![[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 Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 3:55:34
Okay so I get a warning and xxx's all over my posts for posting a link to a website:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060802/msgs/673556.html
However, there has been a post on the main board:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070219/msgs/735108.html
which contains exactly the same link as I posted, and he doesn't get a single word?
Someone please explain!
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2007, at 5:00:34
In reply to I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rules, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 3:55:34
M-T,
You wrote,[...someone please explain...].
I can not explain for any other person, but I could show what can be seen. And if I could see it, then could not others also see it? And I see that you see what can be seen. And it can be known, then.
But does what can be seen need to be explained? Could not what is seen be a fact that speaks for itself?
If there are two standards, then could one of the members that has a different standard than the other, where they are held to a higher standard than the other, have the potential to be lead to feel inferior? If so, could that, in your opinion, be good for the community as a whole? If so, why?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2007, at 5:55:02
In reply to I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rules, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 3:55:34
M-T,
You wrote,[...get a warning..posting a link to a website..other of the same does not get a word...].
How does it feel? Are you led to feel put down when the administration gives you a warning for what another is not given a word for the same posting?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2007, at 8:46:01
In reply to I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rules, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 3:55:34
Could it be that Dr Bob simply hasn't seen that oen yet?
maybe use the report button to let him know.. as he has said himself, there are so many posts here he can't always look at every one, so needs people to help out by alerting him.
Personally, I would only get upset and consider it a double standard if you knew he had seen it and he then refused to do anything.
Nikki
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 9:31:12
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule » Meri-Tuuli, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2007, at 8:46:01
But still, its been two days! I think the deputies saw it, didn't realise it contained 'banned' material (ie links to online pharmacies) and so therefore escaped them.
I do feel kinda cheated or let down or something to be honest.
Couldn't dr bob have a list of websites or something behind the scenes that were 'banned' - that why the deputies could check and things like that.
I mean, normally I'm not bothered by these sort of things, but I really do feel slightly upset about it all. I dunno
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2007, at 10:02:25
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 9:31:12
have you reported it using the "report this post" function?
I'd suggest doing that.. the deputies aren't infallible, and also don't read *every* post and spot *every* problem.. maybe help them out by reporting it?
Nikki
Posted by scratchpad on February 24, 2007, at 10:29:21
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule » Meri-Tuuli, posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2007, at 10:02:25
...Also, it's possible that an unacceptable link on an older thread was overlooked while yours was caught. I can't say that I've seen many (if any) retroactive PBC's about links.
If you think it's unfair (instead of an oversight), you can email Dr Bob and ask him to reconsider your PBC.
Scratchpad, formerly deputy ClearSkies
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 11:01:59
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule, posted by scratchpad on February 24, 2007, at 10:29:21
Well. I was going to report it using the 'inform the deputies/dr bob' function, but then I thought I'd wait to see if it got caught - you know, its all very well informing them, but if they're doing their job shouldn't they know the rules? You know, I mean, they should know that the site was XXXXed out in the past. Do you see what I mean? I know they can't get very single post, but the post in question has the website title in its own title! And its been two days!
But it doesn't matter than much I suppose - its hardly a likely to do anyone any damage (except me). You know, its not as if its some, whatever, highly offensive comment or something. But still.
I suppose we all have to take reponsibility for this community and look after each other.
But my problem is this: I don't actually have a problem with the post or the website he linked to - it can stay as it is for all I care (its not offsensive etc) but its not nice for me - I got a PCB and it XXed out of my posts, but this person didn't? So, I'm not going to 'inform the deputies' because I don't consider the post to be worthy of their attention, just the fact that they don't enforce the rules consistently. Thats the point I'm trying to make if you see what I mean. Thats why I have posted it here.
Meri
Posted by scratchpad on February 24, 2007, at 11:17:02
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 11:01:59
> Well. I was going to report it using the 'inform the deputies/dr bob' function, but then I thought I'd wait to see if it got caught - you know, its all very well informing them, but if they're doing their job shouldn't they know the rules? You know, I mean, they should know that the site was XXXXed out in the past. Do you see what I mean? I know they can't get very single post, but the post in question has the website title in its own title! And its been two days!
>
> But it doesn't matter than much I suppose - its hardly a likely to do anyone any damage (except me). You know, its not as if its some, whatever, highly offensive comment or something. But still.
>
> I suppose we all have to take reponsibility for this community and look after each other.
