO posters are preceived to be as opposed to objective assessments of WHAT they are posting and HOW they are posting.
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 24, 2007, at 7:10:58
In reply to Re: favoritism, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2007, at 1:10:50
> > > Then that's another fear, that you or your needs might be neglected.
> >
> > I think it might be more about self image/esteem and hoping one poster is as valuable as the next
>
> Meaning it could also be a fear of being seen as less valuable?
>
> > Are we having a session? (Smile)
>
> I do think it might be getting a little session-like. :-) But these may be fears that others have, too...
>
> BobFriends,
There is a concern seen here by me concerning what is being called {favoritism}.
What is {favoritism}? Is favoritism having two standards? Is favoritism another word for being flexible, or for discrimination?
I guess that undertsnding this could be better seen by if it can be seen if that there are >two standards< here for different members or not, who those members could be if there are those members, and are there particular members posting statements that the administration does not apply their rules to, equally to them, as to some others that are held to a higher standard by the nature that those same rules are applied to them but not some others.
Then the question could become as to if any {favoritism}, or if it is called >discrimination<, will be good for the community as a whole and compare any reasons, if there is the position by the administration that it could be more helpfull here to have favoritism and/or discrimination, with historical favoritism and/or discrimination, as to if it was or was not good for the community as a whole, or more helpfull to the community to incorporate favoritism and/or discrimination, in the administration of the community and what were the adverse emotional or psychological effects, if any to those that had to accept the favoritism and/or discrimination, as a condition to be members of the community.
I am unsure due to the new rules mmade here when I rejoined this community as to if I can post links or previous posts in this thread. If you would like to see what I would like to post here, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 24, 2007, at 17:43:36
In reply to Lou's response toaspectsof Dr. Hsiung's post-2stn? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou PIlder on January 24, 2007, at 7:10:58
I like how you worded this Lou. You did it really well and I could not do as good a job or getting this point across.
When I see favoritism I see it as a form of discrimination when all are not treated the same and the rules not applied equally in any situation.
Lou states<<Is favoritism having two standards? Is favoritism another word for being flexible, or for discrimination?
I guess that undertsnding this could be better seen by if it can be seen if that there are >two standards< here for different members or not, who those members could be if there are those members, and are there particular members posting statements that the administration does not apply their rules to, equally to them, as to some others that are held to a higher standard by the nature that those same rules are applied to them but not some others.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2007, at 0:36:27
In reply to Re: favoritism » Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on January 24, 2007, at 6:21:36
> > it could also be a fear of being seen as less valuable?
>
> That's a concern. Whether it reaches the level of a fear, I don't think it does for me. The value concern involves feeling as if the "playing field" isn't level. On this board, the unleveling is accomplished by judgement and governing being based on WHO posters are preceived to be as opposed to objective assessments of WHAT they are posting and HOW they are posting.OK, there could be concerns that one's posts -- or even oneself -- as might be seen as less valuable. That would be one way to state that?
Bob
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 25, 2007, at 8:58:57
In reply to Re: Lou's response toaspectsof Dr. Hsiung's post-2stn? » Lou PIlder, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 24, 2007, at 17:43:36
> I like how you worded this Lou. You did it really well and I could not do as good a job or getting this point across.
>
> When I see favoritism I see it as a form of discrimination when all are not treated the same and the rules not applied equally in any situation.
>
> Lou states<<Is favoritism having two standards? Is favoritism another word for being flexible, or for discrimination?
> I guess that undertsnding this could be better seen by if it can be seen if that there are >two standards< here for different members or not, who those members could be if there are those members, and are there particular members posting statements that the administration does not apply their rules to, equally to them, as to some others that are held to a higher standard by the nature that those same rules are applied to them but not some others.
>
F4mt,
you wrote,[...I like..Lou..you did..well...],
Lou's sixteenth smiley>>[:-)
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 25, 2007, at 19:21:33
In reply to Lou's reply to F4MT-swt16 » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou PIlder on January 25, 2007, at 8:58:57
Posted by Glydin on January 25, 2007, at 19:30:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to F4MT-swt16(((lou))) (nm) » Lou PIlder, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 25, 2007, at 19:21:33
I thought it was well put also.
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 6:08:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response toaspectsof Dr. Hsiung's post-2stn? » Lou PIlder, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 24, 2007, at 17:43:36
> I like how you worded this Lou. You did it really well and I could not do as good a job or getting this point across.
>
> When I see favoritism I see it as a form of discrimination when all are not treated the same and the rules not applied equally in any situation.
>
> Lou states<<Is favoritism having two standards? Is favoritism another word for being flexible, or for discrimination?
> I guess that undertsnding this could be better seen by if it can be seen if that there are >two standards< here for different members or not, who those members could be if there are those members, and are there particular members posting statements that the administration does not apply their rules to, equally to them, as to some others that are held to a higher standard by the nature that those same rules are applied to them but not some others.Friends,
There is a concern here about {favoritism} which could also be referred to as >discrimination< as to if the criteria to distimguish between the two, are evident.
In determining as to if discrimination is being practiced in a community, one could ask:
A. is there an atmosphere of intimidation toward one group or even one member of a group?
B.Is there {indoctrination} by disallowing the {inclusion} of the perspective of the group in question?
C. Is there failure of the administration to apply their own rules to those that attack a group or one person of that group?
D. Are there special rules made that have the effect of stifiling dissent by a group or one member of that group?
E. And does the administration fail to apply their own rule to others while the group in question, or one member of the group, is held to that standard?
