![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 152 to 176 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:27:11
This is following the post at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512950.html I hope you don't mind that I started a separate thread on the subject, since it seems to be referenced in numerous places and the discussion is therefore hard to follow.
Here is the last suggestion for a 3-complaint rule (that I know of) that you’ve posted:
One possibility might be to accept complaints that are "upheld", but to limit those that aren't. What if a 3rd (about a particular other poster's posts) that isn't were considered uncivil?
And here’s what I described as an unintended consequence of the rule as suggested.
> > For instance, after the third time I asked you if a particular posters' habitually questioning others' posts was uncivil, and having you say "I think it's acceptable," I could no longer try to change that habit, without getting blocked... Even if that was only my third request in a year and the habitual questioner was questioning others' posts every day!
Your response to this was “Right.” But has anyone else got an example of an unintended consequence that concerns them?
Anyway, I was talking about trying to change a behavior that some feel is uncivil, and not necessarily about posts that are about me or something I’ve said. This scenario is a little different. What would happen under the 3-complaint rule as proposed? I am Poster A. Twice I have asked Administration to make a call on Poster B’s posts – that weren’t about me or something I’d written. Twice Admin has ruled that his/her posts were civil. Would I ever again be able to question a Poster B post? Even if it’s about me or something I’ve said? Would I need to be 100 percent sure (if that’s possible) that he/she has been uncivil without risking a PBC or block?
> > He/she [a person habitually questioning other people's posts] would only have to make sure he/she never questioned a particular person's posts more than twice.
> That still would be an improvement, wouldn't it?
It depends on your point of view.
Let’s assume there are 1,000 members on this site. Let’s say that Poster A questions each member’s posts two times. That would be 2,000 acceptability requests. If Poster A only made one request a day, the site would face them until about January 2011. Then again, if he/she decides to question only half of the members’ posts, at the same rate, the site would only face about 32 months of such requests. Of course, that’s only if Poster A alone decides to exercise this right, at this rate – and assuming no new members join.
> > I see a rule like this as having a more conditions on it, like:
> >
> > If a particular poster *habitually questions (any) others' posts
> > And he/she does so without first asking the other to clarify
> > Or he/she was not even an active poster on that part of the thread
> > Or he/she is not the subject of the post or thread
> > Then that poster can be warned and/or blocked.> I understand the potential benefit of asking for clarification, but in practice, that hasn't always been welcomed, either.
>
> I don't think someone needs to be active or the subject to have a valid opinion about the civility of a post.
>
> And the more conditions there are, the more complicated the whole thing gets...OK, I’ll drop the first two conditions and reformat the suggestion. The following is less complicated and allows people to publicly question as many posts as they’d like that are about themselves or something they’ve posted, or even posts that they just perceive to be about themselves or something they’ve written.
If a member makes habitual, public requests to Administration about the acceptability of others' posts, then that member is subject to a warning or a block, unless the member perceives that the posts are about himself or herself, or something he/she has written.
“Habitual” here means x times in an x (day/week/month) period. (Whatever Admin thinks is fair.)
BTW: What would the proposed 3-complaint rule look like when formally written? Here’s what I came up with:
If during “a calendar year” [substitute whatever Admin thinks is fair] Poster A questions Poster B’s posts two or more times, and those requests lead to two judgments by Administration that the questioned posts were civil, then any subsequent request by Poster A about Poster B, which follows with a judgment that the questioned post was civil, shall result in Poster A being blocked.
Of course, if there are any other conditions that you think would make this fair, they should be written into the rule. (For instance, what if Poster A makes a request for a ruling about a post that he/she perceives to be about him/herself?)
> > whatever we do, I think the person whose post is being questioned should be notified they're being scrutinized, so that they may defend themselves.
> If the complaint isn't upheld, then do they need to defend themselves? If it is, then they'd be notified and could respond (either here or by email)...
I’d like to. And I think others would like to as well, though some may not. Maybe that could be part of the registration process. A question like, “If your posts are brought to the attention of Administration for a ruling on their acceptability would you like to be notified?” If I got a notice, I could defend myself, and I wouldn’t have to keep an eye on Admin to make sure my posts haven’t been challenged.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:48:27
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 8:19:31
> [re: the 3-complaint rule] It was never put into effect.
>
> It wouldn't solve the issue many people seem interested in. But it might solve complaints about the issue.I agree. Of course, I am not keen on that. (Nor would quite a few others be, I imagine.)
