![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by caraher on December 6, 2008, at 13:28:14
Thanks for the response...
> We've been discussing the Politics board with Dr. Bob recently. He'd prefer posters to post positively about the leaders they support and the political positions they hold, rather than negatively characterize other political figures or political positions. The idea is to be respectful of those who voted for those political figures or hold those political positions.
Are these discussions among Dr. Bob & the deputies, or are they in these forums somewhere? I don't see anything in Admin on this. I obviously don't know about any off-board communication you might have had with rayww; assuming there was none, this strikes me as a cross between the old game "telephone" and a mind-reading exercise. It seems ordinary posters are being asked to constrain our posts in accordance with evolving guidelines developed in discussions we might not privy to.
> We're trying to run things by Dr. Bob as much as possible during this period of time, so that we can do the best we can do in following his desires on how that board should be administered.
The problem with this kind of process is that, unless everyone can adopt Dr. Bob and all the deputies as their "civility buddies," there's little assurance that we can get accurate feedback on the acceptability of a particular post short of receiving some kind of reprimand.
While it is in the nature of these rules that some human judgment (and therefore some unpredicatability) must come into play, I think more explicit guidelines, including examples (perhaps based on modified actual posts) would be helpful in reducing the ambiguity.
Regarding Dr. Bob's desire that we "post positively about the leaders (we) support and the political positions (we) hold," I think this can and does clash with the other policy that presenting something as an opinion (whether mine or that of a politician I support) renders insensitive or uncivil content acceptable. The fact is that politicians routinely promote policies that are viewed by substantial numbers of reasonable people as insensitive, even uncivil. That is what made saying anything about California's Proposition 8, for example, very difficult.
If I say that gay marriage is great because it recognizes a basic human right for people of all sexual orientations, Prop 8 advocates reading the board could feel accused of seeking to deny people their basic human rights. If I say I support Prop 8 because it protects traditional marriage, Prop 8 foes could feel accused of seeking to harm traditional marriage. There would be some justification for those feelings in both cases, yet I don't see how either statement could reasonably be construed as insensitive or uncivil.
I totally agree that we should "not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down," but this must be interpreted reasonably. It is a fact of the world that not everyone holds the same opinions I do, and it is not reasonable of me to feel accused or put down when someone expresses a differing opinion simply because the opinion expresses differs from mine. A reasonable guideline would turn on how that opinion is expressed, and it simply does not work to base that on whether the opinion is expressed as support for X rather than opposition to Y.
What is crucial is whether the opinion involves a relatively explicit commentary about *people* who hold differing views. For instance, if someone posts, "I oppose gay marriage because it threatens traditional marriage" I fail to see how any person could reasonably "feel accused or put down;" where an expression of opinion might begin cross the line would be a post along the lines of, "I supported Prop 8 to protect traditional marriage from gay rights advocates." I'd consider that fairly mild, but I could also see how that's getting more personal, in that it imputes a motive (attacking traditional marriage) to people holding a different opinion.
Once again, I just feel bad that rayww was "playing nice" as far as I could tell and got slapped with a block...
Posted by Sigismund on December 6, 2008, at 13:45:16
In reply to reasonableness, posted by caraher on December 6, 2008, at 13:28:14
We'll have to think..............
Something like......
'What I like about today is that we have refrained from invading a country that was no threat to us, a trend which I support and hope will continue.'
Something like that?
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 13:58:15
In reply to reasonableness, posted by caraher on December 6, 2008, at 13:28:14
I don't disagree with what you've said.
Other than, as I said above, stating "In my opinion..." does not make something that would otherwise be uncivil, civil.
I did try to indicate that the Politics Board would be administered more as it used to be. I recognize that my indications may not have been sufficient. None of these are new rules or even new interpretations of the rules. We're trying to do what Dr. Bob would do if he were more present.
I recognize that it's difficult to understand the lines. If it weren't, we wouldn't be asking for as much input from Dr. Bob as we're asking. I have no real objection to using more warnings at first, if Politics Board posters prefer, as long as the effort to work back up to the old level of administration is mutual. I can't speak for Dr. Bob of course. But it is reasonable to me that if it's hard to administer, it's probably hard to comply as well.
Should I suggest that? Would Politics Board posters be ok with recognizing PBC's as guidelines? And deputies will recognize that there is a learning process involved?
We don't actually like to block anyone. If reminders will help everyone understand the guidelines better, and keep the board as positive and supportive as possible, I'm certainly more than willing to go that route.
Posted by Sigismund on December 6, 2008, at 14:01:39
In reply to Re: reasonableness » caraher, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 13:58:15
>Would Politics Board posters be ok with recognizing PBC's as guidelines?
That is what I take them to be.
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 14:12:45
In reply to Re: reasonableness, posted by Sigismund on December 6, 2008, at 13:45:16
I can ask for a ruling if you like. I think it is possible to imbed negatives in a positive statement, so what I said is a guideline and should be interpreted by spirit rather than letter.
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 14:34:10
In reply to Re: reasonableness, posted by Sigismund on December 6, 2008, at 14:01:39
> >Would Politics Board posters be ok with recognizing PBC's as guidelines?
>
> That is what I take them to be.Perhaps I should have added be ok with trying to comply with them. :)
It is, of course, ok to petition Dr. Bob to change the guidelines.
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 15:50:10
In reply to Re: reasonableness » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 14:34:10
> > >Would Politics Board posters be ok with recognizing PBC's as guidelines?
> >
> > That is what I take them to be.