>
> But my problem is this: I don't actually have a problem with the post or the website he linked to - it can stay as it is for all I care (its not offsensive etc) but its not nice for me - I got a PCB and it XXed out of my posts, but this person didn't? So, I'm not going to 'inform the deputies' because I don't consider the post to be worthy of their attention, just the fact that they don't enforce the rules consistently. Thats the point I'm trying to make if you see what I mean. Thats why I have posted it here.
>
> MeriI understand, Meri. It is an issue.
Scratch
Posted by Honore on February 24, 2007, at 12:52:37
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule » Meri-Tuuli, posted by scratchpad on February 24, 2007, at 11:17:02
Meri, I agree with you on the fact that I often don't want posts xxx'ed out or pbced etc.
That's why I see selective enforcement --or, actually, selective or, simply, limited attention-- as beneficial.
If I don't want a post or poster pbc'ed-- I'm glad it/they aren't.
Consistent enforcement is an ideal notion; it's not possible to have it in the real world of pbabble.
Why regret that, when the plus side is that each of us, with our private standards, can see things that might, in the "ideal" world of consistent enforcement, be blocked, etc, left to stand?
ie there are pluses and minuses to all things: the plus of consistent enforcement is intertwined with the minus of sacrificing posts or people or people's equanimity to various sanctions;
the minus of inconsistent enforcement is uncertainty or sometimes a feeling of anxiety about fairness, or discomfort with some posts, but the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied.
You can't have it both ways: you can only have the plus of each side of the either/or, not the plus of both sides at once, without any minuses.
So be happy that the unxxxed post is there if you're okay with it, even at the cost of some falling away from the ideal enforcement-- even at the cost of seeing some posts that you're uncomfortable with left also.
Honore
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2007, at 14:52:45
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing--Meri, posted by Honore on February 24, 2007, at 12:52:37
> Meri, I agree with you on the fact that I often don't want posts xxx'ed out or pbced etc.
>
> That's why I see selective enforcement --or, actually, selective or, simply, limited attention-- as beneficial.
>
> If I don't want a post or poster pbc'ed-- I'm glad it/they aren't.
>
> Consistent enforcement is an ideal notion; it's not possible to have it in the real world of pbabble.
>
> Why regret that, when the plus side is that each of us, with our private standards, can see things that might, in the "ideal" world of consistent enforcement, be blocked, etc, left to stand?
>
> ie there are pluses and minuses to all things: the plus of consistent enforcement is intertwined with the minus of sacrificing posts or people or people's equanimity to various sanctions;
>
> the minus of inconsistent enforcement is uncertainty or sometimes a feeling of anxiety about fairness, or discomfort with some posts, but the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied.
>
> You can't have it both ways: you can only have the plus of each side of the either/or, not the plus of both sides at once, without any minuses.
>
> So be happy that the unxxxed post is there if you're okay with it, even at the cost of some falling away from the ideal enforcement-- even at the cost of seeing some posts that you're uncomfortable with left also.
>
> HonoreHonore,
You wrote,[...I see selective enforcement...as benificial..consistant enforcment is an ideal notion; its not possible..in pbabble...the plus side is..things that could be blocked are left to stand..the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied...].
The grammatical structure of your post leads me to have a want for clarification. Could you clarify the following?
A. In your saying that you think that selective enforcment is benificial because things that could be blocked,(uncivil posts) are {left to stand}, is it benificial to the welfare of just the ones that want the (uncivil) post to stand, that could have been blocked if the enforcement was not selective, or do you think that it is benificial to all the members to let an uncivil post to stand?
B. If one match could start a forest fire, could not the (uncivil) post, that is selectivly allowed to stand, cause a forest fire? If not, why not?
C. In a mental health community, could you agree that having two standards could cause the one that is subjected to discrimination to be led to feel inferior? If so, could allowing an uncivil post to stand, while sanctioning the same type of post to another, have the potential to foster emotional harm to that other member as to be led to feel inferior? If so, is it , in your opinion, a sound mental health practice to have selective enforcment?
If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2007, at 15:18:56
In reply to Lou's rsponse to aspects of Honore's post- » Honore, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2007, at 14:52:45
> > Meri, I agree with you on the fact that I often don't want posts xxx'ed out or pbced etc.
> >
> > That's why I see selective enforcement --or, actually, selective or, simply, limited attention-- as beneficial.
