![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 74. Go back in thread:
Posted by galkeepinon on October 8, 2003, at 10:58:34
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:18:35
Glad you posted Bob,
['Dinah' asks]>>>>>>So I'll ask you directly. Did you say that it was ok to start over in an encouraging way? Or did you just agree not to rat out the poster, admit that it wasn't against the rules, and suggest that they come clean?
Dinah
[Bob replies]>>>>>>>Sorry, but I don't think I should get into what I said to her without her permission. In general, I discourage changing names.Bob, thank you for that respect. You have my permission to tell them anything you would like, anything concerning my emails to you, anything that would help the ones who are feeling so very sad, angry, and hurt about all this, to get some clarification, I have no problem with that.
Thanks,
Kristen
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 12:14:21
In reply to Required Name Change Disclosure » Dr. Bob, posted by Susan J on October 8, 2003, at 10:26:27
I think the main reason would be that occasionally posters have changed names because someone in their real life found their posting name and was reading the posts. For at least one poster that caused real life problems. I'm fortunate in that I trust the only two people who I would mind reading my posts know my posting name and this site, and have promised not to read. Others aren't so lucky.
Most managed to leave hints in their new posts, or state directly, who they used to be.
But to require that old and new posting names be placed in one place would make it impossible for someone to continue posting under the circumstances I described, since anyone who knew their old name would know their new.
And Dr. Bob logically pointed out that there was no way he could verify someone's purpose in changing names and so would have to rely on their word. So, this solution may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.
A lot of times if you know someone well enough, no change of posting name will disguise their style. And a lot of people will voluntarily disclose their old name, even if they do it subtly or in posts. And at least we would be aware that we were talking to someone who used to be someone else.
Posted by Susan J on October 8, 2003, at 12:17:45
In reply to Re: Required Name Change Disclosure » Susan J, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 12:14:21
Dinah,
> I think the main reason would be that occasionally posters have changed names because someone in their real life found their posting name and was reading the posts. For at least one poster that caused real life problems.
<<OK, smack me on the head. This makes perfect sense. I guess my sense of privacy isn't as well developed as it should be.> A lot of times if you know someone well enough, no change of posting name will disguise their style.
<<I'm personally not good at that at all, but perhaps it's because I've only been here a short time.Thanks for clarifying, Dinah. :-)
Susan
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 15:20:32
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:18:35
> No blocks are "permanent" now, but people can end up being blocked for a long time if they're repeatedly uncivil...
>
> The new policy would be that people shouldn't stir up bad feelings?
I guess I was thinking that you might occasionally make an executive decision that the board would be a safer place if certain posters were banned for good. Based on your subjective judgement, your clinical skills (are you a clinical psychiatrist? I don't even know), and your experience with observing group dynamics over time.It looked to me like what happened recently was that board members took matters into their own hands and tried to run off a poster they saw as a detriment to the group. I've seen it before-- folks either drive someone away, or provoke them til they get blocked. It's an ugly spectacle that makes the whole board unsafe. I'm just thinking of how to prevent that in the future.
I also personally think it would be kindest to remove the person who's getting all the negative attention. It can't be doing them any good to perpetuate a cycle like that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 17:37:07
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 15:20:32
> It looked to me like what happened recently was that board members took matters into their own hands and tried to run off a poster they saw as a detriment to the group. I've seen it before-- folks either drive someone away, or provoke them til they get blocked. It's an ugly spectacle that makes the whole board unsafe. I'm just thinking of how to prevent that in the future.
Ask people to be civil? I know it's not foolproof...
> I also personally think it would be kindest to remove the person who's getting all the negative attention. It can't be doing them any good to perpetuate a cycle like that.
But shouldn't it be up to them to decide what does them good?
Bob
Posted by stjames on October 8, 2003, at 18:17:06
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 17:37:07
>
> Ask people to be civil? I know it's not foolproof...
>maybe in the classroom, but this is real life.
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 19:16:39
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 17:37:07
I didn't really expect you to change policy. There's just something cold about letting a situation get so out of hand. It's hurting people, scaring people. Yet all we can do is wait for someone to slip up and use a curse word or an insult that's direct enough to get them blocked. Something's missing. I guess I'm wanting some type of intervention where someone looks at the big picture and says Stop, this isn't productive. It can't go on.
Another issue is-- people say Kristen sent abusive and threatening emails. Lots of them. To people who started out supporting her. So here she is again, and people who don't know that history will again support her. It seems you're willing to take a big risk with people's safety by letting her return, regardless of whether she served her block time and says she won't do it again. Again it's up to the posters to try and warn each other, restrained by the civility rules. How can anyone warn of that type of risk without accusing? More likely they'll stay silent or at the most drop hints.
Then I start wondering-- do you know the prior identity of the poster(s) who come back and put up the hateful posts to you and others? Does that person get to return when their block expires? Under the rules-- it seems like they do.