>
> Perhaps I should have added be ok with trying to comply with them. :)
>
> It is, of course, ok to petition Dr. Bob to change the guidelines.Hmmm... To clarify. I saw an error in what I originally wrote. I wasn't trying to imply that you did not try to comply with the civility guidelines. I actually appreciate that you do try to comply with the civility guidelines, while also trying to convey what you wish to convey. Or at least that's my understanding, which may of course be wrong.
I might be overthinking things here, but I didn't want to give the impression that I was thinking something I didn't think at all.
Posted by fayeroe on December 6, 2008, at 16:04:12
In reply to Re: reasonableness, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 15:50:10
Not much has been said of notification buttons here. I notified adm three times when I thought things were way out of hand. I didn't hear nor could I see that the style had changed.
I did get an answer this week on one. I think it was this week. I felt like I could see the old slippery slope coming and wanted to stop it.
When the notification button is pushed, do you people talk to the "offender" in the thread?
I realize that frequently the "offendee" can be off mark and I think the policy is to answer when there is no "incivilty" involved..Am I correct on that ?Does everyone get a reply when they push the "button"?
I hope we can go back to the way we handled things and people can move on and understand how the board has tradionally run.
I can remember only one other person (not counting me) who was blocked for derogatory statements that upset several posters. And that has been in 6 years here.
When we asked for "a little more administration and a lot less aggravation" speaking for myself only, that didn't mean heavy handed " supervision. And as Dinah said there will be learning period, as there should be. I believe that the Politics board is very different from other forums. Thin skin doesn't work on the board.
Perhaps a much stronger header should be on that page so that posters know immediately what the rules are there. ANd how different the board is from say, medications.
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 16:25:59
In reply to Re: reasonableness » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on December 6, 2008, at 16:04:12
> Not much has been said of notification buttons here. I notified adm three times when I thought things were way out of hand. I didn't hear nor could I see that the style had changed.
As I said, we had been asking Dr. Bob to be more hands on on that board. All along, and ever since he started spending less time here. This did not appear to work, so we have since tried to get a lot of input from him. All that takes time.
> When the notification button is pushed, do you people talk to the "offender" in the thread?
> I realize that frequently the "offendee" can be off mark and I think the policy is to answer when there is no "incivilty" involved..Am I correct on that ?You are correct, but it takes a while, particularly on Politics, as I explained. Sometimes by the time we have our answer, there has been resolution of a sort on board.
All administrative sanctions take place on board.
> I hope we can go back to the way we handled things and people can move on and understand how the board has tradionally run.
The thing is, that since Dr. Bob has made himself scarce, that board had not been run as it traditionally had been run when Dr. Bob was there. During the period of his absence, and before the deputies made a concerted effort, because of board events, to gain a better understanding of that board's administration, administration has admittedly been lax.
> I can remember only one other person (not counting me) who was blocked for derogatory statements that upset several posters. And that has been in 6 years here.
I think the change has only been in the time when Dr. Bob's time on the board has been reduced.
>
> When we asked for "a little more administration and a lot less aggravation" speaking for myself only, that didn't mean heavy handed " supervision. And as Dinah said there will be learning period, as there should be. I believe that the Politics board is very different from other forums. Thin skin doesn't work on the board.The problem is that it may be less a question of thickness of skin, and more an issue of the wideness of the diversity of opinions expressed. Similarity of viewpoints may lead to peace, but it's not in keeping with the board policies to encourage it.
> Perhaps a much stronger header should be on that page so that posters know immediately what the rules are there. ANd how different the board is from say, medications.
As Dr. Bob envisions it, as far as I can tell, it's not that different from Medications.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2008, at 16:39:30
In reply to Re: reasonableness » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on December 6, 2008, at 16:04:12
> Not much has been said of notification buttons here. I notified adm three times when I thought things were way out of hand. I didn't hear nor could I see that the style had changed.
>
> I did get an answer this week on one. I think it was this week. I felt like I could see the old slippery slope coming and wanted to stop it.
>
> When the notification button is pushed, do you people talk to the "offender" in the thread?
> I realize that frequently the "offendee" can be off mark and I think the policy is to answer when there is no "incivilty" involved..Am I correct on that ?
>
> Does everyone get a reply when they push the "button"?
>
> I hope we can go back to the way we handled things and people can move on and understand how the board has tradionally run.
>
> I can remember only one other person (not counting me) who was blocked for derogatory statements that upset several posters. And that has been in 6 years here.
>
> When we asked for "a little more administration and a lot less aggravation" speaking for myself only, that didn't mean heavy handed " supervision. And as Dinah said there will be learning period, as there should be. I believe that the Politics board is very different from other forums. Thin skin doesn't work on the board.
>
> Perhaps a much stronger header should be on that page so that posters know immediately what the rules are there. ANd how different the board is from say, medications.Friends,
It is written here,[...does everyone get a reply...?].
I am unsure if the author of the statement is asking the administrators that or if this is a call for others to declare if they do or do not get a reply or something else.
But if it is a call to members to see if they get answers to notifications, I have notifications outstanding.
If you would like to see all the outstanding notifications of mine, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by fayeroe on December 6, 2008, at 17:41:25
In reply to Lou's response to aspects-delbendiph?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2008, at 16:39:30
It was apparent, to me, that I was addressing Dinah, as a deputy, to ask if they were able to answer everyone when the "button" is pushed.
That is all.
Posted by Sigismund on December 6, 2008, at 19:14:29
In reply to Re: reasonableness, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2008, at 15:50:10
>I actually appreciate that you do try to comply with the civility guidelines, while also trying to convey what you wish to convey. Or at least that's my understanding, which may of course be wrong.
No no, that is exactly right.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.