> >
> > If I don't want a post or poster pbc'ed-- I'm glad it/they aren't.
> >
> > Consistent enforcement is an ideal notion; it's not possible to have it in the real world of pbabble.
> >
> > Why regret that, when the plus side is that each of us, with our private standards, can see things that might, in the "ideal" world of consistent enforcement, be blocked, etc, left to stand?
> >
> > ie there are pluses and minuses to all things: the plus of consistent enforcement is intertwined with the minus of sacrificing posts or people or people's equanimity to various sanctions;
> >
> > the minus of inconsistent enforcement is uncertainty or sometimes a feeling of anxiety about fairness, or discomfort with some posts, but the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied.
> >
> > You can't have it both ways: you can only have the plus of each side of the either/or, not the plus of both sides at once, without any minuses.
> >
> > So be happy that the unxxxed post is there if you're okay with it, even at the cost of some falling away from the ideal enforcement-- even at the cost of seeing some posts that you're uncomfortable with left also.
> >
> > Honore
>
> Honore,
> You wrote,[...I see selective enforcement...as benificial..consistant enforcment is an ideal notion; its not possible..in pbabble...the plus side is..things that could be blocked are left to stand..the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied...].
> The grammatical structure of your post leads me to have a want for clarification. Could you clarify the following?
> A. In your saying that you think that selective enforcment is benificial because things that could be blocked,(uncivil posts) are {left to stand}, is it benificial to the welfare of just the ones that want the (uncivil) post to stand, that could have been blocked if the enforcement was not selective, or do you think that it is benificial to all the members to let an uncivil post to stand?
> B. If one match could start a forest fire, could not the (uncivil) post, that is selectivly allowed to stand, cause a forest fire? If not, why not?
> C. In a mental health community, could you agree that having two standards could cause the one that is subjected to discrimination to be led to feel inferior? If so, could allowing an uncivil post to stand, while sanctioning the same type of post to another, have the potential to foster emotional harm to that other member as to be led to feel inferior? If so, is it , in your opinion, a sound mental health practice to have selective enforcment?
> If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou
>
>
Honore,
you wrote,[...the minus of consistant enforcement is
1.sacrificing posts
2.sacrificing people
3.sacrificing people's eqanimity...]
Could you clarify;
D. what you mean by {sacrificing posts}? If you could, could you include in your reply how that if posts that are notated as uncivil are {sacrificed}?
E. Also,in your opinion, how could a {person} be sacrificed if their post was notated as being uncivil?
F. Also, if you are using the grammatical structure of the word, [equanimity} to mean {a mind that stays on course under stress}, how does ,in your opinion, notating a post as being uncivil sacrifice that?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on February 24, 2007, at 16:36:01
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 11:01:59
So if I'm hearing what you are saying accurately, and please correct me if I'm not, 1) you felt upset when you noticed that someone else's post didn't get administrative action when the same thing by you did. 2) You waited to see if anyone would catch it, and no one did. 3) You wish that enforcing the rules was more consistent so things like this didn't happen. 4) you decided not to use the notify administrators form, which could have led to what might appear to be more consistent enforcement.
I think I can understand your feelings about this situation. Heck, I can recognize myself in it, and I'm sure I would have similar feelings were I in your place. It feels crappy.
I like your idea of having a resource for deputies about what sites have been ruled uncivil to post, because the reality is I really have no idea. Of course, I don't think that means I'm not doing my job in this volunteer position, but that's just me being defensive and perhaps a little b*tchy. Feel free to ignore that part.
Another reality is that I don't read every post, and when I'm short on time, I don't follow every link posted. I would be shocked out of my shoes if anyone on the admin team said they do indeed read every post. That's a big reason we have the notify administrators form. I rely on that when I don't have time to check all the boards, and also when I'm not even reading for my own needs versus reading as a deputy due to time constraints.
So while I do understand wanting something to be fair without you having to point out that it's not fair, and wishing things were different, I'd like to ask you for your help in using the notify admin form when appropriate. I would find that effective from my end in trying to do my job to the best of my ability and with limited resources. I also would appreciate if you'd babblemail me or use the notify link to send me that post so I can note what site you're referring to. I could get started on a list at least for me, if not for the whole admin team.
namaste
gg
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 17:46:29
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule » Meri-Tuuli, posted by gardenergirl on February 24, 2007, at 16:36:01
Hello
I just feel slightly put out that someone did exactly the same thing I did and didn't get any 'punishment' whilst I did. Which I think is a relatively normal reaction.
