![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 41. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 16:35:22
yes,, i have been lurking now and then during my exile and followed a conversstion about deleting harmful posts.. as I understand it, they are left there and go into history. It is against the policy of babble or something to just delete hurtful posts. One in particular I found to be upsetting. perverted and horrifying. I can't be the only one who felt such a gut reaction. Would it be so bad to delete posts that are hurtful, harmful? While I read that Babble doesn't delete posts, I have seen it happen late at nite several times. Posts were gone within minutes. OMHO the posts were not very nice and dissed Bob but the way I see it is that some posts diss many of us. Perhaps the poster was someone who was blocked earlier but how can One really know that? IMHO that would be an assumption.. I might be wrong but I saw it happen.... ahhhh i feel a block coming on
Posted by MissK on February 23, 2008, at 17:35:51
In reply to deleting posts, posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 16:35:22
>Would it be so bad to delete posts that are hurtful, harmful?
The thing is with that, who decides? And where does one draw the line. Depending on how any one person may be feeling one day, saying "Have a nice day" may feel hurtful to someone.
On the boards I've frequented so far, I think the warnings and blocks have worked well in stemming the escalation of potentially getting into really vicious territory.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 23, 2008, at 18:55:42
In reply to deleting posts, posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 16:35:22
> Perhaps the poster was someone who was blocked earlier but how can One really know that? IMHO that would be an assumption.. I might be wrong but I saw it happen.... ahhhh i feel a block coming on
It would depend on who the "One" is you are referring to. The person or persons deleting posts made by posters who are blocked do have resources to check that assumption. I can assure you they don't do it willy nilly.
And as a question primarily for self reflection, if you truly "feel a block coming on", what steps can you take, if you're interested, to try to avoid it?
gg
Posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 20:48:00
In reply to Re: deleting posts » star008, posted by gardenergirl on February 23, 2008, at 18:55:42
really gg there is no way to check if a poster is new or blocked if they are using a different computer and a different name. the posts i saw deleted were IMo pretty bad but so are some other ones.. and my point is that they are deciding to delete those posts but not others..someone is deciding.. I truly don't care too much if I am blocked again or not.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 23, 2008, at 21:17:10
In reply to Re: deleting posts, posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 20:48:00
There's no way you or I could check, that I know of, not being a hacker and all... But I highly doubt that Dr. Bob's system is returning random answers each time it's used by the deputies and/or Dr. Bob.
Posts made by posters who are blocked are deleted because to leave them would reinforce that behavior. They can have the length of the block extended, but there is no other administrative step to be used for a behavior that has escalated past blocking.
On the other hand, objectionable content is a different matter. Apples and oranges. Dr. Bob has chosen not to try to establish a line between what would and what would not remain as far as deleting posts. It's hard enough to do that with civility decisions and be 100 percent consistent. He has explained his other reasons for not deleting posts elsewhere.
gg
Posted by star008 on February 24, 2008, at 7:02:18
In reply to Re: deleting posts » star008, posted by gardenergirl on February 23, 2008, at 21:17:10
really someone could use a new email and a different computer and there is no way they could know who it is. i think they are assuming a blocked poster. by the attitude and the way it is written.. they were not "nice" posts.. I have seen other posts that are just as bad left up. I was just making a point.. take it or leave it.. it means nothing
Posted by Deputy Racer on February 24, 2008, at 7:07:16
In reply to Re: deleting posts, posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 20:48:00
> there is no way to check if a poster is new or blocked if they are using a different computer and a different name.
Thank you for your concern.
The administrative tools here at Babble allow Dr Bob or one of his deputies to identify blocked posters who re-register under a different name. While it is not perfect, it is generally accurate. I'm not an expert in the technology used, but I can assure you that we try to err on the side of caution, and we do not delete posts if we're not sure that they were posted by someone who has been blocked. If we are not certain, we leave it for Dr Bob.
Thank you again for your concern.
