![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 6:55:04
In reply to Re: Wish it was available in Canada, posted by ny2bk on December 24, 2007, at 0:24:39
I can understand your frustration. The fact is there is no coverage of threads going off topic in the policies. The monopolizing (or thread thiefs) of threads and BOARDS is suppose to be addressed by the three post guideline but there are no guidelines regarding the volume of posts to boards and the number of threads a poster can post to.
I would like to see the med board, in particular, be more effective to the needs of "most" as opposed to needing the needs of, say, one..... sigh...
I have seen where not addressing a problem on a board (IMO a problem), ends up becoming a cataylist for those so frustrated to be the ones who get PBCed. I think we should ALL be accountable for our posts. I have seen what appears lack of the application of accountibility to some posters..... I think that will continue.
BTW, I have utilized the notify feature to ask regarding particular posts.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 8:13:58
In reply to Re: » ny2bk, posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 6:55:04
> I can understand your frustration. The fact is there is no coverage of threads going off topic in the policies. The monopolizing (or thread thiefs) of threads and BOARDS is suppose to be addressed by the three post guideline but there are no guidelines regarding the volume of posts to boards and the number of threads a poster can post to.
>
> I would like to see the med board, in particular, be more effective to the needs of "most" as opposed to needing the needs of, say, one..... sigh...
>
> I have seen where not addressing a problem on a board (IMO a problem), ends up becoming a cataylist for those so frustrated to be the ones who get PBCed. I think we should ALL be accountable for our posts. I have seen what appears lack of the application of accountibility to some posters..... I think that will continue.
>
> BTW, I have utilized the notify feature to ask regarding particular posts.Friends,
It is written here,[...by the three post guidline but there are no guidlines regarding the volume of posts...and the number of threads a member can post to...].
I have the following concerns:
A. If there is not a guidline concerning the volume of posts, which could mean that a single post could be , let's say, 1000 words, then I am concerned that that in and of itself could show an intent of the maker of the three-consecutive-post rule.
B. If there is no restriction on the volume of a post, and the administration could consolodate three posts by one member, that do not have another member's name in between, and have the member's name just one time after the consolodation of the three posts, I am concerned that a motive by the maker of the three -consecutive post rule could be inferred.
C. It is written here,[...no guidlines as to the number of threads a member can post to...] I am concerned that such a rule, if it was innitiated, as to how the rule could be supportive to the mission of the forum which is for support and education.
The concerns of mine above, could or could not be concerns of other members here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 8:36:05
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glyden's post-3con, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 8:13:58
> > I can understand your frustration. The fact is there is no coverage of threads going off topic in the policies. The monopolizing (or thread thiefs) of threads and BOARDS is suppose to be addressed by the three post guideline but there are no guidelines regarding the volume of posts to boards and the number of threads a poster can post to.
> >
> > I would like to see the med board, in particular, be more effective to the needs of "most" as opposed to needing the needs of, say, one..... sigh...
> >
> > I have seen where not addressing a problem on a board (IMO a problem), ends up becoming a cataylist for those so frustrated to be the ones who get PBCed. I think we should ALL be accountable for our posts. I have seen what appears lack of the application of accountibility to some posters..... I think that will continue.
> >
> > BTW, I have utilized the notify feature to ask regarding particular posts.
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...by the three post guidline but there are no guidlines regarding the volume of posts...and the number of threads a member can post to...].
> I have the following concerns:
> A. If there is not a guidline concerning the volume of posts, which could mean that a single post could be , let's say, 1000 words, then I am concerned that that in and of itself could show an intent of the maker of the three-consecutive-post rule.
> B. If there is no restriction on the volume of a post, and the administration could consolodate three posts by one member, that do not have another member's name in between, and have the member's name just one time after the consolodation of the three posts, I am concerned that a motive by the maker of the three -consecutive post rule could be inferred.
> C. It is written here,[...no guidlines as to the number of threads a member can post to...] I am concerned that such a rule, if it was innitiated, as to how the rule could be supportive to the mission of the forum which is for support and education.
> The concerns of mine above, could or could not be concerns of other members here.
> LouFriends,
Let us look at the 3-consecutive post rule. The intent as stated by the maker of the rule is that there could be some members that the maker of the rule calls {less-confident} posters, and that in some way if , I guess, they see a member's name 4 times without another member's name in between, that that is a cause for the rule to be made. I base this on that there is no rule here as to the volume of a single post nor is there a rule as to the number of threads a member could post to.
If then the intent of that rule is in regards to {appearance} of a person's name 4 times without another mamber's name in between, then I am concerned that there is a potential for one to think that the amker of the rule is making a higher priority here of the rule to elevate that intent above the mission of the forum if the rule prohibits one from offering education and support.
This comes into play in a case on the board now where one is posting to another about suicide in regards to what the bible says or does not say concerning that and brings Jesus into the post and what is the truth. I would like to offer support and education in hopes to help the member in regards to what the bible says or does not say about suicide and since I am a Jew, the posts from me will be from a Jewish perspective. This could mean that I may have to break down what I have to say into very small precepts that may be unbeknownst to some of the reading members of that thread concerned about what the bible says or does not say about suicide. This could mean that I need more than 3 consecutive posts to bring out the support and education that I could offer here. There is also that I may need to post the foundation of Jewdaism which is that my God has revealed to me a commandment to me that XXX (the foundation of Jewdaism). Both have posts by Robert Hsiung directed to me to restrain me from posting that here even though the mission of that forum is for the posting of the service and worshiping of God or the supernatural. Is not a revelation from God considered to be in the rhelm of the supernatural?