I would have used the notify button thing, but I don't care about the post per se - I think it should be left alone. I have used that button in the past when someone posted something quite offensive about another poster and I didn't want anyone to get hurt, but with this, well its different, the posts aren't offensive and they can stay as they are, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not overly fussed about the whole thing, but I just wanted to make my point I guess. I dunno really why I did what I did - I suppose I always thought of babble as being extremely fair, and this disappointed me abit. Well anyway. Lets move on shall we? We probably aren't being very constructive.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2007, at 7:27:05
In reply to Lou's rsponse to aspects of Honore's post-B, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2007, at 15:18:56
> > > Meri, I agree with you on the fact that I often don't want posts xxx'ed out or pbced etc.
> > >
> > > That's why I see selective enforcement --or, actually, selective or, simply, limited attention-- as beneficial.
> > >
> > > If I don't want a post or poster pbc'ed-- I'm glad it/they aren't.
> > >
> > > Consistent enforcement is an ideal notion; it's not possible to have it in the real world of pbabble.
> > >
> > > Why regret that, when the plus side is that each of us, with our private standards, can see things that might, in the "ideal" world of consistent enforcement, be blocked, etc, left to stand?
> > >
> > > ie there are pluses and minuses to all things: the plus of consistent enforcement is intertwined with the minus of sacrificing posts or people or people's equanimity to various sanctions;
> > >
> > > the minus of inconsistent enforcement is uncertainty or sometimes a feeling of anxiety about fairness, or discomfort with some posts, but the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied.
> > >
> > > You can't have it both ways: you can only have the plus of each side of the either/or, not the plus of both sides at once, without any minuses.
> > >
> > > So be happy that the unxxxed post is there if you're okay with it, even at the cost of some falling away from the ideal enforcement-- even at the cost of seeing some posts that you're uncomfortable with left also.
> > >
> > > Honore
> >
> > Honore,
> > You wrote,[...I see selective enforcement...as benificial..consistant enforcment is an ideal notion; its not possible..in pbabble...the plus side is..things that could be blocked are left to stand..the plus is that things that each of us might prefer are to that extent satisfied...].
> > The grammatical structure of your post leads me to have a want for clarification. Could you clarify the following?
> > A. In your saying that you think that selective enforcment is benificial because things that could be blocked,(uncivil posts) are {left to stand}, is it benificial to the welfare of just the ones that want the (uncivil) post to stand, that could have been blocked if the enforcement was not selective, or do you think that it is benificial to all the members to let an uncivil post to stand?
> > B. If one match could start a forest fire, could not the (uncivil) post, that is selectivly allowed to stand, cause a forest fire? If not, why not?
> > C. In a mental health community, could you agree that having two standards could cause the one that is subjected to discrimination to be led to feel inferior? If so, could allowing an uncivil post to stand, while sanctioning the same type of post to another, have the potential to foster emotional harm to that other member as to be led to feel inferior? If so, is it , in your opinion, a sound mental health practice to have selective enforcment?
> > If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > Lou
> >
> >
> Honore,
> you wrote,[...the minus of consistant enforcement is
> 1.sacrificing posts
> 2.sacrificing people
> 3.sacrificing people's eqanimity...]
> Could you clarify;
> D. what you mean by {sacrificing posts}? If you could, could you include in your reply how that if posts that are notated as uncivil are {sacrificed}?
> E. Also,in your opinion, how could a {person} be sacrificed if their post was notated as being uncivil?
> F. Also, if you are using the grammatical structure of the word, [equanimity} to mean {a mind that stays on course under stress}, how does ,in your opinion, notating a post as being uncivil sacrifice that?
> Lou
>
Honore,
You wrote,[...consistant enforcement .. >not< |possible| to have in the real world of pbabble...].
The grammatical structure of your statement could mean either that in your use of {not}, that there could be a prohibition or denial or negation or something else to (consistant enforcement} in pbabble.
The generally accepted meaning of not is that ,in the case the {possibility}, is what is connected to the {not}.
Be as it may be as to what this could have the potential to mean, I think that if we examine the construction of the administration, then one could make there own determination as to if it {is} possible or not >possible< to have consistant enforcement here.