Deputy Racer
Posted by adelaide curtis on February 25, 2008, at 8:15:05
In reply to deleting posts, posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 16:35:22
i have had some of my own posts deleted "willynilly" late at night, but this was some time ago..
Posted by star008 on February 25, 2008, at 9:14:01
In reply to Re: deleting posts » star008, posted by Deputy Racer on February 24, 2008, at 7:07:16
I am sure the system is accurate in many cases but if i wanted to I could go and set up a hotmail account on a different computer and post under a new name. There would be no need for me to do that but it would be really easy..There would be no way that the tools that babble has to know if i was new or a blocked poster..but enough of that.. it doesn't really matter anyway
Posted by muffled on February 25, 2008, at 12:06:30
In reply to Re: deleting posts, posted by star008 on February 25, 2008, at 9:14:01
I agree.
It is a BIG deal in why I am absent.
That harmful posts are not removed. Even when specifically asked.
There is NO good reason for them not to be removed IMHO, ESPECIALLY when there is more harm than good resulting as a consequence.
There IS a record of the transgression in the PBC or blocking post.
That is ENUF, the post itself is not needed.
Too much hurt, not enuf compassion.
My gut hurts.
I miss my friends.
I WISH so bad I could be here, but I just can't handle it either.
:-(
I am so sad bout this.
:-(
Posted by adelaide curtis on February 25, 2008, at 12:18:42
In reply to deleting posts, posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 16:35:22
"I may delete posts I see as particularly inappropriate, but in general, it's my policy not to do that. When I do delete posts, I usually delete replies to them as well, because not doing so could lead to confusion."
...i wish dr bob would update this statement, i have seen many inappropriate posts that were not deleted!
Posted by gardenergirl on February 25, 2008, at 12:44:24
In reply to Re: deleting posts, posted by adelaide curtis on February 25, 2008, at 12:18:42
Yes, well the key word is "I" in the policy. It's about what Dr. Bob deems inappropriate enough to delete, not inappropriate in general or in anyone else's eyes.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 13:03:43
In reply to Re: deleting posts » adelaide curtis, posted by gardenergirl on February 25, 2008, at 12:44:24
> Yes, well the key word is "I" in the policy. It's about what Dr. Bob deems inappropriate enough to delete, not inappropriate in general or in anyone else's eyes.
>
> ggFriends,
It is written here,[...it is about what (Mr. Hsiung) deems inappropriate enough to delete...].
I think that then if that is the case, then IMO that could have the potential to lead some others to believe that posts that are allowed to stand could be thought by some to be appropriate here. If anyone would like to see these posts in question, they could email me if they like and have the opportunity to make your own determination as to if they are appropriate here.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by muffled on February 25, 2008, at 13:30:42
In reply to Re: deleting posts » adelaide curtis, posted by gardenergirl on February 25, 2008, at 12:44:24
> Yes, well the key word is "I" in the policy. It's about what Dr. Bob deems inappropriate enough to delete, not inappropriate in general or in anyone else's eyes.
*Sigh....and therin lies the problem....
I can only presume that Bob means well, but there are times when he just SO does not 'get' stuff.
He seems unable to do so.
I do not in ANY way mean this to diss Bob. He is human like the rest of us. He must have his own issues, all do.
But it does cause problems IMHO when he is the last ultimate authority, and therefore he is like a god or something on this site. He can make any descision he wants, off the cuff, or deeply thought out...I do not know. He seems to be a busy man at times. And once he has made a descision....he sadly rarely will change his mind, despite entreaties from many other posters :-(
These are problems that I see.
Bob is Bob, I just wonder if somehow he could take in more input regarding some of his descions, and I wish he could be a wee bit more flexible.
Maybe meet w/his deps a little more frequently in chat? Maybe he does, I don't know. There needs to be better more consistant regular communication amongst the admin people I am guessing. Mebbe meet 2-3/month at a regular time in chat? Maybe the logistics are not there. They could try.....