> How about my current suggestion below, that each poster be allowed one or two posts about specific posts per month on Admin (not responding to other people's requests perhaps, but one or two complaints that they originate). Then after that, they may still complain as many times as they want, but privately in an email to you.
I pretty much like your suggestion, though I think a person should always be able to publicly challenge a post that is about them or something they've written. (I can't tell if we agree on that.)
> Limiting the complaints about one poster by another would seem to only apply in a minority of cases, and would mainly benefit the administrator of the site, IMHO.
I agree.
> This would seem to address the issue that many people would like to see addressed.
I keep looking it over, and I think I agree!
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 15:19:25
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:03:06
I think it would be nice if there was a limit on requests for determination that are false alarms, rather than requests for determination that alert Dr Bob to posts that are uncivil.
How about 3 false alarms on any particular poster by any particular poster. If there have been 3 false alarms then the request must be made via email?
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 15:42:22
In reply to Re: Dinah - Something we agree on! :-) » Dinah, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:48:27
Friends,
It is suggested here that a rule be made that Dr. Hsiung could use here that could have the effect to limit one's requests to Dr. Hsiung on the administrative board.
For any that are going to reply to this suggestion, I would like for you to ask yourselves the following questions:
A. When people's speech is restrained by the government of a country , has that goverment been sanctioned by other agencys as oppressing their people?
B. What countries are people trying to flee from and come to the United States and France and England and Canada and some other countries so that their speech is not restrained by their governments?
C. Was the amendment to the U. S. constitution made to insure that citizens of the US can live their lives to seek Life Liberty and the persuit of Happiness dependant on their speech not being allowed to have the government restrict it concerning requests to them for a determination?
D. Is the restricting of another's speech to the administration of a mental health forum a sound mental-health practice?
E. Do you see that the administrative board is for the express purpose for requesting determinations from the administartion?
F. Has not restraing people's speech been a tactic used by totalatarian regimes to "silence the opposition." ?
g. Could not there be an alternative to making a rule to keep me and others from hearing, or deminishing our voices on the administrative board to have Dr. Hsiung address his thinking about what is acceptable here or not here?
H. Is not these requests about what is acceptable or not, and not about the poster of the statement in question?
Lou
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 15:43:00
In reply to Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ???, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:27:11
Or Dinah's suggestion (with my comments) at
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/513192.html
?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 15:45:34
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 15:19:25
> I think it would be nice if there was a limit on requests for determination that are false alarms, rather than requests for determination that alert Dr Bob to posts that are uncivil.
>
> How about 3 false alarms on any particular poster by any particular poster. If there have been 3 false alarms then the request must be made via email?Hmmm. I don't quite get it. Could you elaborate at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/513188.html ? (I've started a thread about the 3-complaint rule, and other ideas.)
Thanks.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 15:45:47
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-oprs?, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 15:42:22
This isn't a country Lou, it is a board that is here for support.
When frequent requests for determination are made, the majority of which are false alarms, and other people feel that their ability to support others is being affected then steps must be taken to manage the problem so that the frequent requests do not work to the detriment of the boards.
It is a shame it has to come to this.
But the first priority should be the welfare of the boards and that means all the posters. You count for one Lou, same as everyone else.
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 15:50:29
In reply to Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ???, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:27:11
Not everyone *wants* to know their posts have been brought up for review. Many people avoid Admin, and don't want to know about anything here, unless Dr. Bob thinks there is a problem. In which case they will know.
I personally feel no impulse to defend myself in many cases. I trust Dr. Bob, and I trust other posters.
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 15:53:02
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-oprs?, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 15:42:22
From the FAQ
"Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place."
We are already lacking complete freedom of speech here.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 15:58:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-oprs?, posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 15:45:47
a-k,
You wrote,[ [...this is not a country...for support...].
Is it supportive to restrict or silence another's voice in this community to achieve their ends, or would you like to search for another alternative?
In your opinion, would you want this community to be a model of a totalitarian regime that does not allow their citizens to seek from thir goverment a redress of grievences or a model of a country that supports their citizens to have freedom to speak to their goverment to have redress of grievences, without restraint?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 16:08:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-opr » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 15:53:02
Dinah,
You wrote,[...lacking freedom of speech...].