Lou
Posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 12:21:07
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glyden's post-sprnt, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 8:36:05
I have posted many times to having no problem with the three post rule. I actually like it. I am of the opinion if a poster has difficulties with that guideline, they can either adapt to the guideline or, if that is not possible for them, they can certainly choose the option of that guideline being a dealbreaker as to their voluntary participation on these public boards.
Posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 13:02:45
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glyden's post-3con, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 8:13:58
> B. If there is no restriction on the volume of a post
~~~ True, there is no limit as to the size of a single post as far as I know.
To clarify, my reference to "volume" is about numerous single posts, as in the number of posts per a period of time a person could potentially post. I would have no problem with a limitation on that number either as I feel that is a form of monopolizing. However, limiting the number of posts per a timeframe has been brought up before and most of the community did not care to see such a guideline.
Just as I believe you do not care for the three post guideline, I do not care for the unlimited and frequent number of postings per poster I see at times.... that is an area in which I currently accept as lacking any policy to address it, which can be a difficult as accepting a policy but something I see as "the way things are".
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 14:33:04
In reply to Re: » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 13:02:45
> > B. If there is no restriction on the volume of a post
>
> ~~~ True, there is no limit as to the size of a single post as far as I know.
>
> To clarify, my reference to "volume" is about numerous single posts, as in the number of posts per a period of time a person could potentially post. I would have no problem with a limitation on that number either as I feel that is a form of monopolizing. However, limiting the number of posts per a timeframe has been brought up before and most of the community did not care to see such a guideline.
>
> Just as I believe you do not care for the three post guideline, I do not care for the unlimited and frequent number of postings per poster I see at times.... that is an area in which I currently accept as lacking any policy to address it, which can be a difficult as accepting a policy but something I see as "the way things are".Glyden,
You wrote,[...number of posts per a period of time...no problem with a limitation on that number...].
If there was a rule to limit here the number of posts per a period of time, and one posted more posts than the limit allowed in order to offer support and education to a member that was contemplating suicide, and the member posting to help was sanctioned to stop posting because they went over their limit, would you:
A. object to their being sanctioned and having to stop offering support and education to the one contemplating suicide?
B. If so, could you post here why you would have an objection to that hypothetical rule being applied to them?
C. If you would not object, could you post here why you would not object? If not, could you post here why not?
Lou
Posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 16:13:26
In reply to Lou's reply to Glyden-uclid » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 14:33:04
> If there was a rule to limit here the number of posts per a period of time, and one posted more posts than the limit allowed in order to offer support and education to a member that was contemplating suicide...~~~ First of all, I have very strong feelings regarding support for a suicidal individual and I believe in encouraging real life help. I have never thought internet boards, chat, etc... are the venue for good crisis intervention.
As far as picking and choosing what should or should not be included in any exclusions, that would be judging post content as opposed to posting behavior. I will say I think we can get into a slippery slope when content, a poster's "reputation", "character", etc. get used as criteria for whether to address a stepping over the guidelines.
As I said before, I don't think this board will probably ever have a timeframe limit to how much an individual poster can post.
Posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 16:49:25
In reply to Re: Triggerish » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 16:13:26
A nonadministrative note:
While I don't agree with you on points at times, I am actually glad to see you back and I hope you are feeling better as I remember reading of you struggling with some issues prior to a babble break you recently took.
Also, I hope you and your family have been able to celebrate a joyous Hanukkah time.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 19:12:12
In reply to Re: Triggerish » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 16:13:26
>
> > If there was a rule to limit here the number of posts per a period of time, and one posted more posts than the limit allowed in order to offer support and education to a member that was contemplating suicide...
>
> ~~~ First of all, I have very strong feelings regarding support for a suicidal individual and I believe in encouraging real life help. I have never thought internet boards, chat, etc... are the venue for good crisis intervention.
>
> As far as picking and choosing what should or should not be included in any exclusions, that would be judging post content as opposed to posting behavior. I will say I think we can get into a slippery slope when content, a poster's "reputation", "character", etc. get used as criteria for whether to address a stepping over the guidelines.
>
> As I said before, I don't think this board will probably ever have a timeframe limit to how much an individual poster can post.Glyden,
You wrote,[...believe in encouraging real-life help...never thought..the venue for good...slippery slope...]
I believe in encouraging real-life help as you do and also I believe that a mental-health forum has the potential to be of help to any cry for help by another. The forum here provides members that could offer a wide variety of individual differences to be of help to one that posts for such, unlike some forums that will not allow some types of posts. This then has the potential for one seeking help to hear from those that encourage real-life contact and also allows those that think that dialog on the internet could be benificial to offer their support and education.
If there was this hypothetical rule established here, I think that a list of exceptions to the rule could be made not based on content, but just if the post offers support or education.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 19:17:36
In reply to To add, Lou, posted by Glydin on December 24, 2007, at 16:49:25
> A nonadministrative note:
>
> While I don't agree with you on points at times, I am actually glad to see you back and I hope you are feeling better as I remember reading of you struggling with some issues prior to a babble break you recently took.
>
> Also, I hope you and your family have been able to celebrate a joyous Hanukkah time.Glyden,
You wrote,[...I don't agree with you..at times...glad to see you back...a joyous Hanukkah...]
Thank you for your post here and although I also do not agree all the time with what you post here, I am glad to have dialog with you. And have a joyous holiday also...
Lou
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.