![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 124. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 9:17:44
Hi Doctor.
What are you trying to achieve by exercising your civility rules? What is the goal?
How do you think it is going so far?
- Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 11:00:43
In reply to Dr. Bob - What is your goal?, posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 9:17:44
Isn't the goal to keep people feeling safe??
Surely you must remember back to when it was a free for all at times here.. attacks left right and center??
OK, so the civility rules are a little heavy handed these days, and not always hugely fair. But I know I feel so much safer here than I did a few years back.
And, yes, I have been blocked, so have suffered at the hands of the civility rules.
Nikki
Posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 12:25:03
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal? » SLS, posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 11:00:43
> Isn't the goal to keep people feeling safe??
I'm not at all sure as to what is the goal of Dr. Bob. That's why I asked. His answer might make it easier to understand his actions. Perhaps safety is served well by the policies practiced here, but that doesn't require that it be the primary goal. Perhaps there are multiple goals. I would like to know what they are. My guess is that there are people who feel *less* safe with the implementation of the civility rules as it now exists.
- Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 12:37:46
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal? » NikkiT2, posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 12:25:03
So, do you think these people that don't feel safe here would prefer it to go back to free for all attacks?
Nikki
Posted by judy1 on January 13, 2004, at 13:27:50
In reply to Dr. Bob - What is your goal?, posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 9:17:44
Hi Scott,
I'm going to agree with Nikki, I feel much safer with the rules that are in place now then the free-for-all a few years ago. I think that was Dr. Bob's expressed purpose for putting them in place, but I may be wrong. I guess we'll have to see what he says...
take care, judy
Posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 15:08:02
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal? » SLS, posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 12:37:46
Hmmm.
I agree with you. I am convinced that enforcing a civility policy has been to the betterment of the board and has promoted a sense of safety. I really do appreciate it. However, I somehow feel strangled by the number of PBCs and posting blocks that have been levied here recently. That makes me feel less safe to interact with people, especially when there is conflict. I'm afraid that I might say something that would end up being judged as an infraction for which I have no clue what I did wrong, despite the offending verbiage being quoted by the doctor. Right now, I feel that Dr. Bob is being too stringent, too inflexible, and too picayune in his enforcement of civility. Too many people have been blocked for too little cause in my opinion. When good people leave here for writing things that need to be scrutinized by an English professor in order to find fault with, I think that is asking too much.
I want this board to me moderated by Dr. Bob Hsiung, but something feels very wrong to me right now. It scares me.
- Scott
Posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 18:38:21
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal? » SLS, posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 12:37:46
Nikki,
>So, do you think these people that don't feel safe here would prefer it to go back to free for all attacks?That is the whole point most here seem to be missing. It is not an either/or question. I have never and would never suggest an unmoderated forum..although I think my suggestion was taken that way by some.
There are many other methods of moderating forums.
This is the only forum I have come across which uses these blocks..and the one has made me feel the most "unsafe" too actually.
I personally prefer the usual method of moderating....edit language where minor..delete posts where major offensive or abusive language used...warn posters if they step out of line ..delete whole threads were the posters "lose it"..after calling into line.
Allow other posters to "self-moderate" the forums to a certain extent..as Larry (and I too sometimes) have tried to do here...as the job is too big for just one person. Posters should contact the(a) moderator where they feel things are getting out of hand..and intervention should be relatively prompt.
Some forums have moderators in various parts of the world to allow this..but its not always perfect as noone can spend all their time on the net...(did I say that?)
Some forums have different levels of posters where long serving respected valuable posters get some kinda status ..which gives newbies an idea of who they can "believe"..as well as allowing those posters to conduct some kinda unofficial self-moderation..as people listen to them and respect them. Sometimes this is done officially (like with levels displayed)..in other forums it has evolved completely unofficially. ..like a forum I post on sometimes has a group called "mavens"...apparently not a derogatory term in the US <g>.
I am not suggesting this be done..just putting forward other ways forums cope with moderation.
Allowing criticism or questioning may mean others may feel put down occassionally as they face criticism.(hopefully made as tactful as possible)..but they can defend themselves. It also , IMO, is NOT anywhere near as big a putdwon as a "block".
