![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 31. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 17:38:37
In reply to Posting Limit?, posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 17:25:37
> Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
>
> I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
>
> I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
>
> Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
>
> This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
>
> Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> PhoenixFriends,
It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
more...
Lou
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 17:47:39
In reply to Lou's response- Phoenix 1's post-compel, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 17:38:37
Lou,
If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
Phoenix1
> > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> >
> > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> >
> > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> >
> > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> >
> > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> >
> > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Phoenix
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> more...
> Lou
>
Posted by seldomseen on December 26, 2007, at 19:44:46
In reply to Posting Limit?, posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 17:25:37
"People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss."
This would be impossible to determine in my opinion. What has value to some, may be of no value to others.
WHat is serious to some, may seem trivial to others.
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 19:55:04
In reply to Re: Posting Limit? » Phoenix1, posted by seldomseen on December 26, 2007, at 19:44:46
Hi Seldonseen,
Thanks for your input. I'm not suggesting that anyone here determines what is or is not of value in terms of what others post. What I am proposing is very objective, no subjective value judgements involved. I'm suggesting that it might encourage posters to think more carefully about what they post if _everyones_ posting is limited to a certain number of posts per day.
If one deems something to be serious enough to post, by all means post it. It is not for us to judge. But then people might save their posts for things that they really do deem serious.
I agree with you that what is not valuable to me may certainly be valuable to others. But again, I'm talking about certain posters where there seems to be consistent lack of value, as judged by a group of peers. This seems to be an ongoing issue, and I can't think of a better way to resolve it than imposing a global posting limit. Anything else would end up with hurt feelings and resentment. It seems that the feedback on my idea so far has been negative. If that is the case, then maybe it's a bad idea.
I'd be interested to hear what others have to say, especially Dr. Bob.
Thanks,
Phoenix1
> "People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss."
>
> This would be impossible to determine in my opinion. What has value to some, may be of no value to others.
>
> WHat is serious to some, may seem trivial to others.
>
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 20:17:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response- Phoenix 1's post-compel » Lou Pilder, posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 17:47:39
> Lou,
>
> If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
>
> How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
>
> Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
>
> But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
>
> The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
>
> Phoenix1
>
> > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > >
> > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > >
> > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > >
> > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > >
> > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > >
> > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Phoenix
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > more...
> > LouPhoenix,
You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
more...
Lou
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 22:15:53
In reply to Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-hnrbl » Phoenix1, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 20:17:53
Hi Lou,
Thanks again for the input. You have an interesting way of snipping and pasting bits of my posts. I think sometimes this may distort what I originally posted, and often makes me double check to see if it sounded as negative as you have edited it sound. But it also shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant in the post.
Back to the topic. Clearly, you are against the posting limit. That's fine, I didn't know what to expect in terms of agreement/disagreement when I initially posted.
You also mentiond something else that is important and I forgot, which is that if someone wants email notification for a thread they have to post to it. I think this should be changed to. One should be able to subscribe to a thread without posting a message to it.I still think some form of posting limit would be beneficial to Psycho-Babble. I just sense growing frustration at certain posters, and there have been a lot of civility warnings and suspensions as a result, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. But I'm not Dr. Bob, and I'm not a deputy, so my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
Again, thanks for the conversation. You've made a number of valid points against my suggestion, and I always appreciate some friendly debate.
I'm still interested to here what Dr. Bob has to say on this. He's been running the board for a long while, and I'm sure this situation/proposal has come up before. I would also be interested to here what the deputies have to say, since they are dealing with the issues I mentioned on a daily basis.
Thanks,
Phoenix1
PS If a 10 post a day rule were implemented, I don't think I would be able to pst this... Food for thought. (I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number)
> > Lou,
> >
> > If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
> >
> > How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
> >
> > Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
> >
> > But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
> >
> > The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
> >
> > Phoenix1
> >
> > > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > > >
> > > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > > >
> > > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > > >
> > > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > > >
> > > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Phoenix
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > > more...
> > > Lou
>
> Phoenix,
> You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
> I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
> more...
> Lou
>
>
>
Posted by karen_kay on December 27, 2007, at 0:17:18
In reply to Posting Limit?, posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 17:25:37
i agree about posting limits. and wish i could have debated, stated and reiterated (did i spell that right? oh!! pretty please!!) the point as well as you are!! (even if i fall into that category myself at times)
marry me, please?
kk
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 8:33:14
In reply to welcome new name :) » Phoenix1, posted by karen_kay on December 27, 2007, at 0:17:18
Hi Karen,
Yay, I have at least one supporter! Thanks for your support!
Phoenix1
> i agree about posting limits. and wish i could have debated, stated and reiterated (did i spell that right? oh!! pretty please!!) the point as well as you are!! (even if i fall into that category myself at times)
>
> marry me, please?
> kk
Posted by karen_kay on December 27, 2007, at 11:32:17
In reply to Re: welcome new name :) » karen_kay, posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 8:33:14
(dot dot dot) to post the bmail i sent you. please leave out the naked picture though. one must pay for that :)
as i mentioned in said (wrote, whatever) bmail, would it be more useful to have an imposed block on number of posts started in one day or those that one replies to?
kk, who probably falls into those guidelines someimes but still finks (yes, i have a speech impediment) there should be a limit on posting! (notice the mother tone in my typing?)