F.Does the administration delegitimize one group's perspective in their rules?
G. Does the administration fail to enforce their own standards to those that taunt and/or mock a group or one member of that group?
H. Are psychological tactics such as, but not limited to ,{stalling} and {evasion} used by the administartion to allow others in the group to go unsanctioned from what would be sanctioned to the group in question or one member of that group?
K. Can what is known as a {well -thought -out- plan} be seen that could show that the administration's attitude and actions are not as a result of simple negligence that results in mistreatment to a group or one member of that group?
L. Are there features in the community that a group or one member of that group are denied to use equally as the other members are?
M.Does the administration refuse to remedy what could be thought by some to be discrimination?
N. Does the administration foster defamation toward one group or one member of that group by failing to apply their own rules {in degree} to those that defame the group in question?
P. Does the administration >coach< others to shelter them from the sanctions imposed on the group in question, or one member of that group,that the member is posting what is defaming to the group in question?
R. Does the administration change their own rules to accommodate defamation toward the group in question or to one member of that group?
I am unsure as to if I can post links here due to the nature of the new rules made here when I rejoined the forum. If you are interested in making your own determination concerning the criteria here and would like to email me, then I could offer some aditional criteria for you to use to make your own determination.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 7:02:31
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread- » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 6:08:00
> > I like how you worded this Lou. You did it really well and I could not do as good a job or getting this point across.
> >
> > When I see favoritism I see it as a form of discrimination when all are not treated the same and the rules not applied equally in any situation.
> >
> > Lou states<<Is favoritism having two standards? Is favoritism another word for being flexible, or for discrimination?
> > I guess that undertsnding this could be better seen by if it can be seen if that there are >two standards< here for different members or not, who those members could be if there are those members, and are there particular members posting statements that the administration does not apply their rules to, equally to them, as to some others that are held to a higher standard by the nature that those same rules are applied to them but not some others.
>
> Friends,
> There is a concern here about {favoritism} which could also be referred to as >discrimination< as to if the criteria to distimguish between the two, are evident.
> In determining as to if discrimination is being practiced in a community, one could ask:
> A. is there an atmosphere of intimidation toward one group or even one member of a group?
> B.Is there {indoctrination} by disallowing the {inclusion} of the perspective of the group in question?
> C. Is there failure of the administration to apply their own rules to those that attack a group or one person of that group?
> D. Are there special rules made that have the effect of stifiling dissent by a group or one member of that group?
> E. And does the administration fail to apply their own rule to others while the group in question, or one member of the group, is held to that standard?
> F.Does the administration delegitimize one group's perspective in their rules?
> G. Does the administration fail to enforce their own standards to those that taunt and/or mock a group or one member of that group?
> H. Are psychological tactics such as, but not limited to ,{stalling} and {evasion} used by the administartion to allow others in the group to go unsanctioned from what would be sanctioned to the group in question or one member of that group?
> K. Can what is known as a {well -thought -out- plan} be seen that could show that the administration's attitude and actions are not as a result of simple negligence that results in mistreatment to a group or one member of that group?
> L. Are there features in the community that a group or one member of that group are denied to use equally as the other members are?
> M.Does the administration refuse to remedy what could be thought by some to be discrimination?
> N. Does the administration foster defamation toward one group or one member of that group by failing to apply their own rules {in degree} to those that defame the group in question?
> P. Does the administration >coach< others to shelter them from the sanctions imposed on the group in question, or one member of that group,that the member is posting what is defaming to the group in question?
> R. Does the administration change their own rules to accommodate defamation toward the group in question or to one member of that group?
> I am unsure as to if I can post links here due to the nature of the new rules made here when I rejoined the forum. If you are interested in making your own determination concerning the criteria here and would like to email me, then I could offer some aditional criteria for you to use to make your own determination.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
> Friends,
Could there be warning signs that could indicate that there is the potential for discrimination to be fostered in a group, wheras if these warning signs were not evident, the potential for discrimination could be less possible?
Is there an objective method to evaluate a group in this respect? I ask you to ask yourself the following and then make your own determination as to if the following signs that are evident in a group could or could not be indicators that there is a greater potential for the group that has the following signs to be a group that could foster defamation and promote discrimination toward a group or one menber of that group or not.
A. Does the group tend to be {totalitarian} in its control of the member's participation as likely to dictate what members believe?
B. Does the group have an ethical {double standard}?
C. Is the leader regarded as the supreme authority and delegates certain powers to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes?
D. Also, does the leader deny any appeal{outside his system} to a greater system of justice?
E. Does the leader claim to have the {final} rulling on matters?
F. Is there a veneration promoted to the leader of the group by having some focus of devotion or allegiance to himself?
Some of the above comes from a very well -researched project concerning groups that I could share with you by email if you like.
I am unsure as to what links I can post here due to the nature of the new rules that were made here when I rejoined the forum such as showing how state-sponsored defamation was historically fostered in a community and the research for the above by the research group which I could share with you via email if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by zazenduckie on January 26, 2007, at 9:09:53
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-B, posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 7:02:31
We Reserve the Right To Refuse Service
That's a song by Kinky Friedman.
And it was a sign that went up in businesses that didn't want to serve particular people as kind of a code .... before the Civil Rights Acts
So I was wondering.....does a forum owner have the right to refuse service to anyone he wants to
because he is the owner?
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.