![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 136. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 1:51:12
In reply to Re: allowances, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2007, at 0:21:29
Since I'm the one who didn't issue a block, I'll answer that.
Dr. Bob had not been doing anything about that type of posts. He listened to Babblers, saw their point, and issued a post that the behavior would fall under the category of pressuring another poster.
This to me was a new application of a rule that had not been applied in that way before. And thus it didn't seem at all fair to start with a block, so a Please Don't Pressure was issued.
No favoritism was intended.
Had the behavior been repeated, a block would have been issued, per usual custom. However to my knowledge it wasn't.
Dinah, explaining her actions as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 2:17:43
In reply to Re: allowances, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 1:51:12
I suppose I should add that, as I've explained in posts before, I rarely lead with a block, except for posting while blocked. Unless I remember myself or someone else giving a PBC recently for the same violation of Babble civility rules, I generally give a PBC. Dr. Bob can always upgrade to a block if he considers it appropriate.
My motivation is to stop a situation, it's not punitive.
Dinah, explaining her actions as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 2:26:52
In reply to Re: allowances, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 2:17:43
I have to admit to feeling a bit perplexed as to why the campaign for change appears to me to be continuing when the objective has been achieved.
Dr. Bob listened to posters, and recognized that a hitherto allowed behavior did in fact fall into one of two already enacted Babble civility rules, depending on context. This is more or less like a supreme court ruling, and posts and babblemails and chats can be reported via accepted channels based on this new ruling.
I do understand that passions are running high, and people may feel the need to vent. But it sounds as if people feel they still need to convince Dr. Bob of the position, when he's already been convinced, to my understanding. Dr. Bob can correct me if I'm wrong.
Dinah, posting as poster
Posted by Glydin on January 18, 2007, at 3:04:35
In reply to Re: allowances, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2007, at 0:21:29
> > For whatever reason, this recent "event" led to the fourth warning a poster had received and yet, no block. Midgating circumstances? I don't know. I do know allowances have been made before and that situation also left a bad taste in a number of poster's mouths
>
> Hmm, is favoritism a concern?
>
> Bob~~~ Yes
Posted by Glydin on January 18, 2007, at 3:38:39
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, something better needs to be done, posted by Deneb on January 17, 2007, at 23:00:26
> Are you talking about me?
~~~ I am questioning an Adm. lack of action and I would question it if I were the poster.
There are guidelines posters are given as expectations and standards of conduct. I think after being here a while, I have expectations and standards of how Adm. oversees this board per the guidelines.
Posted by tofuemmy on January 18, 2007, at 6:05:45
In reply to Re: allowances, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2007, at 0:21:29
>
> Hmm, is favoritism a concern?
>
> BobMy concern is that due to Deneb's previous posts about the agony which she experiences when blocked, this puts Bob in an *imposible* position. If she will OD to avoid taking a test - what will she do if Bob blocks her? I'd hate to be in his shoes. The fear lies over the entire neighborhood now. It's pretty uncomfortable.
For Deneb - Maybe a list of things worth dying for would help? Personally, I'd die to save the life of a child. I'd give my life for *some* of my loved ones. But...IMO, being blocked doesn't come close to being worth dying over. Yes, I know it is more distressing for you...but
Do you think being blocked is worth dying over? It's temporary. Dead is forever. I'm not sure you fully grasp that. You scare the crap outta me when you talk about how easily you consider OD'ing to avoid distress. Please get a copy of Linehan's workbook on DBT and read the section on Distress Tolerance. I really think it will help. Here is a helpful website: http://www.dbtselfhelp.com/index.html
Take care.
Em
Posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 7:06:34
In reply to Re: allowances ... Deneb and » Dr. Bob, posted by tofuemmy on January 18, 2007, at 6:05:45
A person who is threatening sucide says it is due to because of what her mother said to her?
What if her mother was a babble member? There are hundreds of members who do not post, so do we really know?
