![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 24, 2004, at 19:51:23
In reply to Support, posted by Toph on September 23, 2004, at 17:29:51
> Well, wouldn't a contributor who manifests this disorder through an unconventional posting style also be afforded compassion and support here of all places?
As far as the unconvential posting style is concerned I'm in complete agreement with you.
Posted by Glydin on September 24, 2004, at 21:53:58
In reply to Lou agrees with Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2004, at 15:32:53
>But the point that I see here that Dr. Hsiung is making is that there would have to first determine if that it is problematic.
~~~True, but I don't plan to take the suggestion of asking that of the poster.
> I do not see anyone's posting style here to be problematic to me.
~~~I do, but that is a personal opinion held by me as is the fact that I think the poster should seek help.
>Who is this person?
~~~Since I don't plan to ask the person directly, it would be improper to name the poster.
Posted by Toph on September 25, 2004, at 15:59:19
In reply to Support, posted by Toph on September 23, 2004, at 17:29:51
> If a poster shared their agony over having, say, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in which they repeatedly washed their hands or were compelled to collect things, I assume that contibutors here would be supportive. Well, wouldn't a contributor who manifests this disorder through an unconventional posting style also be afforded compassion and support here of all places?
>
un·con·ven·tion·al
Pronunciation: -'vench-n&l, -'ven(t)-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: not conventional : not bound by or in accordance with convention : being out of the ordinary
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 25, 2004, at 16:21:53
In reply to Support, posted by Toph on September 23, 2004, at 17:29:51
> If a poster shared their agony over having, say, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in which they repeatedly washed their hands or were compelled to collect things, I assume that contibuters here would be supportive. Well, wouldn't a contributor who manifests this disorder through an unconventional posting style also be afforded compassion and support here of all places?
I'm interested that you chose to reiterate your own post, emphasizing the idea of conventional behaviour. Hmmm. It reminds that there are two parties in such a determination; the conventional, and the unconventional. Just as I fully support anyone's right to swing their fists about, that right ends at the tip of my nose. The issue cannot be satisfactorily addressed by considering only the characteristics of one party in the "debate", such as the arm swinger. Persistent requests for clarification are unsettling to some, according to what I read. Even non-persistent requests for clarification may be unsettling to the most sensitive among us. Those considerations, though, do not bear on the "conventionality" of the posting form. I don't know where the line of civility ought to be drawn, but I dare say that I would place it much lower than that seen in a post sequence terminating with "Dr Hsiung's decision-12". I would place the threshold at one request per post by the other party. If the party does not respond, the inquiry should be terminated, under penalty if continued. One request is reasonable. No one need respond to such a request. Two requests (without intervening reply) is harassment, and ought to be considered to be uncivil.
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 18:07:29
In reply to Re: Support » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on September 25, 2004, at 16:21:53
Good Points. I find the unconvential style nothing more than an eccentricity if it's not considered problematic by the poster. However if the style has seemed to develop because of repeated requests for clarification, I can see why people feel uncomfortable with it.
Posted by Toph on September 25, 2004, at 21:41:22
In reply to Re: Support » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on September 25, 2004, at 16:21:53
Lar, if a PB neophyte may be so bold as to address you, I am too new and perhaps not astute enough about civility as it is applied here to discuss when an unconventional posting style is uncivil. I will say this, if a poster uses an unconvetional style with another poster my guess is that the incivility threshold might be lower than when that style is used in an attempt to lure Dr. Bob into a response. Second, I confess that my post was a kind of experiment to see if a somewhat veiled critical message to an individual could avoid a PBC through the use of a hypothetical and rhetorical questions. Finally, I really do think a forum that purports to be supportive of its participants needs to be tolerant to some degree of eccentric comunication styles.
It seems that there are certain rites of passage here. So far, if been booted off for getting offended by someone and making the mistake of telling them, and now I have had the pleasure of receiving a message from one of the more famous/infamous babblers. Thanks for responding.
Posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 7:03:43
In reply to Re: Support » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on September 25, 2004, at 16:21:53
As things stand now, anyone can launch a filibuster comprised of an unlimited number of posts. This concerns me.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 8:16:42
In reply to Re: Support, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 7:03:43
> As things stand now, anyone can launch a filibuster comprised of an unlimited number of posts. This concerns me.
As a matter of fact, anyone can maliciously vandalize the board in this manner under the current posting policies.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 26, 2004, at 8:26:09
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 25, 2004, at 21:41:22
> Lar, if a PB neophyte may be so bold as to address you, I am too new and perhaps not astute enough about civility as it is applied here to discuss when an unconventional posting style is uncivil. I will say this, if a poster uses an unconvetional style with another poster my guess is that the incivility threshold might be lower than when that style is used in an attempt to lure Dr. Bob into a response. Second, I confess that my post was a kind of experiment to see if a somewhat veiled critical message to an individual could avoid a PBC through the use of a hypothetical and rhetorical questions. Finally, I really do think a forum that purports to be supportive of its participants needs to be tolerant to some degree of eccentric comunication styles.
>
> It seems that there are certain rites of passage here. So far, if been booted off for getting offended by someone and making the mistake of telling them, and now I have had the pleasure of receiving a message from one of the more famous/infamous babblers. Thanks for responding.I would sorely hate to misread your intent, but there are some disconcerting implications that I perceived. I hope that you would not feel constrained by being a newish member when you feel that you have a message to express. I would hope that you would not feel particularly hesitant to address me, or any other "established" member, for we too have but single voices.
Yes, a veiled criticism, employing either or both of hypotheticals or rhetorical questions, is a civil way to explore sensitive issues. It requires some care in phrasing, but that's a very good skill to develop. Despite my persistent disagreements with management, I dare say my own skills have developed along the way. I could protest that I ought not to have had to develop them, but I shall retain those abilities even after I leave this place.
Lar
Posted by verne on September 26, 2004, at 9:01:49
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 25, 2004, at 21:41:22
I feel that repeated requests to administration for admonishment of another poster - sometimes for one post - can be disruptive to communication.
If my posts were constantly being submitted to administration for "admonishment review" I would feel unsupported, put down, and accused.
Verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 9:27:41
In reply to Re: Support » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on September 26, 2004, at 8:26:09
Larry Hoover,
You wrote,[...Yes, a veiled criticism emploting either or both of hypotheticals or rhetorical questions is a civil way to explore...issues..].
The {vieling} part is the {not naming the person}? If this is what you are rerreing to, I disagreee with you on using this way of discussion. Just by leaving a persons name out, does not in my understanding allow others {who the post's content could be identifying} to allow defaming, accusitive or other statements about the poster, even if the poster's name is not printed. If the person that is {veiled} could be in someway identified by other parts mentioned, then would not the viel be too thin?
Lou
Posted by karaS on September 26, 2004, at 17:15:34
In reply to Re: Support, posted by verne on September 26, 2004, at 9:01:49
I don't think there is a perfect solution here. Whatever the decision, either side may feel that their rights have been restricted. The multiple poster may feel constrained or those who are subjected to the endless posts may feel violated.
I don't want any poster here to feel that they can't express themselves (especially if they have OCD or some other disorder that provokes the need to post again and again). On the otherhand, the board should not be able to be hijacked and monopolized by one individual out of fairness to all of the others.
The only fair solution I see here is a compromise that would allow multiple but not endless postings. It's not perfect but I think it's the best that can be done under the circumstances.
Scott, you are probably going to ask what I think that number should be. I'm open to suggestion here but I would personally like to see no more than 5 posts that try to elicit the same response.
Kara
Posted by Toph on September 26, 2004, at 22:54:03
In reply to Support, posted by Toph on September 23, 2004, at 17:29:51
Aren't all participants with personality disorders (narcissistic, borderline, paranoid, schizotypic, etc) going to have some trouble conforming to the inflexible rules and social norms of Psycho-Babble?
