![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 104. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 11:50:57
First: I’m not trying to attack any particular poster here. I assume that most posters here are nice people with lots of positive things to contribute to the group. What I’m trying to do is start a discussion on whether or not a certain kind of posting behavior can be considered uncivil, and if so, what to do about it.
Dr. Bob’s civility rules remind us (among other things) not to be sarcastic, not to jump to conclusions about others, not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, not to harass or pressure others, or use language that could offend others, and not to exaggerate or over-generalize. So my question is: Does habitually questioning whether or not others’ posts are civil break any of these guidelines? Might this possibly even be considered troll-like behavior?
On the Psycho-Babble FAQ page, under Dr. Bob’s discussion on civility, there is a link to a piece by Timothy Campbell about Internet trolls. I think Campbell’s advice to ignore a troll is often the best advice. Also, replying with a simple post titled “Troll Alert” and a message telling others to ignore trolls is also a good way to advise newbies about how to deal with trolls. However, considering what Campbell has to say (especially under “Why Does it Matter?” and “What about Free Speech?”) I think there may be instances in which it would be appropriate to block a troll.
According to Campbell, “Internet trolls are people who set out to start arguments or otherwise make people on message boards uncomfortable.” Perhaps key words here are “set out to”; a troll is only a troll if he or she *consciously* chooses to offend or discomfort. OK. But what about the person who doesn’t know what he/she is doing? – You give him or her a warning. If the behavior is repeated, the poster is blocked. (Posters are bound to make mistakes or take risks from time to time.) Of course, this is a consequence which we are all aware of when someone posts *words* that could be offensive to others. What I’m suggesting is that there might be certain behaviors, not just words, that can be viewed as uncivil. If we were all meeting in person, we might forgive these behaviors if they happened from time to time. But how would we respond to that behavior if it were repeated habitually, over and over again?
The definition of “habitually” in this case is one of those subjective things. I suppose we could come up with some guidelines on the subject, but as moderator, Dr. Bob would have the final say.
Others might say, if the habit doesn’t bother Dr. Bob, why should it bother me? If you’ve ever been scrutinized in this way, you might find it offensive or uncomfortable. (I’m sure there are those who don’t, but I did.) But there’s another reason to care: Dr. Bob can only spread himself so thin. Every hour he spends researching and responding to requests from the same people over and over again is an hour that he doesn’t have to give to the rest of the group.
I tried very hard to write this in a way that would not be offensive. (Even though “dealing with particular posters” is listed as a possible topic on the PB Admin board. It is very hard to be particular and *not* particular at the same time.) I am sincerely trying to address an issue that is stressful to me.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 22, 2005, at 13:04:01
In reply to OK, I’m going to try this again (long), posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 11:50:57
I would say the answer would depend a lot on what the requests were and, more importantly *why* they are made.
So, to stay hypothetical, if there was a poster constantly running to admin and saying something along the lines of "Dr. Bob, Johnny said something mean" then probably that post would be considered accusitory and uncivil.
But, if a poster were merely asking - how many times isn't that important in my book - about the *language* of the post and how it fits into the civility guidelines. And wanting clarification as to why *this* wording is ok and *that* wording isn't - well I don't see that it's against any civility rules.
And questions of that type are what the admin board was created for after all.
Those type of questions have also helped me to understand some of the rules.
So, in my mind, there is a difference between "questioning whether or not others’ posts are civil " and "questioning whether or not others’ posts *language* fit in the civility guidelines.'
To me, questioning the civility of a post is questioning a person's motives and possibly trying to get the person in trouble, while questioning the language (wording) is asking for further understanding of the rules.
It's a fine line, I understand, but to me it's an important one.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 14:05:58
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » Minnie-Haha, posted by AuntieMel on April 22, 2005, at 13:04:01
I think we're pretty much in agreement, except I believe that how many times those kinds of questions come up is important.