Dr. Hsiung's FAQ speaks to "expression" in regards to speech here. I think that is different from seeking redresss from the administraion, and I do not see any evidence that Dr. Hsiung wants to have the rule that you and others are trying to get established here. In fact, he has posted many times that it is acceptable here for me to post these requests to him on the administartive board. These determinations have been stated here that they are helpfull to another poster. His reply could be relevant to all the members here. He even posted that another could look at this situation and see other things that what you and the group of people here are trying to establish. I really think that Dr. Hsiung does not want you and the group that advocates this rule to succeed in having him establish it for you. I do not see that it is he that wants this rule at all. If he does, could anyone give me a URL that has him advocating your proposed rule?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 17:14:03
In reply to Lou's response Dinah's post-grpprsur » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 16:08:37
I didn't say he had. In fact, he seems to have embraced an idea that would allow posters who post in the style you post to continue to do so, but would limit others' complaints about it.
Which is fine, except that he is explaining this idea as one to address the concerns of others.
He's free to limit discussions about any particular poster's posting style. It's his board. But I don't think he should try to do it in such a way that misleads others into thinking that he is proposing this rule to address *their* concerns.
I have no particular interest in this personally. Your posting style doesn't bother me.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 18:16:58
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 15:50:29
> Not everyone *wants* to know their posts have been brought up for review. Many people avoid Admin, and don't want to know about anything here, unless Dr. Bob thinks there is a problem. In which case they will know.
>
> I personally feel no impulse to defend myself in many cases. I trust Dr. Bob, and I trust other posters.That's why I thought it would be nice for people who would like to know to have that option. If you don't care to know (unless there's been a ruling against you), you don't get a notice. If you do care (whether there's a ruling against you or not), you do get a notice. And I am talking about public requests, not when someone sends a private email requesting a ruling.
Posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 18:30:10
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Dinah, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 18:16:58
Do you mean no more mail that tells you someone else's post is a please by civil. Or notification that someone is blocked. I for one want to know. I would have wondered what had happened to Larry if it wasn't in my mailbox. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 18:58:40
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Dinah, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 18:16:58
How would that work? Since people don't generally know that their posts are going to be brought up for review...
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 19:17:48
In reply to Lou's reply to a_k- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 15:58:28
> Is it supportive to restrict or silence another's voice in this community to achieve their ends, or would you like to search for another alternative?
It isn't up to Dr Bob to provide support. He just enforces the rules which are supposed to facilitate us supporting one another. It might be supportive to you to continue requesting determinations the way you have been, but whether it is working to promote posters supporting one another is a different matter.
I am open to other alternatives.
Can you think of any??You would still be free to email Dr Bob for determinations. On my policy a 'hit' (ie a request for determination that resulted in a PBC / block) would be fine. It just restricts the number of false alarms.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 19:28:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to a_k- » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 19:17:48
a-k,
You wrote,[....false alarm...].
It is not my intention to show that a post is not in accordance with the guidlines of the forum, but to discover if the thinking of Dr. Hsiung determins if the statement is acceptable or not.
So I can not endorse any hit or miss type of policy, because I am requesting Dr. Hsiung to make that determination because it may fall into the catagory of a statment that is not already determined as far as I can see. I can only know what is visible here, so my requests are for discovery, not to "hit" or miss. I am not looking for a 'hit", for his decision that a statement is acceptable means the same to me that if the statement is not acceptable.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 19:47:40
In reply to Lou's reply to a_k-htorms » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 19:28:29
I think I understand that your posts are attempts at discovery. That you are trying to better understand the civility rules. That you consider that requesting frequent determinations are the best way that you can go about doing that.
So the 'hit' 'false alarm' terminology wasn't really appropriate - and I apologise for that.
If you want to know what Dr Bob thinks about whether a post is civil or not, rather than just informing him of a post that you do consider uncivil, then why can't you do the former via email?
I think...
The admin board is supposed to be more for the latter kind of case.
The former is very time consuming... Can you see that it might take a lower priority with respect to time management? That might be why you have to wait for a response sometimes.Maybe there could be a 'civility determinations' mailing list for people who want to participate???
For people who think there is a benefit to the process.I'm not sure that headway is being made.
Do you really think that asking for determinations is helping you understand the civility rules any better?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 19:51:42
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 18:58:40
> How would that work? Since people don't generally know that their posts are going to be brought up for review...
What I'd proposed to Bob, at the top of the thread, is that as part of the registration process one could be asked, “If your posts are publicly brought to the attention of Administration for a ruling on their acceptability would you like to be notified?” (I just added publicly, 'cause it wasn't in my original proposal.) Then, when Admin gets a request, they could send you an email with a URL so you could see who was challenging you and about which post. Does that explain my idea better?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 20:01:58
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 18:30:10
> Do you mean no more mail that tells you someone else's post is a please by civil. Or notification that someone is blocked. I for one want to know. I would have wondered what had happened to Larry if it wasn't in my mailbox.