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 11:52:46
In reply to you're more than welcome... » Phoenix1, posted by karen_kay on December 27, 2007, at 11:32:17
Hi Karen,
I like what your suggesting. If I understand right, it would mean that a poster could be involved in/start x number of threads at any time. Within those threads, they could post as many individual messages as they wanted. This would allow the poster to carry on a reasonable discussion and not be too limited in how they post to their subscribed threads.
There would have to some sort of timeout for the thread count like when a thread is archived, it would give you a credit to start or join another thread. This seems like a very reasonable suggestion!
Phoenix1
> (dot dot dot) to post the bmail i sent you. please leave out the naked picture though. one must pay for that :)
>
> as i mentioned in said (wrote, whatever) bmail, would it be more useful to have an imposed block on number of posts started in one day or those that one replies to?
>
> kk, who probably falls into those guidelines someimes but still finks (yes, i have a speech impediment) there should be a limit on posting! (notice the mother tone in my typing?)
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 12:02:37
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-hnrbl » Lou Pilder, posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 22:15:53
> Hi Lou,
>
> Thanks again for the input. You have an interesting way of snipping and pasting bits of my posts. I think sometimes this may distort what I originally posted, and often makes me double check to see if it sounded as negative as you have edited it sound. But it also shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant in the post.
>
> Back to the topic. Clearly, you are against the posting limit. That's fine, I didn't know what to expect in terms of agreement/disagreement when I initially posted.
>
> You also mentiond something else that is important and I forgot, which is that if someone wants email notification for a thread they have to post to it. I think this should be changed to. One should be able to subscribe to a thread without posting a message to it.
>
> I still think some form of posting limit would be beneficial to Psycho-Babble. I just sense growing frustration at certain posters, and there have been a lot of civility warnings and suspensions as a result, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. But I'm not Dr. Bob, and I'm not a deputy, so my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
>
> Again, thanks for the conversation. You've made a number of valid points against my suggestion, and I always appreciate some friendly debate.
>
> I'm still interested to here what Dr. Bob has to say on this. He's been running the board for a long while, and I'm sure this situation/proposal has come up before. I would also be interested to here what the deputies have to say, since they are dealing with the issues I mentioned on a daily basis.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phoenix1
>
> PS If a 10 post a day rule were implemented, I don't think I would be able to pst this... Food for thought. (I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number)
>
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
> > >
> > > How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
> > >
> > > Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
> > >
> > > But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
> > >
> > > The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
> > >
> > > Phoenix1
> > >
> > > > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > > > >
> > > > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > > > >
> > > > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Phoenix
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > > > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > > > more...
> > > > Lou
> >
> > Phoenix,
> > You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
> > I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
> > more...
> > LouPhoenix,
You wrote,[...Thanks again...interesting way...shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant...I'm not Dr. Bob...thanks for the converstaion...you've made valid points...].
One question that I have concerning any rule that could have the potential to still one's voice in any community,is could you post here what good would it do for a community to still the voice of a member if the post is supportive and/or educational? If you could not post such, could you post here why not?
Lou
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 12:29:10
In reply to Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-5stns » Phoenix1, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 12:02:37
Hi Lou,
I don't think I suggested that someone couldn't post something if they felt they had something to contribute.
Clearly, you are advocating a completely open system where people are free to post whatever they want, when they want, and however often they want, as long as they abide by the civility rules. This is the current system. I don't think it's perfect.
You have to recognize that there is a considerable level of frustration among many community members who feel their threads are "hijacked" by certain posters. These are posters who have probably posted to 50+ threads in the last few weeks. Whether their posts are of value is not for me to judge for the group.
In my _personal opinion_, there are a lot of non-value added, non-supportive posts from a very small number of high-volume posters. To be honest, I feel frustrated. I hate to see someone ask for help and then see their thread veer off into something completely different because someone has used the thread to discuss something that I feel to be totally irrelevant. And then the deputy/Dr. Bob warnings and suspensions start as the frustration level grows. It's not a pretty situation. I'm just trying to think of a way to improve the situation. Do you have any suggestions as an alternative to what I am proposing?
I truly understand your side of the argument, that limiting posting is, in effect, limiting free speech, and that it _could_ prevent someone from giving valuable advice or support, but I think it would affect only a very small minority of community members if the system was well thought out. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it doesn't seem like we're reaching common ground.
Phoenix1
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > Thanks again for the input. You have an interesting way of snipping and pasting bits of my posts. I think sometimes this may distort what I originally posted, and often makes me double check to see if it sounded as negative as you have edited it sound. But it also shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant in the post.
> >
> > Back to the topic. Clearly, you are against the posting limit. That's fine, I didn't know what to expect in terms of agreement/disagreement when I initially posted.
> >
> > You also mentiond something else that is important and I forgot, which is that if someone wants email notification for a thread they have to post to it. I think this should be changed to. One should be able to subscribe to a thread without posting a message to it.
> >
> > I still think some form of posting limit would be beneficial to Psycho-Babble. I just sense growing frustration at certain posters, and there have been a lot of civility warnings and suspensions as a result, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. But I'm not Dr. Bob, and I'm not a deputy, so my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
> >
> > Again, thanks for the conversation. You've made a number of valid points against my suggestion, and I always appreciate some friendly debate.
> >
> > I'm still interested to here what Dr. Bob has to say on this. He's been running the board for a long while, and I'm sure this situation/proposal has come up before. I would also be interested to here what the deputies have to say, since they are dealing with the issues I mentioned on a daily basis.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Phoenix1
> >
> > PS If a 10 post a day rule were implemented, I don't think I would be able to pst this... Food for thought. (I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number)
> >
> > > > Lou,
> > > >
> > > > If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
> > > >
> > > > How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
> > > >
> > > > Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
> > > >
> > > > But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
> > > >
> > > > The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
> > > >
> > > > Phoenix1
> > > >
> > > > > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phoenix
> > > > >
> > > > > Friends,
> > > > > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > > > > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > > > > more...
> > > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Phoenix,
> > > You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
> > > I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
> > > more...
> > > Lou
>
> Phoenix,
> You wrote,[...Thanks again...interesting way...shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant...I'm not Dr. Bob...thanks for the converstaion...you've made valid points...].
> One question that I have concerning any rule that could have the potential to still one's voice in any community,is could you post here what good would it do for a community to still the voice of a member if the post is supportive and/or educational? If you could not post such, could you post here why not?
> Lou
>
>
Posted by Deputy Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 13:23:18
In reply to Re: Posting Limit? » seldomseen, posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 19:55:04
> But again, I'm talking about certain posters where there seems to be consistent lack of value, as judged by a group of peers.
There is nothing uncivil or administratively actionable about posting posts that "lack value" in the eyes of some peers, no matter the number of peers who agree on the assessment. However, Dr. Bob asks that we not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, even if no names are used. In this case "certain posters".
It's fine to bring up suggestions for rule changes at babble. But it isn't within site guidelines to negatively characterize the posts of others in doing so, even if the others are not specifically named.
If you wish to provide non-hypothetical examples, you might wish to email Dr. Bob or use the contact the administrators function.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 13:36:14
In reply to Please Be Civil » Phoenix1, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 13:23:18
Hi Dinah,
This is the first time I've been given a civility warning, and I feel a little shocked. I thought that I was being civil because at no time, did I identify an individual that I considered to be making these posts.
I now understand that charachterizing ANY poster in a negative light, even if they are not named specifically is uncivil, and will try to refrain from doing so in the future. But how could someone feel put down if I haven't specifically mentioned or even alluded to an individual?
I would say I used a hypothetical example, which is allowed in the civility rules. I'm confused, and a little taken aback at the warning. I thought we were in the process of a civil, friendly discussion on administrative issues. I feel a little afraid to say anything more on the issue now.
Could you help me to rephrase what I said so it is considered civil? I certainly do apologize if my comments made anyone feel accused or put down, as that was not at all the intent of my post.
Regards,
Phoenix1
PS, Dinah, I would be interested to hear what your opinion on the thread is if you are allowed to comment on things like this. Since you are a deputy, I'm sure you are well aware of the types of situations that I'm discussing.
> > But again, I'm talking about certain posters where there seems to be consistent lack of value, as judged by a group of peers.
>
> There is nothing uncivil or administratively actionable about posting posts that "lack value" in the eyes of some peers, no matter the number of peers who agree on the assessment. However, Dr. Bob asks that we not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, even if no names are used. In this case "certain posters".
>
> It's fine to bring up suggestions for rule changes at babble. But it isn't within site guidelines to negatively characterize the posts of others in doing so, even if the others are not specifically named.
>
> If you wish to provide non-hypothetical examples, you might wish to email Dr. Bob or use the contact the administrators function.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 13:49:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-5stns, posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 12:29:10
> Hi Lou,
>
> I don't think I suggested that someone couldn't post something if they felt they had something to contribute.
>
> Clearly, you are advocating a completely open system where people are free to post whatever they want, when they want, and however often they want, as long as they abide by the civility rules. This is the current system. I don't think it's perfect.
>
> You have to recognize that there is a considerable level of frustration among many community members who feel their threads are "hijacked" by certain posters. These are posters who have probably posted to 50+ threads in the last few weeks. Whether their posts are of value is not for me to judge for the group.
>
> In my _personal opinion_, there are a lot of non-value added, non-supportive posts from a very small number of high-volume posters. To be honest, I feel frustrated. I hate to see someone ask for help and then see their thread veer off into something completely different because someone has used the thread to discuss something that I feel to be totally irrelevant. And then the deputy/Dr. Bob warnings and suspensions start as the frustration level grows. It's not a pretty situation. I'm just trying to think of a way to improve the situation. Do you have any suggestions as an alternative to what I am proposing?
>
> I truly understand your side of the argument, that limiting posting is, in effect, limiting free speech, and that it _could_ prevent someone from giving valuable advice or support, but I think it would affect only a very small minority of community members if the system was well thought out. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it doesn't seem like we're reaching common ground.
>
> Phoenix1
>
>
> > > Hi Lou,
> > >
> > > Thanks again for the input. You have an interesting way of snipping and pasting bits of my posts. I think sometimes this may distort what I originally posted, and often makes me double check to see if it sounded as negative as you have edited it sound. But it also shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant in the post.
> > >
> > > Back to the topic. Clearly, you are against the posting limit. That's fine, I didn't know what to expect in terms of agreement/disagreement when I initially posted.
> > >
> > > You also mentiond something else that is important and I forgot, which is that if someone wants email notification for a thread they have to post to it. I think this should be changed to. One should be able to subscribe to a thread without posting a message to it.
> > >
> > > I still think some form of posting limit would be beneficial to Psycho-Babble. I just sense growing frustration at certain posters, and there have been a lot of civility warnings and suspensions as a result, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. But I'm not Dr. Bob, and I'm not a deputy, so my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Again, thanks for the conversation. You've made a number of valid points against my suggestion, and I always appreciate some friendly debate.