Suppose we are at a party. The guests are discussing this and that, sometimes disagreeing, but generally working things out civilly. However, throughout the evening, Minnie goes to the host and asks (within earshot of others), "Someone interrupted somebody else: Is that OK?" "Someone burped: Is that OK?" "Someone said there is only one god: Is that OK?" "Someone used the phrase 't*t for tat': Is that OK?" And so on and so forth. Some of the guests know Minnie and either ignore her remarks or take them with good humor. But other guests are uncomfortable. Some have already left. Is Minnie's behavior civil?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 14:29:42
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » AuntieMel, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 14:05:58
OK?" "Someone used the phrase 't*t for tat': Is that OK?" And so on and so forth. Some of the guests know Minnie and either ignore her remarks or take them with good humor. But other guests are uncomfortable. Some have already left. Is Minnie's behavior civil?
Yes, but if I were hosting a party for people with mental illnesses I would certainly expect to have to be flexible, within reason. Of course the guests are struggling too and may be particularly sensitive. In this case, the topic has come up before, Dr. Bob has placed limits on consecutive threads as a compromise.
I certainly understand the frustration of having certain posters get your shirt in a knot. It's happened to me, as I made accidentally clear a couple of months ago, and that's why I'm in favor of an *ignore* button, (different things get to us all, and ignoring posts is sometimes easier said than done) It doesn't mean however, that I think I have a right to have them "dealt with" because they bother me personally.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 22, 2005, at 14:39:28
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » AuntieMel, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 14:05:58
That would depend on whether the party has rules against interrupting, burping and so on, wouldn't it?
And then I would think it would have to depend on whether your party Minnie was tattling (rude) or just trying to get the rules straight.
And maybe if Minnie was just trying to get the rules straight, some of the guests that know Minnie could try to talk to the ones that are uncomfortable and explain to them that Minnie means no harm. Then everyone would be happy.
In fact I would think if the guests that knew Minnie *didn't* try to explain and let them stay uncomfortable - well, those people wouldn't be very civil in my book either.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 15:02:18
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » AuntieMel, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 14:05:58
>. Some of the guests know Minnie and either ignore her remarks or take them with good humor.
It's not always good humor, sometimes it's genuine appreciation/respect for the contributions of the person involved.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 15:18:32
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 14:29:42
>> ... Is Minnie's behavior civil?
>
> Yes, but if I were hosting a party for people with mental illnesses I would certainly expect to have to be flexible, within reason. Of course the guests are struggling too and may be particularly sensitive...That's what I'm saying. At Psycho Babble, we all have (or had) a psychological disorder. But should one kind of disorder trump another? Should any disorder make the sufferer exempt from being civil, or another disorder rob a person of trying to protect themselves?
> ... In this case, the topic has come up before, Dr. Bob has placed limits on consecutive threads as a compromise...I am sorry he had to do that. But if we agree that a behavior is uncivil, and existing rules are not protecting members from uncivil conduct, what then?
> ... and that's why I'm in favor of an *ignore* button, (different things get to us all, and ignoring posts is sometimes easier said than done)...Yes, an ignore button would be a good solution.
> ... It doesn't mean however, that I think I have a right to have them "dealt with" because they bother me personally.If this problem has come up before, and continues to come up regularly, then is it possible that others have taken it personally? How many have to be hurt or offended before we have a right to deal with it? But the one question I'm really trying to get an answer to in this thread is, is the sort of behavior we're discussing civil?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 15:31:06
In reply to Just for the record » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 15:02:18
> > Some of the guests know Minnie and either ignore her remarks or take them with good humor.
>
> It's not always good humor, sometimes it's genuine appreciation/respect for the contributions of the person involved.Maybe you thought I meant that Minnie was *humored* by some guests? I'm sorry if I was unclear. I only meant that her remarks were agreeable (not disagreeable) to some. (Hope my Webster's isn't failing me! :) )
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 15:46:12
In reply to Re: Just for the record » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 15:31:06
> Maybe you thought I meant that Minnie was *humored* by some guests? I'm sorry if I was unclear. I only meant that her remarks were agreeable (not disagreeable) to some. (Hope my Webster's isn't failing me! :)
That is what I thought, thanks!