So is it okay to threaten sucide due to what her mother said and post it on babble? How is that different than directly and indirectly threatening sucide torwards me if I don't stop ignoring a member (due to my self protection, by the way)
Saying certain things about lets say a president, would be concidered uncivil, right? I don't know the president, maybe he is a member, maybe not. But is seems like the president is protected by so called uncivil actions. Well what about this mother in this case?
Why is this coming up again after all this time? Well because I was blocked for 3 weeks for mentioning (on admin) for behavior that I felt was uncivil torwards me. I feel my post was taken out of context of my entire post. I didn't know the exact rules for reporting about a problem and I have been a member for over a year. It seems like when I did read the rules (before they were changed, again) that we can us admin. board to report these infractions. I included my previous posts of "do not post to me" and showed the posts where I felt I was talked to in a post using my name even. From what my understanding was of the rules at that time was if someone posts to you after you do a "do not post" , they would get a block. I even showed more than one post (on the same thread) where I believe I was mentioned again, and nothing was done.
Well then there would be some that would think well, a deputy didn't post a do not pressure, so even though there was several posts, emails, and chats where this was happening, that person seemed to be cleared.Well the I see it also as a problem where a deputy does nothing or delays doing something, even if I requested help in the matter on admin. So not saying anything to the person doing the behavior, allows them to do it even more, until they do get a warning. Then they stop the behavior, and after already doing the behavior several times, gets away with it because nothing was done in the appropiate timing.
It seems to me that things will and do get worse when nothing is done in a timely manner. I know deputies can't be everywhere all the time. But in this case there was more than one who read the post, and only did something much too late. I feel my complaint was ignored and then I get blocked for even mentioning the offending behavior (not using any names) torwards me out of frusteration because nothing was being done. Then I get blocked because I am complaining about it. (on admin., which I thought that was what admin. was suppose to be for if youhave a problem with the site). All my other means of reporting was ignored, so I felt I had to put it on admin for it to be taken seriously that I felt harrassed and being treated uncivil. Then I felt ignored when reporting these behaviors, I know i wasn't perfect in reporting them in the perfect way, but I did report it and felt I was ignored. , Then all of sudden there were plenty of duputies to give me a block for compaining about it, while the real reason for my posting was ignored once again.
Then why is this coming up now? Well I wasn't allowed to say anything, was I? I was silenced for 3 weeks. During that time, the same behavior I complained about happened once again.
Is it uncivil for me to say, I am going to kill myself because my mother said something bad to me? What if my mother was a member of this site? Do you know that she isn't?
Does anyone see what I am saying here, or am I wasting my time once again?
Posted by karen_kay on January 18, 2007, at 7:56:05
In reply to Well what if?, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 7:06:34
and agree completely with you.
i'm sorry you were blocked. i'm very sorry you feel pressured. and i'm sorry mr bob isn't protecting you, just as he does everyone else. it really doesn't seem fair. everyone knows i'm his favorite, and even i've been blocked in the past.
i hope a final conclusion to this mess is made soon. it really doesn't seem fair that so many people feel pressured (and ignored!).
stay safe hf. and take care of yourself.
Posted by justyourlaugh on January 18, 2007, at 8:46:15
In reply to Well what if?, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 7:06:34
i am sorry your feelings were not validated..
it takes courage to come back to a place that has caused pain and frustration.
"long live the organization for the organized"
Posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 9:07:57
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Happyflower, posted by justyourlaugh on January 18, 2007, at 8:46:15
that any person that feels accused by my posts, is a coincedense and I am sorry if they feel accused or put down for that isn't my intention at all. I just want something better to be down in these situations, because what we do have is not working to protect the innocent.
I also feel like since i didn't report it in the exact perfect way, doesn't mean it should be ignored and nothing done about it. It just seems like I have to jump through hoops in a perfect way or my issue is unvalidated.
Posted by one woman cine on January 18, 2007, at 9:18:53
In reply to Re: something better needs to be done-yes, posted by Deneb on January 17, 2007, at 23:50:04
Deneb,
"Can someone point out to me the words that are provocative and distressing? I want the actual quotes. I do believe I was civil. Even if they really are provocative and distressing, it's not uncivil to be provocative or distressing. "
I'm not going to go back and find the post where I said I felt provoked, you can do that - I felt you undertood you were being provocative, can you correct me if I am wrong? I also feel I spent some effort on trying to understand you and not attack you and you "promised to call your pdoc" & then you didn't. I am disappointed. What do you think you will do differently next time?