Most of the problems I have seen happen is when sometimes a moderator him/herself is having problems with medication reactions/ stress/ overload etc..but this seems to be obvious to most forums members and most jump in and help the moderator as well....too much tryosine is one example I can think of.I know not everyone can express themselves in writing equally..not one of my strengths either unfortunately...
There has to be guidelines which all posters must try to keep within...anyone stepping way out of line gets blocked (short block) and their post deleted..and if persistently out of line..or ,if major offense..blocked for a long period, or even just banned outright.
This system seems to work well on most forums...
This is NOT the same as unmoderated at all.Forums hosted in the US are fortunate in that the forum owner (I think?) can't be blamed legally for any posts made...I think this is the case as I was involved in one forum (not medical) in Oz where the owner was jailed for 3 months officially due to an incorrect post ..not even his (although there is much more to the story than that). That site moved to a US hosted forum to be safer for all involved.
There are also cases of posters being sued in Oz hosted forums for statements or comments they make,sometimes ..again not medical forums...
I'm only stating this as perhaps some of my questions earlier and concerns may make more sense given this background.
In summary I am just trying to point out that no blocks does not mean no moderation.
Jan
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2004, at 19:29:05
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal?, posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 18:38:21
There's someplace that suits just about everyone. I've found Babble, and Dr. Bob, to suit me admirably, so I stay.
Posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 20:34:41
In reply to Re: The Net is a wondrous place, posted by Dinah on January 13, 2004, at 19:29:05
> There's someplace that suits just about everyone. I've found Babble, and Dr. Bob, to suit me admirably, so I stay.
Dinah,
I hope I have not implied in any way that I do not respect Dr Bob (or you) or the work he has put into this site. I do understand the responsibility and time involved.
Me, ... I'm mixed up, confused, an emotional anxious mess and need a longer break though I have been helped a lot from the alter board posters especially Larry, but also many other posters ..like DSCH, Ron, Jlx, TJ, well most of the alter regulars..thanks for your support and help guys.
Sorry not meaning to leave anyone out..just count yourself in OK?
Jan
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 21:02:35
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal?, posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 18:38:21
> Perhaps safety is served well by the policies practiced here, but that doesn't require that it be the primary goal. Perhaps there are multiple goals.
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but you referred to one possible secondary goal before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/298045.html
Were there others you were wondering about?
> I somehow feel strangled by the number of PBCs and posting blocks that have been levied here recently... I feel that Dr. Bob is being too stringent, too inflexible, and too picayune in his enforcement of civility.
>
> - ScottI do think I get more stringent, etc., when things get more heated...
----
> There are many other methods of moderating forums.
I think it would be interesting to compare methods of moderating. What would be the different variables?
> Some forums have different levels of posters where long serving respected valuable posters get some kinda status ..
>
> JanSomething like that came up before, and wasn't very popular...
Bob
Posted by tabitha on January 13, 2004, at 23:01:34
In reply to Re: goals -- and how to try to achieve them, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 21:02:35
I've seen forums where every heated thread gets locked and/or deleted. I've seen forums where you're not allowed to talk about each other at all-- you strictly have to talk about the topic. I've seen forums where personal attacks are allowed as long as they don't get too terribly flaming.
Personally I enjoy the unique features of Bob's moderating here. I like the out-in-the-open warnings and blocks, and the lively discussions about them. I know it's tempting to see PBCs and blocks as public humiliation and punishment by an impersonal authority figure, but it can also be seen as a learning experience. I've grown to appreciate the strict civility standards here. Bob advocates a sort of radically non-violent communication style. I like the idea that you can't attack someone, even if you're convinced they deserve it, or that doing so will make you feel better, or will make someone else feel better, or will force the 'offender' to become a better person. We *are* allowed to state our hurt or angry feelings toward another in a conflict, but without going into judging and labelling them. I think those are good rules, even though they've not always been easy for me to follow.
Posted by Elle2021 on January 14, 2004, at 5:37:34
In reply to Re: other moderating styles, posted by tabitha on January 13, 2004, at 23:01:34
I completely agree with you. I like it that Bob makes everyone *have* to be civil to one another. I also like it that he doesn't allow cuss words. I never liked the sound of cuss words, so I really doubt I would like reading them much either. To me, it feels safe here. I know that if someone hurts my feelings, it's likely that they will get in trouble for it. And, it helps keep me in check too. I have learned a lot about communicating on these boards, and how to do it effectively without being rude or uncivil.