> > >
> > > I'm still interested to here what Dr. Bob has to say on this. He's been running the board for a long while, and I'm sure this situation/proposal has come up before. I would also be interested to here what the deputies have to say, since they are dealing with the issues I mentioned on a daily basis.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Phoenix1
> > >
> > > PS If a 10 post a day rule were implemented, I don't think I would be able to pst this... Food for thought. (I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number)
> > >
> > > > > Lou,
> > > > >
> > > > > If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
> > > > >
> > > > > Phoenix1
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phoenix
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > > > > > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > > > > > more...
> > > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > Phoenix,
> > > > You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
> > > > I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
> > > > more...
> > > > Lou
> >
> > Phoenix,
> > You wrote,[...Thanks again...interesting way...shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant...I'm not Dr. Bob...thanks for the converstaion...you've made valid points...].
> > One question that I have concerning any rule that could have the potential to still one's voice in any community,is could you post here what good would it do for a community to still the voice of a member if the post is supportive and/or educational? If you could not post such, could you post here why not?
> > LouPhoenix,
You wrote,[...do you have any alternatives to ...].
In a community made up of people seeking support and education in regards to mental-health issues, I would not have in effect the administrative action of ostracism. Instead, my administrative approach would be to retain a member but have some sort of way to cause members to abide by standards that are helpfull to others and refrain from posting statements that could cause emotional/psychological harm to another here.
So I would have a published list of types of statements that are those that I would like to deter and they would be weighted as to the demerit that could be assigned to them for posting a particular type.
Then each member would start off with a number rating, let's say, 1500. If they post a statement that demerits them, then that would be subtracted from their rating. There could be amounts that increase the rating for posts that are exceptionaly contributing to the welfare of the community. So a person could have a higher rating than 1500. This rating would be next to the member's handle.
The deputies would do the maintaining of the ratings and after a while, a member could have their rating drop to a point that what they post could be ignored by the group!
Then there could be ratings that reach a level of concern and the member could be suspended from posting for a week. I would have these levels go by 300s so that when a member's rating drops to below 1200, they will be suspended for a week.
My scaling of the demerits would be like the following deductions from the member's ratings having different classes of ratings. Some could have 100 deducted from their raitng, others 50 deducted, others 25 deducted and others 10 deducted.
For instance, I would have 10 deducted for profanity and 100 deducted for an ethnic slur. I would use 50 deducted for accusations toward a member and 25 deducted for {hasty generizations} or sometimes called {jumping to a conclusion}. I would deduct 10 for non-contributory posts and 1 point deducted for statements that are deemed to be {highjacking}
I give a higher priority in a mental health community to keeping the member from being ostracised and I think that my system could be an alternative to ostracism.
Lou
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 13:59:48
In reply to Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-duyu » Phoenix1, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 13:50:51
Hi Lou,
That's an interesting system you propose, it would certainly add value to the forum. I like the suggestion a lot actually. I completely agree with you that the last thing we want to do is ostracize any individual memebers.
Anyways, I'm going to stop debating on this thread because I don't know how to discuss it in a manner where I won't get another warning or a suspension.
I'm very unclear on the civility rules even after carefully re-reading them and then looking at my last post that garnered a warning. I don't want to cause any more trouble, so it would be better if I just ended things here. But I enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for all of your input.
Regards,
Phoenix1
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > I don't think I suggested that someone couldn't post something if they felt they had something to contribute.
> >
> > Clearly, you are advocating a completely open system where people are free to post whatever they want, when they want, and however often they want, as long as they abide by the civility rules. This is the current system. I don't think it's perfect.
> >
> > You have to recognize that there is a considerable level of frustration among many community members who feel their threads are "hijacked" by certain posters. These are posters who have probably posted to 50+ threads in the last few weeks. Whether their posts are of value is not for me to judge for the group.
> >
> > In my _personal opinion_, there are a lot of non-value added, non-supportive posts from a very small number of high-volume posters. To be honest, I feel frustrated. I hate to see someone ask for help and then see their thread veer off into something completely different because someone has used the thread to discuss something that I feel to be totally irrelevant. And then the deputy/Dr. Bob warnings and suspensions start as the frustration level grows. It's not a pretty situation. I'm just trying to think of a way to improve the situation. Do you have any suggestions as an alternative to what I am proposing?
> >
> > I truly understand your side of the argument, that limiting posting is, in effect, limiting free speech, and that it _could_ prevent someone from giving valuable advice or support, but I think it would affect only a very small minority of community members if the system was well thought out. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it doesn't seem like we're reaching common ground.
> >
> > Phoenix1
> >
> >
> > > > Hi Lou,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for the input. You have an interesting way of snipping and pasting bits of my posts. I think sometimes this may distort what I originally posted, and often makes me double check to see if it sounded as negative as you have edited it sound. But it also shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant in the post.
> > > >
> > > > Back to the topic. Clearly, you are against the posting limit. That's fine, I didn't know what to expect in terms of agreement/disagreement when I initially posted.
> > > >
> > > > You also mentiond something else that is important and I forgot, which is that if someone wants email notification for a thread they have to post to it. I think this should be changed to. One should be able to subscribe to a thread without posting a message to it.
> > > >
> > > > I still think some form of posting limit would be beneficial to Psycho-Babble. I just sense growing frustration at certain posters, and there have been a lot of civility warnings and suspensions as a result, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. But I'm not Dr. Bob, and I'm not a deputy, so my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Again, thanks for the conversation. You've made a number of valid points against my suggestion, and I always appreciate some friendly debate.