The administration of the site is under the operation of the owner, Dr. Hsiung. He has 5 or so assistants to operate the site in his behalf to notate uncivil posts, delete grossly objectionable posts and other functions in his behalf as listed in the FAQ of the TOS here.
To assist the deputies and the owner, a feature to call to the attention of posts has been made available here wher the post will be delivered to all of the administraors per the confirmation page of the notification feature here.
Now if the notification is made, then there is, according to the feature, a confirmation that the notification will be delivered to all the deputies. At the point that all the deputies and DR. Hsiung has had the post in question {delivered} to them,if they received it, then at that point there is a {possibility}, IMO, that (consistant enforcement) is at least innitiated to examine the post in question.
If all the depuities and DR. Hsiung are unwilling to respond to the notification, if it was delivered to them according to the confirmation page, at least they could have had IMO the {opportunity} to have {consistant enforcement} of the rules here.
Another aspect for members here to make there own determination as to if {consistant enforcement} is possible, is that one deputy has posted that if there has not been a response to a notification that a postt on the administrative board about that would be {sufficient} for that deputy to {check} for posts that have not been responded to. Then if there still is not a response fromm the administration, a member could post on the administrative board a reminder to check for the notification.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2007, at 9:56:14
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 17:46:29
> Hello
>
> I just feel slightly put out that someone did exactly the same thing I did and didn't get any 'punishment' whilst I did. Which I think is a relatively normal reaction.
>
> I would have used the notify button thing, but I don't care about the post per se - I think it should be left alone. I have used that button in the past when someone posted something quite offensive about another poster and I didn't want anyone to get hurt, but with this, well its different, the posts aren't offensive and they can stay as they are, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> I'm not overly fussed about the whole thing, but I just wanted to make my point I guess. I dunno really why I did what I did - I suppose I always thought of babble as being extremely fair, and this disappointed me abit. Well anyway. Lets move on shall we? We probably aren't being very constructive.Friends,
It is written here,[...I feel..put out...wanted to make a point...this disappointed me...We {probably} aren't being..constructive...].
The grammatical structure in the use of the word {probably] could mean [..{most likely} or {presumably} or something else...] The generally accepted meaning of the use of the word {probably} is that there could be a question as to if what the word is conected to is {absolute} or not absolute. Such as in a statement like,[...it will >probably< snow today...]. It may snow or it may not snow?
So being as it may be here in relation to if it is or is not {constructive} to continue to have this discussion rather than to end the discussion if the phrase to {move on}is meant to end the discussion, I think that there is the potential for there to be constructivness to continue the discussion here.
I base this on many aspects in this discussion that I consider to be {important} in a mental health community. One being as to if there are two standards here, and if so, could there be a {substantial risk} to the mental health of some of the members here, if there are two standards, which IMO could have the potential to be considered as to if it constitutes discrimination by some, if there are two standards and the two standards are continued.
Another is that if there are two standards here, could it be considered to be {reasonable} for the two standards to continue? There have been volumes written as to how a determination could be made as to if something is {reasonable} or not reasonable.
One determination could be made as to if what is under consideration could be {tested} as to if it is {fair} or not. But there are others tests for reasonableness.
Another test that could IMO be used as appropriate here in a mental health community is if there are two standards here, could the continuance of the two standards [...create a >substantial risk<...]to harming a participant's mental health here?
I believe that there is the potential for one to feel inferior if they have an additional condition than others to participate equally here or if they are treated unequally, which could be what the definition of {two satandards} means. I believe that a continuation of this discussion could be more helpfull to the community.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 14:16:53
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 11:01:59
> I know they can't get very single post, but the post in question has the website title in its own title! And its been two days!
Sorry, I got really behind. It's xed out now.
> I suppose we all have to take reponsibility for this community and look after each other.
That would be great! :-)
Bob
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 26, 2007, at 6:28:19
In reply to Re: consistent enforcing of the rule, posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 14:16:53
Sorry about this fuss I caused, I really guess I was being childish. I should have simply notified the administrators - I think that as a member of this community we need to alert the admin people when we know that something shouldn't be there, thats there. I suppose thats part of taking care of each other and looking after babble and things like that.
With hindsight, it was rather silly.Kind regards
Meri
Posted by gardenergirl on February 26, 2007, at 9:14:34
In reply to I was childish, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 26, 2007, at 6:28:19
And from a real circumstance.
I'm sorry it felt crappy.
namaste
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.