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 16:51:43
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » AuntieMel, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 14:05:58
DR. Hsiung, It is written in this thread,
[..."Someone said there is only one God: Is that OK?"...].
I am requesting that an exception be made so that I be allowed to respond to this post in more than 3 consecutive posts.
I am requesting this exception because of the nature of the staement in regards to my faith and how the statement is used in the post in question.
I am not questioning the acceptability of the statement, but I am requesting to address the potential implications, IMO, that could arrise out of the statement going unaddressed by me,and I can not give my response in 3 posts. Could not one exception to the rule be here in this case?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/487959.html
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 17:23:03
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » AuntieMel, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 14:05:58
I had no-one in mind when I wrote the post to which this is appended. It is directed at no-one in particular. It was a hypothetical situation to help pose a question. It is not meant to be a knock against any person's manners, bodily functions, faith, or command of the English language.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 17:32:25
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 16:51:43
Posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 18:07:09
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 17:23:03
I try and ignore the Posts and quit responding because I'm afraid I will get in trouble. I'm not sure this is fair as we do work our own things out on pbabble with an apology or a babblemail . Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 22, 2005, at 18:23:17
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Minnie-Haha, posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 18:07:09
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 19:31:53
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Minnie-Haha, posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 18:07:09
> I try and ignore the Posts and quit responding because I'm afraid I will get in trouble. I'm not sure this is fair as we do work our own things out on pbabble with an apology or a babblemail .
To me it's not the same as working things out.
Lou makes it clear when he feels personally offended, and that's quite rare. The rest of the time they are non - personal questions about the rules of the board, and once they are answered that's the end of it.
Posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 19:43:51
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Phillipa, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 19:31:53
To me a disagreement is usually between two people. When I have a fight with my husband I don't go to a marriage counsellor to help solve the problem. We discuss it. And I'm not refering to any particlar poster, just that at times i feel intimidated and choose to ignore and stop posting on that thread. I don't feel I should have to be on my toes all the time if I'm speaking about something I feel strongly about, or am in a lot of distress. Just my opinion. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:15:38
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again (long) » Minnie-Haha, posted by AuntieMel on April 22, 2005, at 13:04:01
It is written in this thread,[...it is not meant to be a knock against any person's ...faith...].
As to what the poster meant, that is not my concern here. My concern is that since the poster writes also that the statement is directed at no one in particular, then IMO there are many that the statement in question could encompass. It could encompass all those that have the faith that have only one God such as mine, which is the Jewish faith, and other faiths that have only one God. The statement in question is,[..."Someone said that there is only one God: Is that OK?"...].
Now if a reader saw that statement, there could be IMO a concern about the different parts of the statement because of its grammatical structure. One part in particular, is the part,[...Is that {OK}?...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:25:50
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:15:38
It is written in thids thread that the scene in the statement in question is a supposed party. Looking at the statement in question,[..."Someone said there is only one God: Is that OK?"...].
Now the statment in question was said to the host and the post states,[...some of the guests ignore that person's remarks...but other guests are uncomfortable...]. Could they be uncomfortable because someone questioned if it is OK to say that they have only one God?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 20:42:39
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-2B, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:25:50
Lou, I don't know you but I'd like to. I hear you're a great guy! I just get confused by your posts. Maybe I'm not as intelligent, I don't know. But I would love to get to know you. I'm open in Babblemail. Why not let's be friends! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:44:25
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-2B, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:25:50
> It is written in thids thread that the scene in the statement in question is a supposed party. Looking at the statement in question,[..."Someone said there is only one God: Is that OK?"...].
> Now the statment in question was said to the host and the post states,[...some of the guests ignore that person's remarks...but other guests are uncomfortable...]. Could they be uncomfortable because someone questioned if it is OK to say that they have only one God?
LouLooking at the statement in question in the above, could the grammatical structure of the statement be seen as someone being uncomfortable because there is, lets say, a Jew at the party that said that they believe in one God and they were some of the ones that the poster wrote left the party?