Posted by Dinah on September 26, 2004, at 23:02:18
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 26, 2004, at 22:54:03
Posted by Toph on September 27, 2004, at 6:52:25
In reply to Nawww, some of us thrive on it. :D (nm) » Toph, posted by Dinah on September 26, 2004, at 23:02:18
Posted by verne on September 27, 2004, at 8:01:57
In reply to Re: Support, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 7:03:43
I agree, "filibusters" harm the community as a whole.
I know of another site that offers games with an accompanying chat window. In their terms of service the following is against the rules:
"Disrupting the flow of chat in chat rooms with hitting the return key repeatedly or flooding [posting repetitive text]." When this happens the game slows down and the others are prevented from communicating.
In another place it says: "Improperly use in game support or complaint buttons to make false reports about other members."
I feel unsupported, shamed, and accused, having my posts repeatedly submitted to administration for admonishment. I feel less like posting.Verne
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 8:54:30
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 26, 2004, at 22:54:03
> Aren't all participants with personality disorders (narcissistic, borderline, paranoid, schizotypic, etc) going to have some trouble conforming to the inflexible rules and social norms of Psycho-Babble?
Potentially. Yours truly, who has PTSD, and its triggering effect, certainly has had problems. Being triggered means you can lose control entirely. Anybody can learn to accommodate their challenges in the context of Babble, though. The requirement that every post be confirmed before sending is one very potent management opportunity.
Bob has oft times said that Babble may not be a good fit for everyone, though. And, unfortunately, I would argue that some of the rules are anything but inflexible. I have yet to grasp their definition at all. We're debating one such case at the moment.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 9:35:39
In reply to Re: Support, posted by karaS on September 26, 2004, at 17:15:34
But I think there might be more than one perfect answer. And it all revolves around clarifying the question. I see two distinctions in this discussion.
Sometimes it seems that people are talking about asking the *same* question over and over again - either to Dr. Bob or another question. Kind of "are you going to answer my question Dr. Bob?"
Other times it seems that people are talking about a posting style that might or might not be caused by a person's disease. This seems to me to be more like finishing the post before the entire thought process. More like a "wait - I forgot to say - Dr. Bob" type of post.
Both involve multiple postings, but seem to me to be for different reasons. Should they be considered together?
Posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 9:39:54
In reply to Re: Maybe it's just me...... » karaS, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 9:35:39
> But I think there might be more than one perfect answer. And it all revolves around clarifying the question. I see two distinctions in this discussion.
>
> Sometimes it seems that people are talking about asking the *same* question over and over again - either to Dr. Bob or another question. Kind of "are you going to answer my question Dr. Bob?"
>
> Other times it seems that people are talking about a posting style that might or might not be caused by a person's disease. This seems to me to be more like finishing the post before the entire thought process. More like a "wait - I forgot to say - Dr. Bob" type of post.
>
> Both involve multiple postings, but seem to me to be for different reasons. Should they be considered together?
I don't think the necessity of imposing posting limits requires a judgment of intent.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 9:59:55
In reply to Re: Maybe it's just me......, posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 9:39:54
Good heavens! You aren't thinking of posting daily post limits are you? There are days I'm sure I'd go over my quota! I'd be bereft! Besides, charting my daily number of posts is a good way to judge my hypomania or depression.
Hey, Dr. Bob! You ought to add that to your monitoring package. A Daily Number of Posts chart for each month for a poster. I find that way more easy to understand than those frustrating questions with subjective answers that make me tear out my hair in frustration and give me horribly inappropriate testing results.
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:21:13
In reply to Re: Maybe it's just me...... » karaS, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 9:35:39
But I don't see a major problem here. I haven't really seen where Lou makes multiple requests to a fellow poster for clarification, because he knows that would violate the civility guidelines. And since Dr. Bob has complete control of the board, if Dr. Bob felt harassed by multiple posts, he can do something about it.