Elle
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 14, 2004, at 6:15:55
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal?, posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 18:38:21
Over the past 9 or 10 years (I was 19 when I first got on line, I've just turned 29, so coming up to 10 years I guess!) I've been online, I have probably been part of, ooh, a hundred or so forums.
Over the years, and through experience, I now only post at about 5. I post at the 5 where I feel safest from other posters.
Un moderated sites are NOT safe what so ever in my eyes. I moderated site I used, that the "managers" went AWOL from so it became un moderated.. I was suffering daily attacks there, hourly attacks, with personal info about myself being posted.
The thing that ahs kept me at PB for 5 years has been a) the lovely people I have become so close to. and b) the moderating style.
Now, I'm not saying Dr Bobs moderating is prefect. No one on earth is perfect. Its some times over heavy handed, its sometimes a bit wierd.. But all in all, when I weigh up the last 5 years, he keeps us safe from attacks, and will stand up for us if we are attacked.
I take safety from attacks over being blocked. Yes, I ahve been blocked, and *every* single time I've received a PBC or block I have known full well it was coming, and had decided what I wanted to say was more important to me than being blocked.
Nikki
Posted by SLS on January 14, 2004, at 8:33:48
In reply to Re: goals -- and how to try to achieve them, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2004, at 21:02:35
Hi Doctor.
> > > What are you trying to achieve by exercising your civility rules? > > > > What is the goal?
> > >
> > > How do you think it is going so far?
> > Perhaps safety is served well by the policies practiced here, but that doesn't require that it be the primary goal. Perhaps there are multiple goals.
> Sorry to answer a question with a question, but you referred to one possible secondary goal before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/298045.html
>
> Were there others you were wondering about?
Nothing nefarious. I just thought that perhaps you were more interested in verbiage than in perception. I guess I'm still upset at you for blocking Larry Hoover. I really didn't think he deserved it. I'll go back and take another look at it, though. Maybe there is some sort of psychological model of interaction that is being enforced as an experiment or simply as a philosophy. I wasn't sure, so I figured I'd ask.The post of mine that you cited was actually a genuine propositon rather than an accusation.
So, now, will you answer my questions? :-)
And another question. Is there some sort of published guideline to civil communication or prescriptive model of interaction that you refer to? Curious minds want to know... (at least mine does).
- Scott
Posted by socialdeviantjeff on January 15, 2004, at 1:59:40
In reply to Dr. Bob - What is your goal?, posted by SLS on January 13, 2004, at 9:17:44
IMNSHO, Some of the PBC's and blocks are off balance in terms of fairness. I know, I was on the butt end of a particularily nasty attack for which I had no fault. Not that I really blame the guy, and we did sort it out later. (thanks to all that supported me, you know who you are) The problem is that the language was not altered, or the thread was not removed altogether. I feel it may have caused some people to not want to post with me.
That aside, I do agree with most everyone here that this forum is altogether quite safe on average. I've lurked a lot of other forums and most of them are all out slugfests.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2004, at 4:42:00
In reply to Re: goals -- and how to try to achieve them » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on January 14, 2004, at 8:33:48
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/298045.html
>
> [that] was actually a genuine propositon...That's how I took it...
> I just thought that perhaps you were more interested in verbiage than in perception.
Perception is interesting, I just think it's better not to base administrative decisions on it...
> Maybe there is some sort of psychological model of interaction that is being enforced as an experiment or simply as a philosophy. I wasn't sure, so I figured I'd ask.
>
> So, now, will you answer my questions? :-)Well, this whole thing is kind of an experiment, you know. Trying to develop a supportive online community, I mean...
For people to feel supported, they need at least to feel safe. For people to feel safe, limits need to be set. Specific limits imply a specific "model of interaction".
Maybe having a model of interaction work here would be the primary goal and having it generalize would be a secondary goal? Does that count as an answer?
> Is there some sort of published guideline to civil communication or prescriptive model of interaction that you refer to?
Not really, but there's a link in the FAQ, but the original seems to be gone, but Shar thoughtfully saved a copy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/521.html
> I guess I'm still upset at you for blocking Larry Hoover.