To give him some credit, he HAS been more lenient in general than he has been in the past, but yes, there are definately cases recently that I do not agree with.
Its unfortunate.
I wish I could explain it better.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 13:35:41
In reply to Lou's views-deleting posts, posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 13:03:43
> > Yes, well the key word is "I" in the policy. It's about what Dr. Bob deems inappropriate enough to delete, not inappropriate in general or in anyone else's eyes.
> >
> > gg
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...it is about what (Mr. Hsiung) deems inappropriate enough to delete...].
> I think that then if that is the case, then IMO that could have the potential to lead some others to believe that posts that are allowed to stand could be thought by some to be appropriate here. If anyone would like to see these posts in question, they could email me if they like and have the opportunity to make your own determination as to if they are appropriate here.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netFriends,
The question that I see here is,[...what is not appropriate here so that it is deleted...?]
The rule in question that we are discussing is that deputies may delete posts of a particular nature as per the FAQ here, and it is fine to discuss rationales and the rules and such on this forum. The question that I see is {what is the definition of what is the rationale used to delete posts here?}
This brings up to me as to if a post is allowed to stand, does that mean that it does not satisfy the rationale for deleting it? For if it did satisfy the rationale for deleting it, then would it not have been deleted? And if not, why not?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 13:56:11
In reply to Lou's views-deleting posts-ynt?, posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 13:35:41
> > > Yes, well the key word is "I" in the policy. It's about what Dr. Bob deems inappropriate enough to delete, not inappropriate in general or in anyone else's eyes.
> > >
> > > gg
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...it is about what (Mr. Hsiung) deems inappropriate enough to delete...].
> > I think that then if that is the case, then IMO that could have the potential to lead some others to believe that posts that are allowed to stand could be thought by some to be appropriate here. If anyone would like to see these posts in question, they could email me if they like and have the opportunity to make your own determination as to if they are appropriate here.
> > Lou
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
> Friends,
> The question that I see here is,[...what is not appropriate here so that it is deleted...?]
> The rule in question that we are discussing is that deputies may delete posts of a particular nature as per the FAQ here, and it is fine to discuss rationales and the rules and such on this forum. The question that I see is {what is the definition of what is the rationale used to delete posts here?}
> This brings up to me as to if a post is allowed to stand, does that mean that it does not satisfy the rationale for deleting it? For if it did satisfy the rationale for deleting it, then would it not have been deleted? And if not, why not?
> LouFriends,
The TOS here writes,[...deputies may delete {grossly} inappropriate posts...].(citation P2)
The question that I see here is what is the rationale here for what is or is not {gross}?
The generally accepted meaning of {grossly} is that it is prominatly seen, or glaringly noticeable. It stands out, it is not hidden.
I ask: Is that something that all can see as to if what is posted stands out glaringly as being inappropriate or not? The generally accepted meaning of appropriate is that what is appropriate is {suitable or compatible with the occasion}. I ask: If the TOS here is that what is posted to be suitable here is to be {harmonious}, and that {harmonuious has a generally accepted meaning to be what is agreeable to the community, could that not be the rationale for deleting posts or not?
Lou
citation P2
www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#deputies
Posted by 10derHeart on February 25, 2008, at 14:02:28
In reply to Re: deleting posts, posted by muffled on February 25, 2008, at 13:30:42
>Mebbe meet 2-3/month at a regular time in chat?
We do meet like this and have been meeting regularly for a while now..... :-)
And we have access to him through the list where the Notifications go, as well. But, as you wrote, he can be a really busy man. And so can the deputies, among other obstacles to devoting more time or energy to Babble.
Not sure any sort of meetings - or not - with deputies would change the sort of thing you are upset about, though.