Whoa, Nellie! I didn't know we had that option. Is that something you can request as part of the registration process? That you get notices if someone gets a PBC or a block?
Anyway, I'm proposing that no matter what else we decide to do (or not do) here, I'd like members to have an option that let's them request that they receive an email from Admin if someone publicly requests a ruling on them. Then, you don't have to cruise the Admin board to know if you're being investigated (so to speak). Some might not want to know when they are... but I do, and I think others might like to know too.
Posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 20:21:31
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Phillipa, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 20:01:58
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. You know a lot more about the rules than I do. But I wouldn't have known about Larry if I hadn't been on the Thread and received a Dr. Bob response and when clicking seen Larry was blocked. Forgive me I get confused. These admin posts can become so complicated to someone like me with a "pea" brain. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 21:07:44
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 20:21:31
> Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. You know a lot more about the rules than I do. But I wouldn't have known about Larry if I hadn't been on the Thread and received a Dr. Bob response and when clicking seen Larry was blocked. Forgive me I get confused. These admin posts can become so complicated to someone like me with a "pea" brain. Fondly, Phillipa
I don't think you're pea-brained. I honestly thought you knew about some option I didn't know about. Glad we cleared that up!
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 21:28:12
In reply to Re: Lou's response Dinah's post-grpprsur » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 17:14:03
> I didn't say he had. In fact, he seems to have embraced an idea that would allow posters who post in the style you post to continue to do so, but would limit others' complaints about it.
>
> Which is fine, except that he is explaining this idea as one to address the concerns of others.
>
> He's free to limit discussions about any particular poster's posting style. It's his board. But I don't think he should try to do it in such a way that misleads others into thinking that he is proposing this rule to address *their* concerns.
>
> I have no particular interest in this personally. Your posting style doesn't bother me.Dinah,
You wrote,[...I have no particular interest in this...]
I was wondering if your thinking in this matter has the potential for you, in your opinion, that the policy that that group of members is trying to get Dr. Hsiung to implement, could, perhaps be a policy that could fall into the catagory as being unsupportive to others that are getting support from reading my posts?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 21:38:49
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-nutralty » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 21:28:12
No.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 23:00:41
In reply to Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ???, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:27:11
> It wouldn't solve the issue many people seem interested in. But it might solve complaints about the issue.
Sorry, isn't it complaints that are the issue?
> How about my current suggestion below, that each poster be allowed one or two posts about specific posts per month on Admin
And they could be about the same person's posts every month?
> Limiting the complaints about one poster by another would seem to only apply in a minority of cases, and would mainly benefit the administrator of the site, IMHO.
>
> DinahI think it's great if rules aren't applied a lot. :-)
I should've been more clear that the limit wouldn't apply to complaints about my posts or my policies...
--
> I think it would be nice if there was a limit on requests for determination that are false alarms
>
> alexandra_kIsn't that what I proposed? :-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511006.html
--
> I hope you don't mind that I started a separate thread on the subject, since it seems to be referenced in numerous places and the discussion is therefore hard to follow.
Sorry, but I think it's easier if it's one thread, so I've incorporated yours into this one.
> I am Poster A. Twice I have asked Administration to make a call on Poster B’s posts – that weren’t about me or something I’d written. Twice Admin has ruled that his/her posts were civil. Would I ever again be able to question a Poster B post?
A could keep questioning them. But if any more of the questioned posts were considered civil, those complaints would be considered uncivil.
> Would I need to be 100 percent sure (if that’s possible) that he/she has been uncivil without risking a PBC or block?
Yes, if there's a chance that the questioned post would be considered civil, then B would be taking a risk.
> Let’s say that Poster A questions each [and every] member’s posts two times...
That would be an issue, but it's not the current issue...
> If during “a calendar year” [substitute whatever Admin thinks is fair] Poster A questions Poster B’s posts two or more times, and those requests lead to two judgments by Administration that the questioned posts were civil, then any subsequent request by Poster A about Poster B, which follows with a judgment that the questioned post was civil, shall result in Poster A being blocked.
Could I substitute 10 years? :-)
> > If the complaint isn't upheld, then do they need to defend themselves?
>
> I’d like to.
>
> Minnie-HahaThe question isn't whether they'd like to, it's whether they'd need to...
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.