![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 249 to 273 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on March 21, 2006, at 17:29:31
In reply to Thank you, Zen!, posted by ClearSkies on March 21, 2006, at 16:51:39
Posted by SLS on March 21, 2006, at 17:31:27
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 21, 2006, at 17:27:55
>> The one-week cooling off blocks...
What's that?
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on March 21, 2006, at 17:35:51
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » SLS, posted by SLS on March 21, 2006, at 17:23:42
> > Perhaps to deem one's words to be uncivil is to imply that one's intent was to be uncivil?Since intent is difficult if not impossible to determine, I think rather, calling a post or a poster's actions uncivil could be akin to accusing the person of incivility. And since we are not to post anything that could lead to a person feeling accused (among other things), I think that's the phrase is not considered acceptable.
That's my take on it at least. Of course when I go on and on in other contexts about how one's words and behavior are separate from someone else's reactions, perceptions, interpretations, and feelings about them, I realize I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth.
I hate when that happens.
gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 21, 2006, at 17:56:23
In reply to Calling something or someone uncivil » SLS, posted by gardenergirl on March 21, 2006, at 17:35:51
Also, I don't remember Emmy accusing anyone of felonious criminal behaviour.
Maybe that's part of the reason? Was it the reinterpretation of what she actually said that made it uncivil?I really don't know, but I'm sure I'd remember that.
If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will let me know : )
Posted by gardenergirl on March 21, 2006, at 18:11:28
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbix2 on March 21, 2006, at 17:56:23
> Also, I don't remember Emmy accusing anyone of felonious criminal behaviour.
I don't remember that, either. I'd have to go back and read that thread again. Not quite up to that tonight.
gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 21, 2006, at 18:14:49
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » Gabbix2, posted by gardenergirl on March 21, 2006, at 18:11:28
Yeah, that's funny I almost put at the bottom of my post "But I'm *not* going to go through that thread right now"
Posted by henrietta on March 21, 2006, at 19:37:17
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 17:00:59
Surely you know your role here isn't simply "administrative". You are modeling behavior, judging behavior, and attempting to direct behavior into patterns YOU deem positive,
"healthy", or just plain less troublesome. (Others may disagree with what constitutes healthy or positive behavior.) You model labeling behavior, then punish others for labeling behavior. Doesn't that ever give you pause? Ever? Even in the dark hours of the night? It would certainly cause many a sleepless night for me, and I'm not even playing god to hundreds of vulnerable people. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by henrietta on March 21, 2006, at 20:12:44
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by henrietta on March 21, 2006, at 19:37:17
I forgot to mention that it feels to me that what you do NOT model is sensitive behavior. Where I come from, if a person is honestly trying to communicate something that is important to him/her, the response "live and learn", for example, is felt as being extremely dismissive and insensitive. Short one-liners to heart-felt
communications are widely perceived to be dismissive and insensitive. I can't tell you how often I've felt kicked in the stomach by your responses to other posters---and I do mean this absolutely sincerely. OTHER POSTERS. Nothing personal. I've had no personal stake in these exchanges. I've merely been a witness, but I've felt deeply hurt and angry. I don't know. I just feel you really need to sit down in a deep place and question yourself.
Posted by ClearSkies on March 21, 2006, at 21:14:30
In reply to Re: Please stay cool, Clear and Zen! (nm), posted by AuntieMel on March 21, 2006, at 17:29:31
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 23:41:51
In reply to Re: blocks » Dr. Bob, posted by henrietta on March 21, 2006, at 19:37:17
hy hen :-)
i think... it is a hard one...
I think... Other 'experts' do have different ideas re civility. Kali Munroe, for instance... And her coming close to being dubbed 'uncivil' when she was here as a guest expert on conflict resolution (spot the irony). I think it is right to say that Dr Bob has something of a fairly idiosyncratic notion of civility... And he might well be stricter than most. But then in terms of the comments people make... Do you think it is fair to say that this board is safer than others in the sense that accusing comments, judging comments, hurtful comments, hateful comments, sarcastic comments are less likely to go unremarked or without consequences.
I mean... Some people might prefer that. But then when someone directs those things our way it can be harder to take...
Maybe the issue is that... He is a little too idiosyncratic / strict with the civility rules?