I admit that I wouldn't feel good about having one of my posts brought to Dr. Bob's attention. It would scare me and make me sad.
But most of the posts Lou brings for Dr. Bob to review are about Lou, or appear to be about Lou, so the solution seems easy to me. And the others are like any other of us complaining about a post. I've done it myself. I think it might be a good general rule to do it in email rather than on the boards, but that's part of Admin's purpose. It never feels good, but it's not against the rules.
Lou is Lou, just as Dinah is Dinah. I see nothing wrong with that. I like Lou just fine as he is. As long as he follows the civility guidelines, which he is always very scrupulous to do, I see no reason why he shouldn't fill the Admin board with posts to Dr. Bob. I often wish the Admin board would archive more quickly anyway. I hate seeing the detritis from past disagreements.
Lou, my only advice to you would be to open your heart to others even more than you usually do and give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes people are genuinely trying to start a dialogue with you, even if it could be interpreted differently, or they may not have put it as well as they could have. One way to judge might be to look at the poster's previous posts. If someone consistently posts kindly, wouldn't it be unlikely that they would suddenly change? Or if they have supported you in the past, wouldn't it be unlikely that they would suddenly put you down?
For example. I'm a dedicated and avowed Semitophile. If I were to write something that appeared anti-Semitic, wouldn't it be likely that I either phrased something poorly or there was a misunderstanding?
The same goes for some of the very kind people on this board. To name just two off the top of my head, I find it hard to believe that Scott (SLS) and Toph would intentionally be unkind. If you opened your heart to them, I don't think you'd be disappointed. (Isn't there something about that in one of the gates? I could be mistaken.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:23:48
In reply to Re: Support » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 8:54:30
> Another site I use limits the number of posts by people on their main board
>
> Nikki> a restriction of sequential posts by one poster would be fair, and perhaps even be a kindness.
> > What would your idea be as to how many posts that one poster should be restricted to to be fair?
>
> Well I've always been fond of the number three.
>
> ibbaG> I don't want any poster here to feel that they can't express themselves... On the otherhand, the board should not be able to be hijacked and monopolized by one individual out of fairness to all of the others.
>
> The only fair solution I see here is a compromise that would allow multiple but not endless postings. It's not perfect but I think it's the best that can be done under the circumstances.
>
> I would personally like to see no more than 5 posts that try to elicit the same response.
>
> Kara> since this is the only way that my limitations can allow mw to post, then I would not be allowed to be an equal member here if some quota system was implemented or that my style of posting could not be used because I would not be able to express myself in the restriction that I would be requiered to abide by.
>
> Lou> Bob has oft times said that Babble may not be a good fit for everyone
>
> LarThanks, everyone, for your comments and suggestions. Let's try a limit of 3 consecutive follow-ups to a post (or new threads). And see how it goes...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:54:10
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:23:48
But Dr. Bob!!!!!
I protest!!!!!!!!
This will be a serious impediment to my posting!
What if one of my dear friends needs an archive again after you refuse to delete subject headings?
What if I have many brilliant and insightful things to say all at once and want to give lots and lots of help?
What if I need lots and lots of help?
What if I mess up the Amazon link three times?
What if I forget to count?
I don't like this new rule!!! I think it descriminates against my posting style!
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:55:36
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:54:10
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:00:19
In reply to Re: oooh, i'm devastated!!!! (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:55:36
Seriously, Dr. Bob. Cr*ppy rule.
Sometimes Social is a place where people play around and make multiple posts at once. For example they might propose a name for something, then come back with other suggestions, all in the title line. This isn't uncivil.
Or sometimes during my meltdowns I feel the need to clarify my posts many many times. Or to add to them or to ask for reassurance. I know my meltdowns aren't fun for *anyone*. But the new rule could have serious mental health implications for me that I'd really rather not deal with just because of an abritrary post number.
I think an arbitrary post number of three is a horrible horrible idea.
There is already a harassment clause that can be used in posts directed to another poster. Can't you also use it as you deem necessary to protect yourself?
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.