Posted by adelaide curtis on February 25, 2008, at 14:04:42
In reply to Re: deleting posts, posted by adelaide curtis on February 25, 2008, at 12:18:42
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/625505.html..
i see the faq has been updated from "grossly innapropriate" to "particularly innapropriate"..
why update it if it still means nothing at all...
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 14:10:08
In reply to Lou's views-deleting posts-grosinap, posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 13:56:11
> > > > Yes, well the key word is "I" in the policy. It's about what Dr. Bob deems inappropriate enough to delete, not inappropriate in general or in anyone else's eyes.
> > > >
> > > > gg
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > It is written here,[...it is about what (Mr. Hsiung) deems inappropriate enough to delete...].
> > > I think that then if that is the case, then IMO that could have the potential to lead some others to believe that posts that are allowed to stand could be thought by some to be appropriate here. If anyone would like to see these posts in question, they could email me if they like and have the opportunity to make your own determination as to if they are appropriate here.
> > > Lou
> > > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> >
> > Friends,
> > The question that I see here is,[...what is not appropriate here so that it is deleted...?]
> > The rule in question that we are discussing is that deputies may delete posts of a particular nature as per the FAQ here, and it is fine to discuss rationales and the rules and such on this forum. The question that I see is {what is the definition of what is the rationale used to delete posts here?}
> > This brings up to me as to if a post is allowed to stand, does that mean that it does not satisfy the rationale for deleting it? For if it did satisfy the rationale for deleting it, then would it not have been deleted? And if not, why not?
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> The TOS here writes,[...deputies may delete {grossly} inappropriate posts...].(citation P2)
> The question that I see here is what is the rationale here for what is or is not {gross}?
> The generally accepted meaning of {grossly} is that it is prominatly seen, or glaringly noticeable. It stands out, it is not hidden.
> I ask: Is that something that all can see as to if what is posted stands out glaringly as being inappropriate or not? The generally accepted meaning of appropriate is that what is appropriate is {suitable or compatible with the occasion}. I ask: If the TOS here is that what is posted to be suitable here is to be {harmonious}, and that {harmonuious has a generally accepted meaning to be what is agreeable to the community, could that not be the rationale for deleting posts or not?
> Lou
> citation P2
> www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#deputiescorrcted link
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#deputies
Posted by muffled on February 25, 2008, at 14:11:50
In reply to meeting w/Dr. Bob » muffled, posted by 10derHeart on February 25, 2008, at 14:02:28
>But, as you wrote, he can be a really busy man. And so can the deputies, among other obstacles to devoting more time or energy to Babble.
Not sure any sort of meetings - or not - with deputies would change the sort of thing you are upset about, though.
*Thx 10der :-) Glad your meeting, I think its important that you have at least the opportunity to be on the same page....
Yea....re: the second statement...sigh.
Babble can be pretty darn important to people at various times. There have been times where Babble was HUGE for me, maybe too huge, but guess thats the waY it is sometimes.
So babble (NO OFFENSE to deps here!!!!) is kinda, kinda-managed....when there's time....sigh.
And Bob.
Bob.
Sigh.
I feel like he don't hear what I say to him. Not really. :-(
And so I not be here.
Sadly.
There a so many WONDERFUL!!!!! people here.
Take care
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 14:40:21
In reply to Re: deleting posts, posted by adelaide curtis on February 25, 2008, at 14:04:42
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/625505.html..
> i see the faq has been updated from "grossly innapropriate" to "particularly innapropriate"..
> why update it if it still means nothing at all...Friends,
It is written here,[...why...if it...?]