I might be inclined to agree...
> and attempting to direct behavior into patterns YOU deem positive,
> "healthy", or just plain less troublesome. (Others may disagree with what constitutes healthy or positive behavior.)Yeah...
> You model labeling behavior, then punish others for labeling behavior.
Well... I'm not so sure that works...
Consider a case where someone says (and I'll use me as an example)
you are a bitch special_k and i wish you would just f*ck off.
do you think there should be consequences for someone saying that to me?
if so... then maybe the problem isn't so much the 'uncivil' judgements... the blockings... so much as it is the 'borderline cases' of incivility... and the severity of the blockings...
so...
how does the one week cool off block work?
if the moderators have sympathy???
Posted by henrietta on March 22, 2006, at 2:21:15
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 23:41:51
Hi, Special.
It's late, I won't make much sense. Yes, I think it's more about the borderline cases and the severity of blocks. And a lot of other stuff
I haven't the wherewithal to go into at this time of night. (I really should be asleep. Other things on my mind, real life things.) Oh, I can't think....
Just wanted to say hi since I probably won't be able to check back in for a while. I'll be away. I hope you're well, or as well as possible.
You're in my thoughts.
hen
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 3:09:58
In reply to Re: blocks » special_k, posted by henrietta on March 22, 2006, at 2:21:15
Hey. I'll catch up with you when you get back :-)
Yeah it is hard...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:05:47
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » Gabbix2, posted by gardenergirl on March 21, 2006, at 18:11:28
It was a long time ago, and it wasn't Emmy
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/297882.html
Posted by verne on March 22, 2006, at 8:53:45
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:05:47
Looking back at past threads that led to blocks I usually find an escalating debate at the heart of the problem. I'm not sure a support site for mental illness is the place to argue anything anyway.
I don't care if someone says, "Water runs uphill". Why would I need to fix their wagon and prove them wrong? Rather than argue with them about what they experience, I can share my own, more ordinary, downhill water experience with them.
Who feels better after even the most successful of debates? Everyone walks away wounded. There's a place to fix the world and a place to fix ourselves.
Rather than disagree, we can compare notes. The world as I know it, where water runs downhill, won't end if someone on the planet thinks otherwise.
Verne
Posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2006, at 9:12:31
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:05:47
Posted by muffled on March 22, 2006, at 11:05:57
In reply to Re: ample warnings and chances given » ClearSkies, posted by zenhussy on March 21, 2006, at 16:45:19
Posted by Tabitha on March 22, 2006, at 11:18:41
In reply to When Fixing Wagons or the World, posted by verne on March 22, 2006, at 8:53:45
> Rather than disagree, we can compare notes. The world as I know it, where water runs downhill, won't end if someone on the planet thinks otherwise.
>Thanks for that, Verne. I really need to put that into practice.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 22, 2006, at 12:36:31
In reply to When Fixing Wagons or the World, posted by verne on March 22, 2006, at 8:53:45
Verne,
This is one of the wisest, most helpful posts I've ever read, any where, any time. I can't thank you enough for articulating these ideas here.
Really.
You are the best. So glad to see you posting!
:-)
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2006, at 19:11:42
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:05:47
> It was a long time ago, and it wasn't Emmy
>Holy tamale. Correct. I never accused anyone of "felonious criminal behaviour" or anything markedly close to that. I am not sure who suggested it. Sure gives some insight to my fine reputation here tho! ;-)
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 22, 2006, at 20:18:08
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil, posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2006, at 19:11:42
I think it was my mistake.
Larry's post had mentioned a D.N.P and then that statement and I thought he was referring to *that* situation.
But I don't think he was, I'm not sure what it was in reference too.sorry Emmy.
It wasn't your reputation!
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 23, 2006, at 5:24:38
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » TofuEmmy, posted by Gabbix2 on March 22, 2006, at 20:18:08
Thx for clarifying. Not a problem. Hope all is daffodils in your land soon. Emmy
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 23, 2006, at 17:55:08
In reply to Re: Calling something or someone uncivil » Gabbix2, posted by TofuEmmy on March 23, 2006, at 5:24:38
IT was the least I could do.
I assumed that he was talking about your situation, when I first read it, that later on, when it came up, It never occured to me to actually check. Embarrassing, but a good reminder to me.