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 19:26:10
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 19:16:39
But are you in favor of the proposed new poster name switching disclosure rule?
Posted by fallsfall on October 8, 2003, at 19:27:35
In reply to Re: Another proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 17:37:07
> > It looked to me like what happened recently was that board members took matters into their own hands and tried to run off a poster they saw as a detriment to the group. I've seen it before-- folks either drive someone away, or provoke them til they get blocked. It's an ugly spectacle that makes the whole board unsafe. I'm just thinking of how to prevent that in the future.
>
> Ask people to be civil? I know it's not foolproof...
>Dr. Bob. Are we supposed to ask them to be civil? Or would you like one (or more?) of us to send you an email if it seems that you haven't seen what is happening?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 19:16:39
> There's just something cold about letting a situation get so out of hand. It's hurting people, scaring people. Yet all we can do is wait for someone to slip up and use a curse word or an insult that's direct enough to get them blocked. Something's missing. I guess I'm wanting some type of intervention where someone looks at the big picture and says Stop, this isn't productive. It can't go on.
The big picture can be complicated. Responding in an uncivil way can hurt and scare others, too. I know it can be hard just to wait. It's passive.
> Another issue is-- people say Kristen sent abusive and threatening emails. Lots of them. To people who started out supporting her. So here she is again, and people who don't know that history will again support her. It seems you're willing to take a big risk with people's safety by letting her return, regardless of whether she served her block time and says she won't do it again. Again it's up to the posters to try and warn each other, restrained by the civility rules. How can anyone warn of that type of risk without accusing? More likely they'll stay silent or at the most drop hints.
1. If people support her, I think that's great. That's the idea here.
2. People take a big risk with their safety by trusting strangers online. Messages on this site are not guaranteed to be supportive.
3. I can't always keep people from returning, anyway. As should be evident.
4. Warnings could be general and not refer to someone in particular, or could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
> do you know the prior identity of the poster(s) who come back and put up the hateful posts to you and others? Does that person get to return when their block expires?
I may or may not know someone's prior identity. Everyone gets to return when their block expires.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:00:50
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Dr. Bob, posted by fallsfall on October 8, 2003, at 19:27:35
> > > It looked to me like what happened recently was that board members took matters into their own hands and tried to run off a poster they saw as a detriment to the group. I've seen it before-- folks either drive someone away, or provoke them til they get blocked... I'm just thinking of how to prevent that in the future.
> >
> > Ask people to be civil? I know it's not foolproof...
>
> Dr. Bob. Are we supposed to ask them to be civil? Or would you like one (or more?) of us to send you an email if it seems that you haven't seen what is happening?Sorry, what I meant was, the way I've tried to prevent it is to ask people to be civil.
You're welcome to do that, too, but if you do, please be careful to be civil yourself. And keep in mind that people might not appreciate your attempt to help.
I you don't think I've seen something, it would be great if you would email me. Or post a link here. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 21:03:32
In reply to Re: permanent blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
Thanks for being real and responding in a real way. Every time I get thoroughly fed up with you, you surprise me.
So what about the proposal for name change rules. Will they be implemented? A notification on Admin that they used to post under another name?
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 21:05:57
In reply to Re: permanent blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
>
> 4. Warnings could be general and not refer to someone in particular, or could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
>So for instance, could someone say 'I received many emails from poster X that were offensive and frightening to me.'
Posted by Tabitha on October 8, 2003, at 21:07:37
In reply to Re: Another proposal » Tabitha, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 19:26:10
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 21:16:00
In reply to Re: permanent blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
> 1. If people support her, I think that's great. That's the idea here.
>
Ok, I know you probably won't answer this. But I'll ask anyway. I wrestled all weekend (including Sunday School) with this question. Is it ethically ok to support someone who has hurt others, where those others, were relatively blameless, and where those others are still hurt and haven't been able to forgive. It's great to be supportive on this board, but sometimes being supportive to one person is counter-supportive to another.> 2. People take a big risk with their safety by trusting strangers online. Messages on this site are not guaranteed to be supportive.
>
We know. That's why we get extra angry with what we see as a failure on your part to protect us. We trust you, Dr. Bob, perhaps more than we should.> 3. I can't always keep people from returning, anyway. As should be evident.
>
True. But when you do know.....> 4. Warnings could be general and not refer to someone in particular, or could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
>
I try.> > do you know the prior identity of the poster(s) who come back and put up the hateful posts to you and others? Does that person get to return when their block expires?
>
> I may or may not know someone's prior identity. Everyone gets to return when their block expires.
>
> BobOk, but that poster must be up to years now, right? At a doubling for each posting while blocked and a tripling for ones that are offensive to a fellow poster? I'm figuring at least three or four years.