One can follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it...
& I also think you asked the question, do posters feel provoked or distressed by reading "xx" post that is provoking and distressing - the responses to these posts have not been positive and I feel you understand this too.
What do you think you'd like to do differently?
Posted by one woman cine on January 18, 2007, at 9:22:04
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, something better needs to be done, posted by Deneb on January 17, 2007, at 23:29:41
"I think feedback is good, but it needs to be constructive: What should I do versus what should I not do? "
The feedback I gave you (to call your pdoc when you OD) was rejected. You did not do that.
I can only offer feedback, you have to make the decision to choose it.
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 9:28:44
In reply to Well what if?, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 7:06:34
Dr. Bob has specifically said that he does and will allow posts with suicidal content.
I do not believe the posts you are referring to fall under the new guidelines, and apparently neither does Dr. Bob, since he passed over the board without comment.
I say things about my therapist on Babble that I wouldn't be allowed to say about another Babbler. It doesn't fall under the civility guidelines. The same thing applies here.
You could try to convince Dr. Bob to disallow all talk of suicidal behaviors, but that is a separate subject.
Posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 9:35:03
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 9:28:44
Dinah,
I am not saying that sucide behavior shouldn't be allowed. And I think this is the way my orginal post became confused with a lot of other issues and then mine got ignored because of it.I am only writing about when the sucide is used as a threat to another babbler if they do not comply with the sucidal person. This is the issue, a THREAT AGAINST ANOTHER BABBLER, not sucide itself.
I belive if someone is sucidal and post, I would try to help them the best I can because I care about people. BUT when it is used as a threat against me if I don't do something they ask, then that is totally different.
So I don't want this issue to get mixed up with other ones again. This is different.
Posted by one woman cine on January 18, 2007, at 9:35:35
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, something better needs to be done, posted by Glydin on January 17, 2007, at 22:38:25
"To me, it boils down to accountibility for our behavior.....and it is about expected behavior on the boards and their consequences, it's not personal.... "
This is a wonderful statement - I have been told by my therapist, in dealing with situations that feel negative to me - that every person, no matter mentally ill or not, nned to be accountable for their behavior.
There are consequences as well as accountability. Unfortunately, we can't make people accountable, but we can issue consequences - whether that takes the form of stepping back and not involving yourself, or severing the relationship - I have found that has worked with several "crazy-makers" in my life.
There is less and less room in my life for unhealthy situations and things that trigger me. I don't need to go there and am less and less inclined to do so.
But I really liked your post. Thanks.
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 9:43:41
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 9:35:03
Then the answer is settled. Dr. Bob says tht saying tht it falls under the do not pressure or do not post anything that leads other Babblers to feel accused or put down.
Wasn't it you who asked about mothers? My understanding is that civility guidelines don't apply to mothers unless they are known to be Babblers. (Thank heavens. And no, my mother does not Babble.)
Posted by one woman cine on January 18, 2007, at 9:44:14
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 9:35:03
Glad to see you posting - although we have not seen eye to eye on some issues; I agree with the basic notion of "suicidal talk" versus "suicidal talk with explicit coercion"
If you don't - I will statements (wishingstar's - thank you for that phrase) feels coercive to me. (BTW - suicidal threats in my experience are almost always corecive - this isn't because the person is bad, it's because it's a coping strategy).
The problem with threats or "attempts" is that it falls off the curve at some point and the person succeeds, although death was not the intended end result. This is tragic, but all too common.
So what to do? I'm not sure...
Posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 9:52:05
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 9:43:41
>> Wasn't it you who asked about mothers? My understanding is that civility guidelines don't apply to mothers unless they are known to be Babblers. (Thank heavens. And no, my mother does not Babble.)
