![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 78 to 102 of 102. Go back in thread:
Posted by BayLeaf on July 13, 2009, at 19:26:03
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request, posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2009, at 10:36:47
And the purpose is to prevent being blocked, right?
Cuz I can see this being abused, misused, or overused. You know we will!
There are some SUPER sensitive people here. I might post something that is civil per guidelines. But someone might find it hurt their feelings. So they may request that I apologize to them.
Now, *I'm* gunna feel bad...or even mad!! So, then I'm gunna request they apologize for making me feel bad, implying my post was uncivil, etc,....repeat cycle.
Will you end up making a new rule about unwarranted requests for apologies?? Add that into your block equation!
It's all a bit nutty to me.
Bay
Posted by Kath on July 13, 2009, at 20:07:58
In reply to Re: Example Apology Request » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on July 13, 2009, at 19:26:03
Something like:
I felt hurt by ".................."
Did you mean to hurt me? ! ! ! ! ! !
Although I guess people might just say "No."
I don't know. It's pretty complex when it gets down to people's feelings.
I've given a bit more thought to the apology part.
I've never liked the idea of a forced apology. I never made my kids apologize. Because what if someone ISN'T sorry. Why should they say sorry. I guess they could say they're sorry the person's feelings were hurt. But maybe they aren't!!!Yikes.
Kath
Posted by Deneb on July 13, 2009, at 20:23:44
In reply to Eample Apology Request » Dr. Bob, posted by Poet on July 11, 2009, at 12:59:31
Oooh, Dr. Bob, how about:
I felt hurt after I read your post. An apology would make me feel better.
This one is all about me, it doesn't say anything bad about the other person. I think I get "I statements". Right?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 14, 2009, at 8:59:40
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 18:10:32
> I see what I think are empty apologies from Bob. And , of course, I also see a refusal by Bob to consider anything that any of us say about the blocks.
Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you. I do hope you choose to remain a member of this community and it helps you, if needed, to avoid future blocks. Lou, Phillipa, and Sigismund, thanks for trying to help her this time.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 4 weeks
period of time since previous block: 8 weeks
severity: 2 (default)
block length = 6.62 rounded = 7 weeks
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 14, 2009, at 9:06:22
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request, posted by Deneb on July 13, 2009, at 20:23:44
> Oooh, Dr. Bob, how about:
>
> I felt hurt after I read your post. An apology would make me feel better.
>
> This one is all about me, it doesn't say anything bad about the other person. I think I get "I statements". Right?Right, good work!
Bob
Posted by Kath on July 14, 2009, at 9:14:43
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request, posted by Deneb on July 13, 2009, at 20:23:44
> Oooh, Dr. Bob, how about:
>
> I felt hurt after I read your post. An apology would make me feel better.~ ~ ~ Oh Deneb - I think that's perfect.
Kath
Posted by Dinah on July 14, 2009, at 9:35:34
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request, posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2009, at 10:36:47
My alternative suggestion is that Administration provide a safe environment for people to post their most private thoughts, or be playful and open, without fearing that incivility towards them will be tolerated.
This wasn't a difference of opinion that escalated. This wasn't a case of misunderstanding.
I realize that different people have different views of what is right and wrong. But I don't understand how the proper course of action should be to ask someone who has been hurt by unprovoked incivility to respond with a request for an apology or a statement of how they feel. Asking them not to respond in kind seems enough without that person feel responsible for keeping the other poster from being blocked. Or to feel responsible for future incivilities by the poster they helped not to be blocked towards other posters if they succeed. Because that's how I would feel. If a poster I helped avoid a block by apologizing then hurt someone else through incivility, I would feel responsible.
I don't like this. I know you have said that you are not *asking* posters to respond this way. Just suggesting that they could. But your suggestions hold weight. And your suggestions determine the unspoken values on Babble. Your suggestions lead to third party posters, instead of empathizing with the hurt poster, have the expectations that what is desirable is to refrain from reporting, to express your feelings, and to ask for an apology, and to accept one graciously. To be a good sport. It can lead to fears of social disapproval that amount to pressure to behave in a certain way.
I don't understand this at all. Maybe I'm too old. But to me, third party support should take the form of telling the hurt poster that they never found them to be xxxxx, and that support to someone who has been uncivil should certainly include statements of how the poster is valued, without ignoring the fact that the behaviors can hurt others. Somehow "Please do stay" unaccompanied by "but don't hurt others" is interpreted by me at least as "Please do stay and continue as you are."
I know that there is value in learning how to stand up for yourself. But this is not a process group, and even if it were, a process group requires skilled facilitators. People often come to Babble in distress. They pour out their hearts. They make themselves vulnerable. In my mind, this is not what their expectation of Babble ought to be.
This is not about Verne and Poet in particular. And my examples and statements don't refer to this particular situation.
Posted by Kath on July 14, 2009, at 10:34:47
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 14, 2009, at 9:35:34
Some really good points Dinah - that I hadn't even thought of.
