Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2012, at 16:21:15
In reply to Re: Lou's correction-- new poster's perception-, posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 18:29:02
> > > >
> > > > wearytraveler,
> > > > In regards to continuing , the TOS here is that "one match could start a fire", which means that the administration does not wait to sanction a post to prevent a fire.
> > > > Now in any reply to me, could you keep that TOS in mind when you read concerning as to if that there are these nemerous outstanding request, could it then cause an encouragement as in (G) above.
> > >
> > > If we parse the metaphor of fire in a different sense -- the sense in which fire is a source of warmth, light, security and industrial energy -- lack of fuel could extinguish a fire. Interruption of the fuel supply resulting from unresolved administrative quandaries could diminish those beneficial aspects.
> > >
> >
> > wearytraveler,
> > The correction is that one match could start a {forest} fire. My apology for the {forest} not being there.
> > But being as that is that may be here, a forest fire could be of the nature of catastrophy, with the potential of many deaths. So the fire is in particular one of the nature to not allow here.
> > Now in my case with the years of outstanding requests to the administration here, there are some issues that if you could post answers here to them, I could have the opportunity to see how one that has not been a participant as a poster here, in the years back, being a new poster, views this sitution that I find myself in here.
> > A. Could you look at this notification here and then post answers to the follwing?
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1002327.html
> > to be continued...
> > Lou
>
> Lou,
>
> The assertion that one match could start a fire, or a forest fire, and therefore use of matches must be prohibited can be classified as a slippery slope argument, which is a form of fallacious argument.
>
> In management of real forests, reasonable risk assessments do at times lead to restrictions on use of open flames. Whether the analogy applies here might involve the merits of any related risk assessment. That would require a determination of what is at risk.
>
> As best I can see, the artifact at risk here is primarily Robert Hsiung's desire. His desire appears to be, in part - primarily, according to the informed consent procedure - to be to entertain the desire of his chosen guests to enjoy support and education. Who may be a guest is a factor of his discretion and authority. He appears to represent that his authority is informed in some way by his training and experience as a psychiatrist. My perception is that the study of sociology might be more relevant to some of the questions that are considered in this administrative forum.
>
> A sociologist might be better trained to research and resolve questions related to group dynamics. Psychiatrists enjoy broad training, but I think the main aspect of a psychiatrist's training with regard to groups as it applies here has to do with group therapy. This group is only marginally a therapeutic milieu. It it more properly a support group -- not a therapeutic milieu. As such a sociologist's understanding of general group dynamics, and a technologists understanding of managing human factors of asynchronous networks might be as relevant, or more relevant, than a medial doctor's training in psychiatric ailments.
>
> Back to the top, the artifact that could get burned if a metaphorical forest fire started here would be whatever is the owners' desire for the forum. The notion that many (or even one) death, or even morbid outcomes short of death could occur as a result of any metaphorical fire here is plausible, but a fair assessment of likelihood is probably beyond what I can offer other than in general terms.
>
> Let's take a separate example in an effort to set a baseline for assessing what could be real-life risks of death or injury related to activity on this site. When the first L.A. police officer delivered the first blow against Rodney King, he likely didn't anticipate that more blows would follow, and that controversy over those blows would lead to hundreds of fires and numerous deaths. It's probably safe to predict the likelihood of such a result stemming from something on this site is orders of magnitude less than the likelihood the Rodney King incident would start fires and cause deaths.
>
> Why? This is a less public venue, Robert Hsiung is not in a position of civil authority, this venue attracts only a small share of the overall interest in online discussion, and conditions that could lead to a "fire" from online discussion are somewhat neutralized by a vast context where more egregious conflicts are navigated online thereby reducing tension around any particular conflict on one site that is relatively insignificant in the context of the global Internet community. In short, most conflict management discussion here is a rhetorical exercise, practical only in so far is it informs Bob Hsiung's desire and the desires he chooses to entertain among his guests - ostensibly support and education for the largest or preferred segment of that group.
>
> So yeh, a butterfly beating its wings in North America could lead to a hurricane in Asia, but the likelihood that we can predict which beat of what butterfly's wing is so lost in the chaos, it in no way informs a conclusion that we should outlaw butterflies in North America. Similarly, I might share a perception that administration of this site is inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious, and recognize that in some circumstances someone might be or has been harmed, even died as a result of confusion triggered by something on this site, but I can't reliably connect the cause of confusion in what you cite as a possibly arbitrary, inconsistent administrative action as the likely cause of any suffering -- other than perhaps your own, and whatever secondary suffering I can see in reaction to yours.
>
> At this point in my reply, I need to incorporate by reference my original contribution to this thread -- the suggestion that this site did not mature technically or socially as fast as did other sites. Those other sites -- facebook, yahoo groups, google+ and even threaded discussion forums administered by clinicians or clinical institutions had resources available to invest in people with technical training and I suspect in social administration of groups. A psychiatrists' training --- and desires --- can only go so far in that direction, especially when its only a part-time, avocational, extracurricular endeavor for the lone administrator.
>
> Early on, that administrator was ahead of the curve, but he quickly learned. Bob Hsiung's first posts on this site - as I read them, offered particular opinions about medications. We'll likely never see that again. After a couple of years, he began to publicly offer specific opinions about behavioral expectations in particular circumstances. That can only last as long as his lifespan, and I suspect it won't last that long. In recent months and years, that approach as been inconsistent at best. He might or might not admit to himself, this group or various peers what limitations he's encountered.
>
> Most other sites have moved that sort of administrative interaction away from the surface, offering commentary in reaction to particular behavioral circumstances privately, if at all outside of systematic publication of expectations and subsequent enforcement actions. Facebook doesn't publish many of its rules or enforcement mechanisms, and administers enforcement actions in a much more private venue -- automatically, it appears in many cases -- in response to particular user actions. Mark Zukerberg rarely if ever comments on whether or not he considers a particular individual's particular action to be civil or not. Thank you for that, Mark.
>
> I personally suspect he's up against traits of his own personality that are beyond my understanding. Aren't we all? I don't think much of his approach to administering this site in any way reflects anything close to a consensus or a majority opinion among his professional peers about management of asynchronous networked dialogue among large groups. Where will it go? About all I can say is I care just enough to check in and offer my valuable insight -- which might be worth a fortune on the open market -- at risk of feeling put down by an administrator who might conclude he feels the same about me and decides to act against my interests in exercising his own interests.
>
> Every word I type in risks getting crosswise that way, but hey, I care enough to support you by responding and to attempt to share the benefit of what I've learned, so if what I share seems uncivil to him, maybe I'll learn more about one U of Chi associate professor's novel notion of civility, huh?wearytraveler,
You wrote,[...I care just enough to check in and offer my valuable insight...].
Here is another situation that if you could examine the issues, and post your insight, which I do consider to be valuable, then I could have your perspective to include in my thinking.
Lou
To see this sitiation:
A. Go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:[admin, 999436] there will be in the subject line, {ukhuhntrb}
B. then another post, so type in the search box;
[admin, 1013908]
there will be {uehylwhegt} in the subject line
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1010543
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1015274.html