Well how do we know that our mothers aren't on the site? Or how do we know that it isn't offending other mothers who read about it? We have protection from saying things against the president, and all other kinds of stuff, and the president probably doesn't read here. So the rules are not clear, I believe. But like I said the issue is sucide threats against another babbler. I know the rules now, I just think they need to be better and different. That is why I am posting about this.
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 10:05:16
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 9:52:05
The rules about the president or religions are for the benefit of the supporters of the president or members of the religion, not for the benefit of them specifically.
If you had to follow the civility guidelines when discussing your therapist or your husband at all times, would Babble be a helpful place for you? Would you wish Dr. Bob to issue PBC's or blocks?
Posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 10:19:21
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 10:05:16
I get your point, and actually we shouldn't probably be allowed to diss our T or DH either to be honest. I always wondered why that was allowed anyways even though it is helpful to get it all out. But didn't Dr. Bob say himself that this isn't the place "get it all out", not exact quote I know.
But I am going to going back to the orginal issue I would like to see changes. What can we do better when a babbler threatenes sucide against another memember. Don't mean to be a pain. In fact, I wasn't going to come back due to this issue, but I am going to try to change things before I give up totally and I am trying my best to be civil. ;-)
Posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 10:28:07
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 10:19:21
I think the more Dr. Bob see's that it bothers a lot of babblers, the more likely he might change things for the better. (maybe wishful thinking, I know)
Well I HAVE A DREAM! Well, okay, don't want to get carried away, now.
I really think talking about this will help and that is what I am trying to do.
Posted by ClearSkies on January 18, 2007, at 10:30:13
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 9:52:05
> >> Wasn't it you who asked about mothers? My understanding is that civility guidelines don't apply to mothers unless they are known to be Babblers. (Thank heavens. And no, my mother does not Babble.)
>
> Well how do we know that our mothers aren't on the site? Or how do we know that it isn't offending other mothers who read about it? We have protection from saying things against the president, and all other kinds of stuff, and the president probably doesn't read here. So the rules are not clear, I believe. But like I said the issue is sucide threats against another babbler. I know the rules now, I just think they need to be better and different. That is why I am posting about this.
>
What if we post about traumas we have suffered at the hands of others, and they may be posters here themselves? I don't think that the analogy of posting about our mothers and have them possibly be posters here as well would be any different.There was a very worthwhile thread long ago, initiated by the esteemed Larry Hoover, that addressed trigger notices on posts. I don't understand why, if certain subjects are found triggering, those posts are not avoided. Isn't that the point of putting a trigger notice in the heading in the first place? I think that posts regarding suicide would certainly fall under this guideline. If posts regarding suicide are triggering, then the solution would be to not read them at all.
Surely this is the best protection we can give each other?ClearSkies
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 10:34:24
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 10:19:21
> What can we do better when a babbler threatenes sucide against another memember.
I guess I haven't been very helpful because I thought I had posted several times that Dr. Bob has already made the changes you requested to address this issue.
So I'll bow out.
Posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 10:39:44
In reply to Re: Well what if? ***TRIGGER CSA, SUICIDE** » Happyflower, posted by ClearSkies on January 18, 2007, at 10:30:13
well I am again not talking about regular sucide posts, they don't trigger me, even though I know it does for others.
I am talking about someone threatening sucide if another babbler doesn' t comply to the wishes of the sucidal poster. I am not just talking about posts, I am also talking about doing it in chat and doing through babblemail.
Suicide posts I believe are a good thing, and good way to receive some support and help, as long as they are warned with a trigger for other who it does upset. But again, I am talking abotu direct threats against another babbler. Like for example I said to you, I am going to kill myself if you don't post to me clearskies. Or if we are taking in chat and you are ignoring me for your own protection, and I say I am going to kill myself if you don't respond to me Clearskies. OR I send you babblemails that say,you really make me upset that you are ignoring me, it makes me want to OD. This is what I am talking about. Do you see the difference?
Posted by Happyflower on January 18, 2007, at 10:42:11
In reply to Re: Well what if? » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2007, at 10:34:24
I don't mean to upset you Dinah, I do see your posts about the changes, and I do appreciate that. All I am trying to say is that it isn't good enough in my view. I feel something better needs to be done.
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.