Thanks for bringing them up so clearly.
If I had been hurt, particularly if it seemed really vicious, probably the last thing I'd want to do would be stick my head out & tell the person they'd hurt me, etc, etc. Once bitten twice shy.
Thx Dinah, Kath xoxo
Posted by Nadezda on July 14, 2009, at 10:50:37
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 14, 2009, at 9:35:34
Upon reflection, I think Dinah makes an important point here.
I think the long blocks are too severe for a psychology message board, where people come when they're feeling threatened, angry, or hurt, and therefore may be more vulnerable than on other, more information-related message boards.
But this new policy of expecting the hurt perso--or others-- to request in a civil way some sort of apology-- or otherwise to intervene to help the person who's been uncivil-- seems too great a burden. First of all, it encourages someone who's hurt and who may not have a perfect sense of tone, to put themselves in the position of asking in the right way-- and therefore possibly of being uncivil themselves.
Moreover, it takes the responsibility for the incivility and its redress away from the uncivil poster and diffuses it among the community. For example, just to be concrete, when you say that the community wasn't able to help Verne, it could suggest that the ultimate responsibility for getting help here is not Verne's-- but that the community fell short. That seems simply inaccurate to me.
Moreover in the instance we have here-- and I don't mean this as a criticism or put down of anyone-- people were preoccupied by Verne's plight and really ignored the incivility that he had enacted-- and the person who was the subject of his words. This seems to me to be a significant mistake about who needs support in these situations-- I'm concerned about Verne, but the other person seems to have been lost in the discussion. The direction of this change in policy seems to put the enactor in the spotlight, as someone who is not being adequately helped, when the other person becomes someone who hasn't helped enough.
I hope this isn't taken as uncivil, because I'm talking about a specific instance. I just think it illustrates a danger in the new system.
I have to run and can't revise, so I apologize in advance if this is not well stated. I agree that safety is paramount-- although of course not the only value.
Nadezda
Posted by alexandra_k on July 15, 2009, at 0:15:06
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request, posted by Dr. Bob on July 14, 2009, at 9:06:22
Posted by manic 666 on July 15, 2009, at 4:11:02
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request, posted by Nadezda on July 14, 2009, at 10:50:37
i no its off topic , but in a way not, i was in a aquerium site , an posted a qestion , this guy said learn to spell you nob, i had put /lt,/ for litres to cut down the post , he wrote carnt you spell liters, he spelt it wrong an called MMMME a nob,i gave him a vebal thrashing an was band for life , the guy a regular got nothing, even the owner of the site apologised but could not go against his mods,in this case the mods had the say not the owner
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 13:58:08
In reply to Re: Eample Apology Request, posted by Nadezda on July 14, 2009, at 10:50:37
> And the purpose is to prevent being blocked, right?
>
> There are some SUPER sensitive people here. I might post something that is civil per guidelines. But someone might find it hurt their feelings. So they may request that I apologize to them.
>
> Now, *I'm* gunna feel bad...or even mad!! So, then I'm gunna request they apologize for making me feel bad, implying my post was uncivil, etc,....repeat cycle.
>
> It's all a bit nutty to me.
>
> BayYes, I suppose it could get kind of nutty!
If a post is uncivil, then one purpose could be to help the poster avoid a block. But feelings can be hurt even if a post is civil. In that case, the purpose would be different.
So it doesn't guarantee that feelings won't be hurt, but it certainly helps if requests for apologies are civil. Which is why discussing them might be useful.
--
> I don't know. It's pretty complex when it gets down to people's feelings.
>
> I've never liked the idea of a forced apology. I never made my kids apologize. Because what if someone ISN'T sorry.
>
> KathIt's complex, all right!
I'm not proposing that anyone be forced to apologize. We're talking about apology requests, not apology demands.
--
> My alternative suggestion is that Administration provide a safe environment for people to post their most private thoughts, or be playful and open, without fearing that incivility towards them will be tolerated.
>
> I don't understand how the proper course of action should be to ask someone who has been hurt by unprovoked incivility to respond with a request for an apology or a statement of how they feel.
>
> I know you have said that you are not *asking* posters to respond this way. ... Your suggestions lead to third party posters, instead of empathizing with the hurt poster, have the expectations that what is desirable is to refrain from reporting, to express your feelings, and to ask for an apology, and to accept one graciously.
>
> Somehow "Please do stay" unaccompanied by "but don't hurt others" is interpreted by me at least as "Please do stay and continue as you are."
>
> Dinah> this new policy of expecting the hurt perso--or others-- to request in a civil way some sort of apology-- or otherwise to intervene to help the person who's been uncivil-- seems too great a burden.
>
> Moreover, it takes the responsibility for the incivility and its redress away from the uncivil poster and diffuses it among the community.