I'm sorry that happened, too.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2004, at 4:47:15
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal?, posted by socialdeviantjeff on January 15, 2004, at 1:59:40
> I was on the butt end of a particularily nasty attack for which I had no fault. Not that I really blame the guy, and we did sort it out later.
Sorry again about that, and thanks for sorting it out...
> I feel it may have caused some people to not want to post with me.
I hope that's not the case. The posting name you chose for yourself might, um, not help... :-)
Bob
Posted by tabitha on January 15, 2004, at 6:03:16
In reply to Re: goals -- and how to try to achieve them, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2004, at 4:42:00
This article has some sections that seem relevant to Bob's standards. The first part explains the difference between an observation and an evaluation, and the second tells how to express feelings with I-statements.
http://www.geocities.com/lifeskillspage/CommunicateWell.htm
Here's a book excerpt with exercises on the same concepts. It's a pretty large PDF file.
http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/books/2a_nvc_exercises.pdf
Posted by SLS on January 15, 2004, at 8:22:52
In reply to Re: goals -- and how to try to achieve them, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2004, at 4:42:00
> > I just thought that perhaps you were more interested in verbiage than in perception.
> Perception is interesting, I just think it's better not to base administrative decisions on it...
> > So, now, will you answer my questions? :-)
> Maybe having a model of interaction work here would be the primary goal and having it generalize would be a secondary goal? Does that count as an answer?Absolutely.
:-)
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by gabbix2 on January 15, 2004, at 12:25:34
In reply to Re: people not wanting to post with me, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2004, at 4:47:15
Dr.Bob You Edit Posts all the time, and claim to care about people's feelings, why are you stuck on not editing the post directed at SD JEFF?
What he chose to call himself is NOT the issue.
You changed the subject
IF you feel the need to leave the offending posts up as a warning to people as to what they may encounter if they choose to join Babble (The only reason I can think of)
Can you not at least asterisk out his NAME? You certainly go through enough other posts with a fine tooth comb editing out the offending *S* 's
and *t*s
Yet you left this one standing out like a Bloody Head. It doesn't matter that thread turned over, it will still show up on the search engines.
Your concerns about people feeling *safe* seem pretty inconsistant when things like this happen.
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2004, at 13:04:01
In reply to Re: people not wanting to post with me.. Dr Bob!!, posted by gabbix2 on January 15, 2004, at 12:25:34
Gabbi, it may be impossible to change a subject line. Dr. Bob's only choice was to delete the entire thread. Honestly, I think that if Jeff requested that the thread be deleted perhaps Dr. Bob should have deleted it. Perhaps he left it up because it showed excellent civility skills on Jeff's part and he wanted to provide a positive example of working things out.
Just a guess.
And Jeff, I seriously doubt that anyone chooses not to post to you because of that thread. Your behavior on it was examplary, as I recall, and it may be more likely to make people want to post to you.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 15, 2004, at 13:16:42
In reply to Re: people not wanting to post with me.. Dr Bob!!, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2004, at 13:04:01
Jeff did request that it be deleted,
and I agree Jeff did show excellent civility skills and I agree with you I thought even more highly of him because of the incident, Regardless no matter what my opinion may be or Dr. Bob's, if safety is a concern than I think Jeff's conditions for feeling *safe* are as important as anyone else's.
Posted by Karen_kay on January 15, 2004, at 15:59:55
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal?, posted by socialdeviantjeff on January 15, 2004, at 1:59:40
I think your name has nothing to do with whether or not people chose to post to you. I know that personally I respond to as many posts as I can. And of course I do have favorite posts that I tend to keep returning to, as they are fun to keep going and adding to. Also, your forgiving attitude regarding the post in question shows your wonderful character. I applaud you. I wish I had that amount of self restraint. Could you teach me?
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2004, at 17:18:49
In reply to Re: people not wanting to post with me.. Dr Bob!! » Dinah, posted by gabbix2 on January 15, 2004, at 13:16:42
I didn't say otherwise Gabbi. I said that if Jeff wanted it deleted I thought Dr. Bob should probably delete it.
Posted by gabbix2 on January 15, 2004, at 17:31:46
In reply to Re: people not wanting to post with me.. Dr Bob!! » gabbix2, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2004, at 17:18:49
I was mistaken I think someone else made that request, (about the entire thread being deleted)
I hadn't thought you'd said otherwise though, sorry if I sounded as if I had.
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.