> > > >
> > > > I'm still interested to here what Dr. Bob has to say on this. He's been running the board for a long while, and I'm sure this situation/proposal has come up before. I would also be interested to here what the deputies have to say, since they are dealing with the issues I mentioned on a daily basis.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Phoenix1
> > > >
> > > > PS If a 10 post a day rule were implemented, I don't think I would be able to pst this... Food for thought. (I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number)
> > > >
> > > > > > Lou,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phoenix1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Phoenix
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > > > > > > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > > > > > > more...
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > >
> > > > > Phoenix,
> > > > > You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
> > > > > I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
> > > > > more...
> > > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Phoenix,
> > > You wrote,[...Thanks again...interesting way...shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant...I'm not Dr. Bob...thanks for the converstaion...you've made valid points...].
> > > One question that I have concerning any rule that could have the potential to still one's voice in any community,is could you post here what good would it do for a community to still the voice of a member if the post is supportive and/or educational? If you could not post such, could you post here why not?
> > > Lou
>
> Pjoenix,
> You wrote,[...do you have any alternatives to ...].
> In a community made up of people seeking support and education in regards to mental-health issues, I would not have in effect the administrative action of ostracism. Instead, my administrative approach would be to retain a member but have some sort of way to cause members to abide by standards that are helpfull to others and refrain from posting statements that could cause emotional/psychological harm to another here.
> So I would have a published list of types of statements that are those that I would like to deter and they would be weighted as to the demerit that could be assigned to them for posting a particular type.
> Then each member would start off with a number rating, let's say, 1500. If they post a statement that demerits them, then that would be subtracted from their rating. There could be amounts that increase the rating for posts that are exceptionaly contributing to the welfare of the community. So a person could have a higher rating than 1500. This rating would be next to the member's handle.
> The deputies would do the maintaining of the ratings and after a while, a member could have their rating drop to a point that what they post could be ignored by the group!
> Then there could be ratings that reach a level of concern and the member could be suspended from posting for a week. I would have these levels go by 300s so that when a member's rating drops to below 1200, they will be suspended for a week.
> My scaling of the demerits would be like the following deductions from the member's ratings having different classes of ratings. Some could have 100 deducted from their raitng, others 50 deducted, others 25 deducted and others 10 deducted.
> For instance, I would have 10 deducted for profanity and 100 deducted for an ethnic slur. I would use 50 deducted for accusations toward a member and 25 deducted for {hasty generizations} or sometimes called {jumping to a conclusion}. I would deduct 10 for non-contributory posts and 1 point deducted for statements that are deemed to be {highjacking}
> I give a higher priority in a mental health community to keeping the member from being ostracised and I think that my system could be an alternative to ostracism.
> Lou
>
>
Posted by Deputy Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 14:21:07
In reply to Re: Please Be Civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 13:36:14
Saying "certain posters" isn't really a hypothetical, because it identifies particular posters as those being spoken of, even if the names haven't been given. In many cases, speaking of a poster or posters without giving a name actually opens the possibility of *more* posters feeling accused or put down since many may wonder if they are one of the posters being discussed.
A hypothetical also shouldn't be written in such a way as to identify any poster, since that really wouldn't be hypothetical either.
In this particular case, I think that a suggestion could be made without negatively characterizing posters actions. Saying that a thread is diverted is more neutral than saying it is hijacked. Saying that you believe frequency of posting is a problem on the board could be achieved without characterizing the value or lack of value of the contributions. Adding that something is your opinion does not automatically make it an "I statement". You might wish to read the links on "I statements" in the FAQ.
If you, in your imagination, substitute the name of the posters you haven't identified and believe that if you were that person and read the statement you would feel hurt, accused, or put down, it might be a good idea to review the contents of your post again. The same would also be true of any statements preceded by "In my opinion...".
I hope this helps clarify things some, and I'm sure Dr. Bob will be happy to correct anything I said in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 14:27:11
In reply to Explanation, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 14:21:07
Hi Dinah,
Points taken. I'm still learning. I'll be more careful in the future. Again, sorry if anyone was made to feel put down or accused.
Phoenix1
> Saying "certain posters" isn't really a hypothetical, because it identifies particular posters as those being spoken of, even if the names haven't been given. In many cases, speaking of a poster or posters without giving a name actually opens the possibility of *more* posters feeling accused or put down since many may wonder if they are one of the posters being discussed.
>
> A hypothetical also shouldn't be written in such a way as to identify any poster, since that really wouldn't be hypothetical either.
>
> In this particular case, I think that a suggestion could be made without negatively characterizing posters actions. Saying that a thread is diverted is more neutral than saying it is hijacked. Saying that you believe frequency of posting is a problem on the board could be achieved without characterizing the value or lack of value of the contributions. Adding that something is your opinion does not automatically make it an "I statement". You might wish to read the links on "I statements" in the FAQ.
>
> If you, in your imagination, substitute the name of the posters you haven't identified and believe that if you were that person and read the statement you would feel hurt, accused, or put down, it might be a good idea to review the contents of your post again. The same would also be true of any statements preceded by "In my opinion...".
>
> I hope this helps clarify things some, and I'm sure Dr. Bob will be happy to correct anything I said in error.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 14:46:50
In reply to Posting Limit?, posted by Phoenix1 on December 26, 2007, at 17:25:37
> I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters.
I'm not sure about "majority" but sometimes there are situations that some, or many, or even most, posters find frustrating, while other posters are not upset and yet others may appreciate the situation. Posters may feel angry, annoyed, and frustrated. And in these situations they may wish administrative action.