This brings up something that I think is important to the community. I see the TOS here as being what can be expected in the community, which in this case is that grossly inappropriate posts could be deleted. I think that the question by adelaide here is in my opinion for members confidence in regards to the TOS here, for adelaide wrote,[...why update it if ...?]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 15:39:38
In reply to deleting posts, posted by star008 on February 23, 2008, at 16:35:22
> yes,, i have been lurking now and then during my exile and followed a conversstion about deleting harmful posts.. as I understand it, they are left there and go into history. It is against the policy of babble or something to just delete hurtful posts. One in particular I found to be upsetting. perverted and horrifying. I can't be the only one who felt such a gut reaction. Would it be so bad to delete posts that are hurtful, harmful? While I read that Babble doesn't delete posts, I have seen it happen late at nite several times. Posts were gone within minutes. OMHO the posts were not very nice and dissed Bob but the way I see it is that some posts diss many of us. Perhaps the poster was someone who was blocked earlier but how can One really know that? IMHO that would be an assumption.. I might be wrong but I saw it happen.... ahhhh i feel a block coming on
Star 008.
You wrote,[...a post that I found to be upsetting perverted and horrifying...posts I have seen at night deleted that dissed Bob...]
Could you email the post in question that you want deleted? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your concern and be better able to respond accordingly.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2008, at 15:47:22
In reply to Re: deleting posts, posted by muffled on February 25, 2008, at 12:06:30
> I agree.
> It is a BIG deal in why I am absent.
> That harmful posts are not removed. Even when specifically asked.
> There is NO good reason for them not to be removed IMHO, ESPECIALLY when there is more harm than good resulting as a consequence.
> There IS a record of the transgression in the PBC or blocking post.
> That is ENUF, the post itself is not needed.
> Too much hurt, not enuf compassion.
> My gut hurts.
> I miss my friends.
> I WISH so bad I could be here, but I just can't handle it either.
> :-(
> I am so sad bout this.
> :-(Friends,
It is written here,[...thre harmful posts are not removed...]
I would appreciate that anyone that would like to share the url's of posts that you think are harmful that you would like deleted to email me them so that I could have the opportunity to know what could be or not be grossly inappropriate here and then try to find a rationale for those that are not deleted that are grossly inappropriate.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Dinah on February 25, 2008, at 17:26:41
In reply to Re: meeting w/Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on February 25, 2008, at 14:11:50
It seems like most of the posts on this board are complaining that it takes deputy too little time to ruin good discussions by giving pbc's. Not that it takes us too long.
It wouldn't do any good at all for us to discuss removing posts with Dr. Bob. It just isn't his practice, except in one circumstance as far as I know. Posting while blocked.
I still think that posters working together to make sure that a post speedily finds its way into the archives is the only real way to get it done. It hasn't been done lately, but we used to do it. It was part of a spirit of camaraderie. Of living by the rules, but finding a way to minimize hurt to a friend anyway. And without being uncivil.
There were more posters then. Maybe it would be harder to do now without breaking the three post rule.
But I did like the feeling of working together...
While I understand the idea behind deputies and off board notifications, I think it also led people to give up on helping each other, in completely acceptable and civil ways.
When we suspect someone might be feeling hurt, do we start threads to tell that person how much we care about them? If someone is the topic of an uncivil post, it's great if people don't respond uncivilly. But wouldn't it be even greater if people came out in droves to post civilly in support of the poster? "XXX, I don't at all think you're yyyy. I really admire you for zzzz." I know people do it, but not as much as it used to be I think. Maybe everyone's afraid to say something wrong. I don't know.
It seems to me to be even more to the point than saying something uncivil to the poster who makes what seem to be uncivil remarks. Isn't the point to say that not everyone thinks of you that way? Way more people think of you in a completely different way? That you're wonderful and loved and an asset to Babble?
Maybe in giving posters the message that they should contact Administration and wait for a response, we haven't emphasized that it's still ok to be supportive. That being supportive is still up to fellow posters really. And that being supportive to one poster doesn't have to be done by being uncivil to another.
I dunno. Maybe Admin really is every bit as bad as everyone thinks we are. I hate to think that, because I only agreed to do this to be helpful and do good for the community. Not to hold it down or destroy it.
