![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 192 to 216 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 13:35:20
In reply to Re: how we dicuss this, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 12:20:36
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 13:39:18
In reply to Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
I'll step out on a limb here and say that if each person was to have a daily limit that this place would get pretty dead.
Another idea! <just kidding> instead of blocking for lack of civility, the daily limit can be reduced. Start with one post/day and each day of civility adds one more!
meanwhile I think I've just hit my 3
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 14:09:28
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices, posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 12:16:03
I don't think either one is better, but I think if the idea is to keep any one person from posting over and over and over then I think the second one is better. Most people <I've never seen an example to the contrary> would just give up after about 6-8 tries and no response.
However if there is a response.....
In case nobody has noticed, this whole thing didn't get messy until others jumped in.
The first way it becomes a dialogue and can go on forever.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 14:09:45
In reply to Re: how we dicuss this, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 12:20:36
All Done,
You wrote,[...Thanks for listening...].
I listened and you are welcome.
You wrote,[...No matter what anyone says, I cannot...believe that this is truly a general discussion. It feels like a witch hunt to me...].
There is a test to determine if something is a witch-hunt. Could you point out what you think is being done in this discussion that could qualify the discussion to be a witch-hunt? If we list those things, then we can see if your feelings are correct.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 14:11:56
In reply to Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
What if there is a person that really needs help right away. Three posts are a lot more likely to be ignored than 10. It seems too cruel to limit this person.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 14:13:58
In reply to Lou's response to All Done-wtchnt » All Done, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 14:09:45
It sure seems that all pretense of this being 'hypothetical' has gone down the tubes.
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 14:20:44
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Toph's post-2 » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 12:07:30
Lou, I've said about as much as I'd like to say about the subject of unconventional posting styles. It seems to me that you are intelligent enough to know what you do, why you do it and what it does to many of those who encounter it. Again, I don't believe that I've ever objected to any of the content of your posts. Toph
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 14:56:18
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 14:13:58
Aunti Mel,
You wrote,[...It sure seems that all prestense of this being "hypothetical" has gone down the tubes...].
I understand the use of the word "pretense" hear, but I am not familiar with the phrase,[...gone down the tubes...]. Could you help me here in understanding that phrase?
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 15:02:34
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 14:13:58
> It sure seems that all pretense of this being 'hypothetical' has gone down the tubes.
How so?
Like I've said before, it is not the fault of any one person that the boards were vulnerable to abuse. It is just that recent posting behaviors have demonstrated a previously unrecognized or under-appreciated need.
- Scott
Posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 15:06:28
In reply to Lou's response to All Done-wtchnt » All Done, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 14:09:45
> All Done,
> You wrote,[...Thanks for listening...].
> I listened and you are welcome.
> You wrote,[...No matter what anyone says, I cannot...believe that this is truly a general discussion. It feels like a witch hunt to me...].
> There is a test to determine if something is a witch-hunt. Could you point out what you think is being done in this discussion that could qualify the discussion to be a witch-hunt? If we list those things, then we can see if your feelings are correct.
> Best regards,
> Lou
>
Hi, Lou.First off, I hope in my attempt to respond to you, I do not offend the entire PB population. I don’t know that I’m very good at following the civility guidelines, so most of the time I don’t say much. That is the reason I will add the disclaimer (for what it’s worth) that I do not believe everyone is in support of the new rule for the same reasons and I can see both sides of the argument in some cases. I do not believe that everyone is in support of the new rule just to stop you from posting the way you have in the past.
That said, while I am personally unaware of any test to determine if something is a witch hunt, I will attempt to answer your question of why I feel this is like a witch hunt. There have been quite a few posts that use, in support of the three-post limit, examples that are strikingly similar to (or in some cases actually) some of your past posts or your posting style, which has a unique quality to it. It seems rather obvious to me that some have taken offense specifically to your posting style and would like to implement a rule that would basically affect only you and your posting style at this point in time. Although the rule may have other benefits or purposes, they find it mainly to be an effective way of stopping you from posting the way you had in the past. Okay. I think I’m walking a the fine civility line here - may have even crossed it - so I’ll stop.
Please note, though, that while I have attempted to explain why this *feels* *like* a witch hunt to me, I don’t exactly understand how we can determine if my "feelings are correct". They are just my feelings and I am not saying that this is, in fact, a witch hunt.
Take care,
Laurie
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 15:17:39
In reply to Re: All Done's response to Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 15:06:28
> First off, I hope in my attempt to respond to you, I do not offend the entire PB population. I don’t know that I’m very good at following the civility guidelines, so most of the time I don’t say much.
I'm not a moderator, but I found your post to be very well composed and entirely civil.
> There have been quite a few posts that use, in support of the three-post limit, examples that are strikingly similar to (or in some cases actually) some of your past posts or your posting style, which has a unique quality to it.