Dr. Bob has not traditionally been open to considering these situations uncivil or to creating rules about them. And kudos to him for that. Just because some or many or even most people find themselves frustrated, annoyed, or maddened by a behavior, it does not follow that there is anything uncivil about that behavior. Would it be more peaceful to have administrative enforcement of group norms? Yes, perhaps. But I thank Bob that we do not.
There are a lot of reasons why people might post a lot. Maybe people are lonely, or in distress, or for some reason wish to reach out to others. I would not like to see that regulated. I'm not in favor of the three post rule either.
There are more than enough rules here now, both rules I find essential for civil discourse and rules I do not agree with. I see no need for more.
Perhaps my views are influenced by experiences in my own life where the majority of others seem to have found me or my behavior annoying or objectionable in some way.
But in any case you asked for my opinion. It's not my deputorial opinion. It's my own opinion.
My deputorial opinion is that some rules are difficult to enforce, and this would be one of them.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 16:48:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-duyu » Lou Pilder, posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 13:59:48
> Hi Lou,
>
> That's an interesting system you propose, it would certainly add value to the forum. I like the suggestion a lot actually. I completely agree with you that the last thing we want to do is ostracize any individual memebers.
>
> Anyways, I'm going to stop debating on this thread because I don't know how to discuss it in a manner where I won't get another warning or a suspension.
>
> I'm very unclear on the civility rules even after carefully re-reading them and then looking at my last post that garnered a warning. I don't want to cause any more trouble, so it would be better if I just ended things here. But I enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for all of your input.
>
> Regards,
>
> Phoenix1
>
> > > Hi Lou,
> > >
> > > I don't think I suggested that someone couldn't post something if they felt they had something to contribute.
> > >
> > > Clearly, you are advocating a completely open system where people are free to post whatever they want, when they want, and however often they want, as long as they abide by the civility rules. This is the current system. I don't think it's perfect.
> > >
> > > You have to recognize that there is a considerable level of frustration among many community members who feel their threads are "hijacked" by certain posters. These are posters who have probably posted to 50+ threads in the last few weeks. Whether their posts are of value is not for me to judge for the group.
> > >
> > > In my _personal opinion_, there are a lot of non-value added, non-supportive posts from a very small number of high-volume posters. To be honest, I feel frustrated. I hate to see someone ask for help and then see their thread veer off into something completely different because someone has used the thread to discuss something that I feel to be totally irrelevant. And then the deputy/Dr. Bob warnings and suspensions start as the frustration level grows. It's not a pretty situation. I'm just trying to think of a way to improve the situation. Do you have any suggestions as an alternative to what I am proposing?
> > >
> > > I truly understand your side of the argument, that limiting posting is, in effect, limiting free speech, and that it _could_ prevent someone from giving valuable advice or support, but I think it would affect only a very small minority of community members if the system was well thought out. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it doesn't seem like we're reaching common ground.
> > >
> > > Phoenix1
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Hi Lou,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again for the input. You have an interesting way of snipping and pasting bits of my posts. I think sometimes this may distort what I originally posted, and often makes me double check to see if it sounded as negative as you have edited it sound. But it also shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant in the post.
> > > > >
> > > > > Back to the topic. Clearly, you are against the posting limit. That's fine, I didn't know what to expect in terms of agreement/disagreement when I initially posted.
> > > > >
> > > > > You also mentiond something else that is important and I forgot, which is that if someone wants email notification for a thread they have to post to it. I think this should be changed to. One should be able to subscribe to a thread without posting a message to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I still think some form of posting limit would be beneficial to Psycho-Babble. I just sense growing frustration at certain posters, and there have been a lot of civility warnings and suspensions as a result, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. But I'm not Dr. Bob, and I'm not a deputy, so my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, thanks for the conversation. You've made a number of valid points against my suggestion, and I always appreciate some friendly debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm still interested to here what Dr. Bob has to say on this. He's been running the board for a long while, and I'm sure this situation/proposal has come up before. I would also be interested to here what the deputies have to say, since they are dealing with the issues I mentioned on a daily basis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Phoenix1
> > > > >
> > > > > PS If a 10 post a day rule were implemented, I don't think I would be able to pst this... Food for thought. (I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number)
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Lou,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phoenix1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Phoenix
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > > > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > > > > > > > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > > > > > > > more...
> > > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phoenix,
> > > > > > You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
> > > > > > I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
> > > > > > more...
> > > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > Phoenix,
> > > > You wrote,[...Thanks again...interesting way...shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant...I'm not Dr. Bob...thanks for the converstaion...you've made valid points...].
> > > > One question that I have concerning any rule that could have the potential to still one's voice in any community,is could you post here what good would it do for a community to still the voice of a member if the post is supportive and/or educational? If you could not post such, could you post here why not?
> > > > Lou
> >
> > Pjoenix,
> > You wrote,[...do you have any alternatives to ...].
> > In a community made up of people seeking support and education in regards to mental-health issues, I would not have in effect the administrative action of ostracism. Instead, my administrative approach would be to retain a member but have some sort of way to cause members to abide by standards that are helpfull to others and refrain from posting statements that could cause emotional/psychological harm to another here.
> > So I would have a published list of types of statements that are those that I would like to deter and they would be weighted as to the demerit that could be assigned to them for posting a particular type.
> > Then each member would start off with a number rating, let's say, 1500. If they post a statement that demerits them, then that would be subtracted from their rating. There could be amounts that increase the rating for posts that are exceptionaly contributing to the welfare of the community. So a person could have a higher rating than 1500. This rating would be next to the member's handle.