Posted by muffled on February 25, 2008, at 17:53:27
In reply to Re: meeting w/Dr. Bob » muffled, posted by Dinah on February 25, 2008, at 17:26:41
> It seems like most of the posts on this board are complaining that it takes deputy too little time to ruin good discussions by giving pbc's. Not that it takes us too long.
*Well I for one LIKE PBC's, cuz they give a body the heads up. The only thing I DON'T like bout PBC's, is that one given long ago on a different thread, at a different time, can allasudden leap up and bite ya by resulting inan unexpected block, cuz the PBC is long forgotten.Other than that, I think PBC is a useful tool as far as I can see. To me it feels like a ggetle reminder to watch myself, and I learn that way. Do PBC's ruin discussions always? I dunno? Maybe I am the only one that thinks the way I do! I always think all think the same....but of course they do not.
> It wouldn't do any good at all for us to discuss removing posts with Dr. Bob. It just isn't his practice, except in one circumstance as far as I know. Posting while blocked.
*sigh. "It just isn't his practice..." Thats why I struggle. Bob don't seem to wanto change...
> I still think that posters working together to make sure that a post speedily finds its way into the archives is the only real way to get it done. It hasn't been done lately, but we used to do it. It was part of a spirit of camaraderie. Of living by the rules, but finding a way to minimize hurt to a friend anyway. And without being uncivil.
*That is a GOOD point Dinah. I remember defendingothers on admin and stuff. But...I dunno, got tired of butting my head. I would like to post, to be a good friend to others :-( I dunno. I dunno whats wrong really. Wish I did.
> There were more posters then. Maybe it would be harder to do now without breaking the three post rule.
*;-) NOther rule!!! LOL!
Yeah, if we band together, reckon it WOULD help some to at least get the post off the main board. It still would exist in the archives, but off the main board would help. I shoulda helped on that last one. Just goto get my head outta my *ss.> But I did like the feeling of working together...
*ya...
> While I understand the idea behind deputies and off board notifications, I think it also led people to give up on helping each other, in completely acceptable and civil ways.*hmmmm, now I hadn't of thot of that angle, interesting. That could definately be.
> When we suspect someone might be feeling hurt, do we start threads to tell that person how much we care about them? If someone is the topic of an uncivil post, it's great if people don't respond uncivilly. But wouldn't it be even greater if people came out in droves to post civilly in support of the poster? "XXX, I don't at all think you're yyyy. I really admire you for zzzz." I know people do it, but not as much as it used to be I think. Maybe everyone's afraid to say something wrong. I don't know.
*Not sure either. I just been doing that by B-mail, but suppose it'd be better posted....but I trying not to post...
I think it IS challenging, when you see a friend hurt, to NOT try and defend them, rather than only be supportive...and then the blocks come. My prob too, is I will read the 'bad' post several times and get angry each time. Can't seem to help myself.
> It seems to me to be even more to the point than saying something uncivil to the poster who makes what seem to be uncivil remarks. Isn't the point to say that not everyone thinks of you that way? Way more people think of you in a completely different way? That you're wonderful and loved and an asset to Babble?(((Dinah)))
> Maybe in giving posters the message that they should contact Administration and wait for a response, we haven't emphasized that it's still ok to be supportive. That being supportive is still up to fellow posters really. And that being supportive to one poster doesn't have to be done by being uncivil to another.*That last line was well said. But hard to remember in the heat of the moment.
>
> I dunno. Maybe Admin really is every bit as bad as everyone thinks we are. I hate to think that, because I only agreed to do this to be helpful and do good for the community. Not to hold it down or destroy it.*OH! Great gravy Dinah!!! I for one do NOT think you are bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You KNOW its ole Bob I love to hate!;-)
I think, for me anyways, this discussion is just about trying to make babble improvements.
I am in a weird place at the moment, and I find babble triggering in assorted ways.
So mebbe for me, thats all it is.
Guess its complicated.
But Dinah, you best not be dissing Deputy Dinah, or ole Muffled gonna get blocked defending Deputy Dinah!
:-)
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.