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 21:17:12
In reply to Re: permanent blocks, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 21:16:00
Posted by Sabina on October 8, 2003, at 21:27:16
In reply to Re: permanent blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 20:56:34
>>>>4. Warnings could be general and not refer to someone in particular, or could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
then i don't understand why jim was pbc'd for the isolated phrase, "i got a bunch of demented nasty notes"
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:43:24
In reply to Re: permanent blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by Sabina on October 8, 2003, at 21:27:16
> Thanks for being real and responding in a real way. Every time I get thoroughly fed up with you, you surprise me.
Thanks for not giving up on me. :-)
> So what about the proposal for name change rules. Will they be implemented? A notification on Admin that they used to post under another name?
>
> DinahMaybe give people some more time to think it over?
--
> > 4. Warnings ... could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
>
> So for instance, could someone say 'I received many emails from poster X that were offensive and frightening to me.'
>
> TabithaEven more I-statementy: I received many emails from poster X that made me feel offended and frightened.
--
> I wrestled all weekend (including Sunday School) with this question. Is it ethically ok to support someone who has hurt others, where those others, were relatively blameless, and where those others are still hurt and haven't been able to forgive.
Do you keep criminals in jail until their victims forgive them?
> sometimes being supportive to one person is counter-supportive to another.
The second person can also be supported directly. Without being uncivil toward the first person...
> > Everyone gets to return when their block expires.
>
> Ok, but that poster must be up to years now, right?
>
> DinahRight.
--
> > 4. Warnings could be general and not refer to someone in particular, or could refer to someone in particular but be I-statements...
>
> then i don't understand why jim was pbc'd for the isolated phrase, "i got a bunch of demented nasty notes"
>
> SabinaBecause that's not really an I-statement:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 22:04:53
In reply to Re: proposal, I-statements, and Sunday School, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:43:24
No, again, thank you. This is as forthcoming as I've ever seen you. And you've answered far more than I ever thought you would. So perhaps I'm being greedy to clarify.
Naturally I wasn't asking about the ethical quandry of being civil. I always do my level best to be civil, although I may occasionally fall short of the mark.
I'm asking about being supportive, which is different entirely from being civil.
Or to further your prison analogy. Yes, certainly prisoners can be released from prison before their victims forgive them. But can I ethically invite them to tea without being completely unsupportive to their victims (especially if said victims are my friends).
Posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 23:17:53
In reply to Re: proposal, I-statements, and Sunday School » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 22:04:53
That was more musing than question. I always get a bit frustrated when my meaning wasn't clear and get a bit bulldoglike. But it's not important and there is no need for you to answer.
Thanks for being so forthcoming. You ought to try it more often. :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 1:24:33
In reply to Re: proposal, I-statements, and Sunday School » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 8, 2003, at 22:04:53
> Yes, certainly prisoners can be released from prison before their victims forgive them. But can I ethically invite them to tea without being completely unsupportive to their victims (especially if said victims are my friends).
Those are two distinct questions, whether you feel it's ethical and whether your friends feel it's supportive. Unless of course you feel it's unethical to do something your friends feel is unsupportive...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2003, at 7:50:14
In reply to Re: ethical vs. supportive, posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 1:24:33
I think it's my ethical obligation to be more supportive to my friends than to those who hurt them. Don't you consider it your ethical obligation to be more supportive to the hurt than the hurter?
Suppose not.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 9, 2003, at 19:31:39
In reply to Re: ethical vs. supportive » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2003, at 7:50:14
> Don't you consider it your ethical obligation to be more supportive to the hurt than the hurter?
More, yes, but how much more? I think that's the question...
Bob
Posted by lil' jimi on October 16, 2003, at 21:04:32
In reply to Re: yes (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 10:13:36
hi Dr. Bob,
my recent experience suggests that this turns out not to be the case ...
once i was banned, i immediately ceased to receive email notifcation of new posts to threads i have contributed to.
would it be allowed, or even possible, to re-instate the thread follow-up notices i used to receive before i was banned ?
i thought you would want to know ...
take care,
~ j
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2003, at 1:43:46
In reply to Re: proposal, I-statements, and Sunday School, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2003, at 21:43:24
> > So what about the proposal for name change rules. Will they be implemented? A notification on Admin that they used to post under another name?
>
> Maybe give people some more time to think it over?Well, there's been more time, so let's go ahead and give this new policy a try:
> please don't post under more than one name at the same time. If for any reason you feel you need to change your posting name, follow these steps:
>
> 1. Stop posting under your current name.
> 2. Re-register ("for the first time") under a new name.
> 3. Post a message (under your new name) at Psycho-Babble Administration saying that you used to post under a different name. But not necessarily giving out that name.
>
> The last step is to try to reassure people that posters who appear to be new really are new.Bob
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.