Was my visual demonstration something that you were referring to?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 15:25:47
In reply to Re: All Done's response to Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 15:06:28
Hi, All Done,
You wrote,[It seems... obvious to me...some ...would like to implement a rule that would basically affect only you and your posting style...].
I would like to do a thread on this, but the limitation of the 3-post rule could have the potential for me not to be able to do that. The reason being that I have a rare neurological condition that causes me to post in the "unique?" manner of mine.
Lou
Posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 15:26:19
In reply to Re: All Done's response to Lou » All Done, posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 15:17:39
> I'm not a moderator, but I found your post to be very well composed and entirely civil.
>> Thank you, Scott. I really appreciate you saying that. :)
> Was my visual demonstration something that you were referring to?>> Nope. In all honesty, I did not have any particular post in mind.
Take care,
Laurie
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 16:08:43
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » Dinahmari, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 12:44:07
Well, clearly I don't have a problem with frequent posters or I wouldn't be one. :) I had always rather thought they were a *good* thing, or again, I would have self censored myself.
But Dr. Bob has stated that he doesn't want less frequent posters to be cramped by more frequent ones. And that he wishes to implement rules to encourage less frequent posters to post more by encouraging more frequent posters to post less. I don't quite understand the rationale for this particular incarnation of the rule, because this sort of posting behavior is not *the* type that interferes most with his stated goals. Indeed, he admits that it happens infrequently. So how it hinders less frequent posters from posting more frequently is beyond me. But perhaps he will add more rules later to help the less frequent poster feel less constrained by more frequent posters.
My contribution is merely to suggest alternatives that automate the implementation of the rule so that one (and that one could well be me) is not publicly embarassed by being told by Dr. Bob that one is posting too much.
Of course, if I had my druthers, Dr. Bob's program would also scan posts for naughty words and put up reminders before you hit confirm so that nobody receives a PBC for inadvertanly forgetting to replace a letter with a *.
And my question is "Wouldn't it be better and more compassionate for the computer to tell one *before* one posts that one is over one's limit (whatever that limit may be) than to wait until after the fact to have Dr. Bob publicly point that out?"
The only reason I suggested the daily posting limit is that it might be hard for the computer to figure out this byzantine rule. It's hard for me to figure it out, count posts, try to figure out if I'm replying to different posters and am thus exempt, etc.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 16:42:32
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices, posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 12:16:03
> I'm not sure what the best answer is.
>
> This is just a visual:
>
>
> * Test Anyone
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test Anyone
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test Anyone
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test Anyone
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test Anyone
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test Anyone
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test Anyone
>
>
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test Anyone
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
> * Test SLS
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
In your post above, you wrote that this is just a visual.
I am not familiar with this type of post that you made. Could you tell me what that type of post mean?
thanks in advance,
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 16:47:18
In reply to Lou's request to Scott » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 16:42:32
> > I'm not sure what the best answer is.
> >
> > This is just a visual:> In your post above, you wrote that this is just a visual.
> I am not familiar with this type of post that you made. Could you tell me what that type of post mean?
I was trying to demonstrate what a webpage would look like when many consecutive posts are submitted.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 16:51:35
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 16:08:43
> But Dr. Bob has stated that he doesn't want less frequent posters to be cramped by more frequent ones. And that he wishes to implement rules to encourage less frequent posters to post more by encouraging more frequent posters to post less.
I think the idea is to limit consecutive posts, not posting in general.
- Scott
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 17:07:42
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices, posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 16:51:35
I'm speaking of Dr. Bob's stated intent. I'll cut and paste and email it to you, but give me a little while to do it. However, since I've received confirmation of the intent, I'm not in any serious doubt that I'm mistaken in that. Specifics perhaps, but not intent.
If you read the last two posts by Dr. Bob in light of what I wrote in my posts, I think you'll see what I'm alluding to.
I believe that those who think this is a scope limited rule are mistaken. If I'm reading him right, Dr. Bob has a greater goal in mind. Probably one that has been in mind for some time, and is part of the Newbie board idea.
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 17:18:19
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices, posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 16:51:35
Actually, Scott, after thinking it over, I think it's better for Dr. Bob to clarify his thinking.
I need to put a timer on responding to posts, I think.
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 17:43:03
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » SLS, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 17:18:19
> Actually, Scott, after thinking it over, I think it's better for Dr. Bob to clarify his thinking.
OK.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 30, 2004, at 23:52:56
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » alesta, posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
> the contentiousness of your behavior
> you seem determined to debate, argue, complain
> you repeatedly post ad nauseum.
> You got carried away.Thanks for your support, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 30, 2004, at 23:53:02
In reply to There are no rules here! Calm down folks! pt1.0573, posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
> Hsuing's whims.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 30, 2004, at 23:53:13
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 16:08:43
> there are emotional times that really do not lend themselves to accomodating the concept of limit.