>
> Moreover in the instance we have here ... people were preoccupied by Verne's plight and really ignored the incivility that he had enacted-- and the person who was the subject of his words. ... The direction of this change in policy seems to put the enactor in the spotlight, as someone who is not being adequately helped, when the other person becomes someone who hasn't helped enough.
>
> NadezdaI'd also like it to be safe here. We share that goal. Being asked to apologize may lead posters to be more aware of the impact they can have on others, that may lead them to post more civilly and to be blocked less frequently, and that would make it safer here.
When I say "please stay", I assume it's understood that I mean "and follow the guidelines here", but maybe I should be more explicit.
Right, I'm not asking second parties to request apologies. That's above and beyond the call of duty.
As far as third parties, I don't see it as either-or. Depending on the particular hurt and uncivil posters, and circumstances, third parties may empathize with one or the other or both or neither. I'm trying to enlarge the spotlight to include an additional type of support. I'm not saying it's the only type that should be offered from now on.
I know that giving this type of support -- like giving other types of support -- could be a burden. One nice thing about being a community is that responsibility for support is diffused among the members. And is it too great a burden not to let a friend drive drunk?
Responsibility for an uncivil post is still the poster's. He or she is still the one who may be blocked.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 14:36:36
In reply to Re: Apology Requests, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 13:58:08
So what does this boil down to?
What is the sequence of events of what you would like, or will do, to provide a safe environment at Babble? Abstract discussion does not mean as much as the actual impact on Babble.
How about some real life examples?
Poster A says something uncivil to Poster B. It is not a disagreement between friends that has escalated. It isn't a misunderstanding.
What would be the administrative response...
If Poster A reports the incivility.
If Posters C-Z report the incivility.
If Poster A asks for an apology.
If Posters C-Z point out that Poster A might be feeling hurt and Poster B might ought to apologize.
If Poster A does none of these things, nor do Posters C-Z, and the incivility is just sitting out there.
At this point, never mind anything else. What is the Administrative response in each of these cases?
What is the Administrative expectation from Posters A, B, and C-Z?
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 14:52:16
In reply to Re: Apology Requests » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 14:36:36
For that matter, what if Poster A says that it doesn't matter, that they aren't hurt?
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 15:04:48
In reply to Re: Apology Requests » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 14:36:36
Sorry, I of course got A and B backwards. Please reverse them in the first sentence.
Posted by rskontos on July 15, 2009, at 22:19:03
In reply to Re: Apology Requests, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 15:04:48
Posted by Zeba on July 15, 2009, at 23:18:17
In reply to Re: blocked for 7 weeks » fayeroe, posted by Dr. Bob on July 14, 2009, at 8:59:40
What happens if you post something, Dr. Bob, that might lead a person to feel put down???
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 23:50:08
In reply to Re: Apology Requests » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 14:36:36
> What is the sequence of events of what you would like, or will do, to provide a safe environment at Babble? Abstract discussion does not mean as much as the actual impact on Babble.
>
> How about some real life examples?There are real life examples right here, what about those?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 23:56:19
In reply to Re: Apology Requests, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 23:50:08
I'm sorry. I don't understand. I must be an idiot, but I just don't understand.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 16, 2009, at 0:16:23
In reply to Re: Apology Requests » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2009, at 23:56:19
I don't understand either.
I feel frustrated and confused.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2009, at 1:34:29
In reply to I am idiot #2, then, posted by 10derHeart on July 16, 2009, at 0:16:23
> I'm sorry. I don't understand. I must be an idiot, but I just don't understand.
Sorry, I just meant that this board already has lots of examples of someone being uncivil and the second party, and third parties, responding or not.
Bob
Posted by seldomseen on July 16, 2009, at 6:31:04
In reply to Re: Apology Requests, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2009, at 23:50:08
In fact, as a I was trying to compose this post, I realized that I don't even know what my responsibility is as a poster anymore.
Unfortunately, I can't even formulate a question for Dr. Bob that might help clarify.
I'm hoping this all settles out soon enough and I'll do my best.
Seldom.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2009, at 8:38:58
In reply to I'm a little befuddled now as well., posted by seldomseen on July 16, 2009, at 6:31:04
> I don't even know what my responsibility is as a poster anymore.
The idea is to be a supportive community. It's more supportive when it's civil. But incivility is inevitable. When there's been incivility, the community can support both the poster who was hurt and the poster who was uncivil.
Another poster can help by supporting one or the other or both. If one isn't receiving any support, support for them would be especially helpful. But just not being uncivil helps, too.
One way of supporting the poster who was uncivil is to help them avoid a block. That way, they would continue to benefit from Babble, Babble would continue to benefit from them, and of course a block would be avoided.
Is that more clear?
Bob
Posted by BayLeaf on July 16, 2009, at 21:23:19
In reply to Re: befuddled, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2009, at 8:38:58
Posted by seldomseen on July 17, 2009, at 6:30:48
In reply to Re: befuddled, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2009, at 8:38:58
It is a little more clear now. thank you for your response.
Seldom.
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.