Lou
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 20:50:22
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2005, at 19:43:51
> To me a disagreement is usually between two people. When I have a fight with my husband I don't go to a marriage counsellor to help solve the problem. We discuss it. And I'm not refering to any particlar poster, just that at times i feel intimidated and choose to ignore and stop posting on that thread.
I know, and I know many people feel that way, so I won't make another post on this. What I tried to say, and I guess I didn't make clear, and what I think Auntie Mel was saying, is that they aren't personal, they are a way of getting things straight. If Lou does find something offensive, he says so, but that's fairly rare.
I do know, that people do find it hurtful regardless. On that note, I suppose it would be a fair option to have the requests e-mailed to Dr. Bob privately.
I'm somewhat biased though, I have learned much from Lou's insight, especially on one particular post mentioning the holocaust, and another on a joke I didn't consider racist, though, I at first thought it was nit-picky. I wouldn't want to lose that. I also have deep respect for the fact that no matter how cruel the things are that have been said to him, he never responds in kind.
But I don't like people hurting, or being made to feel out of place either.. sigh
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:51:47
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-C, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:44:25
The analogy of a party is used in the post in question. But what if it was not a party, but a disco?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 7:07:01
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-D, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2005, at 20:51:47
The analogy of a party was used in the post in question . But is an internet mental-health forum the same as a party, or a disco?
I think that the disco would be an extreme end of the spectrum in this case. I can not think of what the other end could be.
In this forum, with approximatly 1000 members, and I do not know how many readers that do not participate in posting, I think that there is a different purpose here than in a party or a disco. I believe that there is a more serious purpose that the participants have verses the party or disco. Now I think that that{...seriousness of purpose...]makes my requests here for clarification and acceptability appropriate in relation to the goals of the forum, which is support and education. I do not think that those goals are the same as in a party, or a disco.
But what is support? Could not support be more clarification of the guidlines for the forum? Could not support be more well-defined guidlines for the forum?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 8:04:34
In reply to Re: OK, I’m going to try this again » Phillipa, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 22, 2005, at 20:50:22
> > To me a disagreement is usually between two people. When I have a fight with my husband I don't go to a marriage counsellor to help solve the problem. We discuss it. And I'm not refering to any particlar poster, just that at times i feel intimidated and choose to ignore and stop posting on that thread.
>
> I know, and I know many people feel that way, so I won't make another post on this. What I tried to say, and I guess I didn't make clear, and what I think Auntie Mel was saying, is that they aren't personal, they are a way of getting things straight. If Lou does find something offensive, he says so, but that's fairly rare.
> I do know, that people do find it hurtful regardless. On that note, I suppose it would be a fair option to have the requests e-mailed to Dr. Bob privately.
> I'm somewhat biased though, I have learned much from Lou's insight, especially on one particular post mentioning the holocaust, and another on a joke I didn't consider racist, though, I at first thought it was nit-picky. I wouldn't want to lose that. I also have deep respect for the fact that no matter how cruel the things are that have been said to him, he never responds in kind.
> But I don't like people hurting, or being made to feel out of place either.. sigh
Friends,
In the post above ,Gabbi-X-2 writes,[...option to email Dr. Hsiung...].
That is an option, but is this forum moderated 24/7 ? If not, an email to the moderator could go unresponded to for some period of time.
BTW, I usually email my requests to DR. Hsiung before I post them.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 9:10:16
In reply to Lou's response to Gabbi-x-2's post » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 8:04:34
In relation to the option to email Dr. Hsiung, I have 23 emails to Dr. Hsiung from April 5th of 2005.
The point that I am trying to make here is that I do attempt generally to email the administration at times before I post.
I also attempt to email the deputy, Dinah, in special requests to intercede. I also use the inter-forum mail feature,(babblemail) in discussions concerning whether others might see that there is something that could be addressed here.'
The point here is that I do attempt at times to use other means than to post my requests to DR. Hsiung.
But sometimes I think that a general discussion of my requests could benifit the members of the forum without emailing the administration first. Gabbi-X-2 wrote,[... I have learned much from Lou's insight...]and [...I have a deep respect...].
Lou
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.