> > The deputies would do the maintaining of the ratings and after a while, a member could have their rating drop to a point that what they post could be ignored by the group!
> > Then there could be ratings that reach a level of concern and the member could be suspended from posting for a week. I would have these levels go by 300s so that when a member's rating drops to below 1200, they will be suspended for a week.
> > My scaling of the demerits would be like the following deductions from the member's ratings having different classes of ratings. Some could have 100 deducted from their raitng, others 50 deducted, others 25 deducted and others 10 deducted.
> > For instance, I would have 10 deducted for profanity and 100 deducted for an ethnic slur. I would use 50 deducted for accusations toward a member and 25 deducted for {hasty generizations} or sometimes called {jumping to a conclusion}. I would deduct 10 for non-contributory posts and 1 point deducted for statements that are deemed to be {highjacking}
> > I give a higher priority in a mental health community to keeping the member from being ostracised and I think that my system could be an alternative to ostracism.
> > LouPhoenix,
You wrote,[...interesting system you propose...would..add value to the forum...I like the suggestion...I completly agree with you...I'm going to stop...I'm very unclear...I don't want to cause...I enjoyed...thanks...].
I also enjoyed our discussion and think that my system could add value to the forum.
I do not consider that you caused any trouble here, for you opened a gate for many points to be discussed by your posts. The discussion could cause seeds to be planted.
You wrote,[...it would be better if I just {ended things} here...]. I interpret that to mean that you are wanting to end this |discussion|, not {ending >things<}.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 19:45:51
In reply to Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-ndng » Phoenix1, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 16:48:36
Hi Lou,
I just meant that I would stop posting on this thread, not that I would end things in a sinister way. But thanks for checking.
Phoenix1
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > That's an interesting system you propose, it would certainly add value to the forum. I like the suggestion a lot actually. I completely agree with you that the last thing we want to do is ostracize any individual memebers.
> >
> > Anyways, I'm going to stop debating on this thread because I don't know how to discuss it in a manner where I won't get another warning or a suspension.
> >
> > I'm very unclear on the civility rules even after carefully re-reading them and then looking at my last post that garnered a warning. I don't want to cause any more trouble, so it would be better if I just ended things here. But I enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for all of your input.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phoenix1
> >
> > > > Hi Lou,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think I suggested that someone couldn't post something if they felt they had something to contribute.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly, you are advocating a completely open system where people are free to post whatever they want, when they want, and however often they want, as long as they abide by the civility rules. This is the current system. I don't think it's perfect.
> > > >
> > > > You have to recognize that there is a considerable level of frustration among many community members who feel their threads are "hijacked" by certain posters. These are posters who have probably posted to 50+ threads in the last few weeks. Whether their posts are of value is not for me to judge for the group.
> > > >
> > > > In my _personal opinion_, there are a lot of non-value added, non-supportive posts from a very small number of high-volume posters. To be honest, I feel frustrated. I hate to see someone ask for help and then see their thread veer off into something completely different because someone has used the thread to discuss something that I feel to be totally irrelevant. And then the deputy/Dr. Bob warnings and suspensions start as the frustration level grows. It's not a pretty situation. I'm just trying to think of a way to improve the situation. Do you have any suggestions as an alternative to what I am proposing?
> > > >
> > > > I truly understand your side of the argument, that limiting posting is, in effect, limiting free speech, and that it _could_ prevent someone from giving valuable advice or support, but I think it would affect only a very small minority of community members if the system was well thought out. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it doesn't seem like we're reaching common ground.
> > > >
> > > > Phoenix1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Hi Lou,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks again for the input. You have an interesting way of snipping and pasting bits of my posts. I think sometimes this may distort what I originally posted, and often makes me double check to see if it sounded as negative as you have edited it sound. But it also shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant in the post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Back to the topic. Clearly, you are against the posting limit. That's fine, I didn't know what to expect in terms of agreement/disagreement when I initially posted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You also mentiond something else that is important and I forgot, which is that if someone wants email notification for a thread they have to post to it. I think this should be changed to. One should be able to subscribe to a thread without posting a message to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still think some form of posting limit would be beneficial to Psycho-Babble. I just sense growing frustration at certain posters, and there have been a lot of civility warnings and suspensions as a result, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. But I'm not Dr. Bob, and I'm not a deputy, so my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, thanks for the conversation. You've made a number of valid points against my suggestion, and I always appreciate some friendly debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm still interested to here what Dr. Bob has to say on this. He's been running the board for a long while, and I'm sure this situation/proposal has come up before. I would also be interested to here what the deputies have to say, since they are dealing with the issues I mentioned on a daily basis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phoenix1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS If a 10 post a day rule were implemented, I don't think I would be able to pst this... Food for thought. (I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lou,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Phoenix1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Phoenix
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > > > > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > > > > > > > > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > > > > > > > > more...
> > > > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phoenix,
> > > > > > > You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
> > > > > > > I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
> > > > > > > more...
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > >
> > > > > Phoenix,
> > > > > You wrote,[...Thanks again...interesting way...shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant...I'm not Dr. Bob...thanks for the converstaion...you've made valid points...].
> > > > > One question that I have concerning any rule that could have the potential to still one's voice in any community,is could you post here what good would it do for a community to still the voice of a member if the post is supportive and/or educational? If you could not post such, could you post here why not?
> > > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Pjoenix,
> > > You wrote,[...do you have any alternatives to ...].