>
> LarEmotional times might be exceptions. OTOH, other limits, for example, on name-calling, do I think make sense even then...
> I am summarizing my understanding of what you have said.
>
> Frequent posters "cramp" less frequent ones
>
> A more equitable "sharing" of the board is desirable so as to encourage less frequent posters to post more.
>
> It is a good thing to allow others to help, even if it means being less helpful yourself.
>
> Less frequent posters may be intimidated by frequent posters, and the fact that frequent posters may often welcome them, answer their questions, or respond to threads with few responses does not offset this intimidation factor.Posting more than 3 consecutive times to the same thread may discourage less confident posters from joining in. At that point, giving others a chance allows them also to help -- and to feel good about doing so.
Welcoming posters, answering questions, and responding to threads with few responses all make the board a better place, are appreciated by me -- and can I think be done without posting 4 consecutive times.
> Is it possible to have a computer enforced limit of some sort so as to avoid public humiliation of being told you talk too much?
That's an idea, but unfortunately isn't something I could do right away, sorry. Also, my intent is not to humiliate anyone, and I apologize if I have.
> Of course, if I had my druthers, Dr. Bob's program would also scan posts for naughty words and put up reminders before you hit confirm so that nobody receives a PBC for inadvertanly forgetting to replace a letter with a *.
>
> DinahThat has come up before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/298131.html
and is already on my to-do list...
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on October 1, 2004, at 0:21:09
In reply to Re: how we dicuss this, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 12:20:36
> Lou is handling this with more grace and dignity ...
You bet your britches he is! Thanks for pointing it out.
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 1, 2004, at 0:49:18
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 30, 2004, at 23:53:13
Thank you for clarifying Dr. Bob.
> Posting more than 3 consecutive times to the same thread may discourage less confident posters from joining in. At that point, giving others a chance allows them also to help -- and to feel good about doing so.
Why would this particular posting style discourage less confident posters from joining in more than any other prolific posting style? In your laudable quest to encourage less confident posters to post more frequently, can we expect to see other rules designed to give them more space? If I understood why you are singling out this one particular aspect of prolific posters, I would have a greater understanding of your attitudes in general and potential future legislation. Not to mention a greater confidence in whether or not any particular posting behavior on my part is displeasing to you.
>
> Welcoming posters, answering questions, and responding to threads with few responses all make the board a better place, are appreciated by me -- and can I think be done without posting 4 consecutive times.
>
Yes, certainly. But how many times does this come up in that context? I would guess it would come up more often if people forget to put on posting names and add ^^^ above for... or need to clarify something that they think may have not come out the way they intended or technical issues like that. Then there are meltdowns. (I gave you an url for an example). What would you do in that situation? And then there are the diaries, like Ilene's diary or Mouse's journal about ??? what was that medication? Keppra? Those are very useful types of posts that may involve more than three consecutive posts without an answer. Yet Mouse's experience may serve many people through search engines in the archives. Would you have had Mouse stop with day 3, and lost all that information for posterity? Are you going to tell Ilene to stop posting her diary?And again, why the emphasis on this particular aspect of posting? And what other posting habits are held in disapprobation by you? This can't possibly be the only thing that you believe inhibits less confident posters from posting. I would prefer not to engage in behavior that I later discover you have disliked all along.
> > Is it possible to have a computer enforced limit of some sort so as to avoid public humiliation of being told you talk too much?
>
> That's an idea, but unfortunately isn't something I could do right away, sorry. Also, my intent is not to humiliate anyone, and I apologize if I have.I'm not saying you've humiliated anyone *yet*, if only because you haven't been all that specific. I'd actually like you to be more specific, although of course, I'd prefer you do it without humiliating anyone. I'm saying you could humiliate someone. What better way to drive off a new exuberant poster than telling them, in effect, that they talk too much and to shut up. They haven't been offensive in any way, insulted anyone, used foul language. How would this work? Would it be worded as a Please Be Civil? It hardly seems like a Please Be Civil violation. There is nothing inherently uncivil about it. Will it be reserved for your judgement only, or would deputies be enforcing it? Are you really going to be searching every post for "reply to"'s?
>
> > Of course, if I had my druthers, Dr. Bob's program would also scan posts for naughty words and put up reminders before you hit confirm so that nobody receives a PBC for inadvertanly forgetting to replace a letter with a *.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> That has come up before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/298131.html
>
> and is already on my to-do list...
>
> BobGood. If you could add the other to your to do list too, I'd be appreciative.
Also, a suggestion. Before making a new rule, perhaps it would be wise to get input *first* rather than making the rule, then watching the comments flare up. Who knows, posters might have good ideas that you could incorporate into the rule, or you might discover it's a bad idea without having to appear to back down, if that's an issue for you. I'm not saying it is. I have no idea of your issues, of course.
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.