> > > In a community made up of people seeking support and education in regards to mental-health issues, I would not have in effect the administrative action of ostracism. Instead, my administrative approach would be to retain a member but have some sort of way to cause members to abide by standards that are helpfull to others and refrain from posting statements that could cause emotional/psychological harm to another here.
> > > So I would have a published list of types of statements that are those that I would like to deter and they would be weighted as to the demerit that could be assigned to them for posting a particular type.
> > > Then each member would start off with a number rating, let's say, 1500. If they post a statement that demerits them, then that would be subtracted from their rating. There could be amounts that increase the rating for posts that are exceptionaly contributing to the welfare of the community. So a person could have a higher rating than 1500. This rating would be next to the member's handle.
> > > The deputies would do the maintaining of the ratings and after a while, a member could have their rating drop to a point that what they post could be ignored by the group!
> > > Then there could be ratings that reach a level of concern and the member could be suspended from posting for a week. I would have these levels go by 300s so that when a member's rating drops to below 1200, they will be suspended for a week.
> > > My scaling of the demerits would be like the following deductions from the member's ratings having different classes of ratings. Some could have 100 deducted from their raitng, others 50 deducted, others 25 deducted and others 10 deducted.
> > > For instance, I would have 10 deducted for profanity and 100 deducted for an ethnic slur. I would use 50 deducted for accusations toward a member and 25 deducted for {hasty generizations} or sometimes called {jumping to a conclusion}. I would deduct 10 for non-contributory posts and 1 point deducted for statements that are deemed to be {highjacking}
> > > I give a higher priority in a mental health community to keeping the member from being ostracised and I think that my system could be an alternative to ostracism.
> > > Lou
>
> Phoenix,
> You wrote,[...interesting system you propose...would..add value to the forum...I like the suggestion...I completly agree with you...I'm going to stop...I'm very unclear...I don't want to cause...I enjoyed...thanks...].
> I also enjoyed our discussion and think that my system could add value to the forum.
> I do not consider that you caused any trouble here, for you opened a gate for many points to be discussed by your posts. The discussion could cause seeds to be planted.
> You wrote,[...it would be better if I just {ended things} here...]. I interpret that to mean that you are wanting to end this |discussion|, not {ending >things<}.
> Best regards,
> Lou
>
Posted by karen_kay on December 28, 2007, at 2:34:00
In reply to Re: Posting Limit?, posted by Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 14:46:50
heya miss dinah!!!
perhaps some sort of restriction (gosh, that word really looks spelled wrong!) would be easier to be enforced if the restrictions were just *poof* placed magically by mister bob? much like those nasty blocks, you know?
now don't get me wrong, i'm not being a naysayer, nor am i trying to argue, but it wouldn't have to be enforced if it were merely some sort of magical program (that exists, right? i'm very computer silly and slow, but i'm assuming there's something that does exist) that would just pop up and say 'sorry dear, you've reached your limit for this thread/day/ect. please try again tomorrow hun. and i hope you don't think this means i don't like you.'
know what i mean? then, no one would have to enforce it, much like a block that's already been set.
i'm sure this is something that has been discussed in the past. i'm positive if it has, i've probably had 14 very different opinions. today, this is mine :)
kk, who's opinion changes everyday!!!!
oh, and i think it may have some positives too! i know many times, if i'd have had a posting limit imposed, i wouldn't have been blocked. i would have hit my limit of posts by the time i hit my boiling point. that's jsut one particular example though. i'm sure there are more.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 6:35:17
In reply to more easier to enforce... » Dinah, posted by karen_kay on December 28, 2007, at 2:34:00
> a GLOBAL daily posting limit ... might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it.
>
> I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.> To be honest, I feel frustrated. I hate to see someone ask for help and then see their thread veer off into something completely different ... And then the deputy/Dr. Bob warnings and suspensions start as the frustration level grows. It's not a pretty situation. I'm just trying to think of a way to improve the situation.
>
> PhoenixThanks for bringing this up, and for trying to be constructive. I do think various people have their feathers ruffled, so in that sense you're very "on base". And it can be hard to discuss these kinds of things without ruffling more feathers. But I think it's important to try.
Some issues I do think are best dealt with administratively, but I'm not sure this is one of them. As Seldom said, value is in the eye of the beholder.
And as someone else said, be the change you want to see. If a poster's not getting help, try to help them. Or just post a reminder that they asked for help, then someone else might help them.
The 3-post rules that Dinah mentioned are a type of limit, but have a different intent, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#three
> it wouldn't have to be enforced if it were merely some sort of magical program ... that would just pop up and say 'sorry dear, you've reached your limit for this thread/day/ect. please try again tomorrow hun. and i hope you don't think this means i don't like you.'
>
> kkThat's a great idea! I'll add it to my to-do list, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 28, 2007, at 8:41:21
In reply to Re: Posting Limits, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 6:35:17
> That's a great idea! I'll add it to my to-do list, thanks.
>
> BobI'm confused Dr. Bob. I thought earlier you said that this isn't something you thought should be handled administratively. So why would you create a program?
Posted by 10derHeart on December 28, 2007, at 9:38:17
In reply to Re: Posting Limits » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 28, 2007, at 8:41:21
So Dr. Bob, you're in favor of global, daily posting limits?!! Um - has there been more discussion I've missed?
Or perhaps do you mean kk's idea is great for automated enforcing of the 3-post limit on a thread?
Please explain. I'm lost. Thanks.
Go forward in 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.