You know what they say happens when you ASSUME..
Things are getting pretty daffodilly for me
thanks!I hope things are going well for you too.
Posted by Jakeman on March 23, 2006, at 22:52:55
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 23:41:51
Loosen up the reins Bob. You know long time posters like Lar aren't here to inflict pain. No one knows what the rules are anymore.
~Jake.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2006, at 16:23:59
In reply to Re: blocks, posted by Jakeman on March 23, 2006, at 22:52:55
I still like the idea of some kind of flagging system that could be done when someone makes a post. I envision this as something that could be a tool to help a poster easily identify posts they make which might contain triggers. I think having this tool/resource available would be helpful and a good start. Making a policy about it, well....that's clearly more complicated.
I don't know if adding something like that to the posting form would be feasible. But I think it would be a great tool.
And I didn't want this topic to get lost since there were many ideas and thoughts contributed.
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 2, 2006, at 11:46:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:18:38
> > she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
>
> > her uncivil comments
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for 6 weeks again.A number of intelligent and experienced posters have asked you to clarify just what it is that constituted the incivility in *my* use of language that *you* use all the time. I was quoting you, truth be told. Are there words that you can use, but others may not? And where is that, in the FAQ?
One of the responsibilities you took on, when you decided that only you could determine what is ultimately civil or not, is to clarify your arguments. Yet, you consistently and repeatedly fail to explain yourself, even when directly questioned about it. That is grossly uncivil. Please be civil, Bob.
This is a prime example of the disparity between that which you envision, and the true end result of your creation. Unless, of course, your validation is in the outcome itself. Your decision to block me did nothing but silence me. I see no evidence that anybody learned anything about civility through this example, if that was your true intent. I learned nothing, as Bobjectivity remains beyond the capabilities of even your most experienced deputies to define. All the time, we observe them deferring to you. Over and over again, we have to wait until Bob comes back. And, all of the time, virtually, you fail in your duty to guide us. By retaining such power, yet not leading effectively, you are not civil to all Babblers, not just those with questions.
Shortly after I was blocked, I saw ed_uk come under ad hominem assault, from a fairly new poster. As an experienced poster, it was Ed's duty to just suck it up, right? But, well within any definition of civility I have ever seen, and in fact, in an exemplary post, Ed civilly mentioned the "unkindness" in that other's posts, and he was blocked for it.
I haven't yet been in touch with Ed about it, but I am going to stake my intuition on declaring that I saw Ed wounded by your decision. I don't think Ed has been the same, ever since. You don't consider the unintended consequences of your idiosyncratic perception of civility. Ed spoke to his hurt in the minimum way possible, while still conveying his sense of offense. That is civility, to carry that message, a criticism, while doing so in the most gentle way available. It was an exemplary post, Bob, not a blocking offense.
It is similar to other of your acts, e.g. your creation of a Politics board. Do you not understand the meaning of the word politic? It is the taking of sides, sir, amongst other older meanings. Arguments pro *and* con.
Political debate involves two things. Advancing your own position, while weakening that of the others. Metaphorical teeter-totters of argument. Let us consider civility as teeter, and incivility as totter. You are saying we've lost half our field of debate, and must make do with only teeters. It is quite absurd. Moreover, you have declared that there is, in fact, a discrimination point between teetering and tottering, and, and this the key point, you "know it when (you) see it", (from the FAQ). If only you would be so kind as to declare precisely where that point is, so that intelligent and civil posters can position themselves accordingly. If you are going to redefine the English language, then you need to say so, explicitly and precisely. Where is the guidance?
One could reasonably argue that the Politics board was created so that you might never suffer a dearth of blockable posters. The "blocking percentage" of all posts to a board must be at a maximum on that particular board. Do you thrill at the kill, Dr. Bob?
The anger I released in this thread, some weeks back, sir, was all created by your various acts in which you failed to be civil to me, or to others on these boards. Your use of the operator "could", with respect to the meanings of words and their civility, is a particular bone of contention between us. You block me because you have a vivid imagination, sir. Here's how it goes.....
I post something with a pointed message. Provocative of further discourse, I would like to imagine it to be. And, upon reading my words, you ponder a moment, and you discover a non-zero probability that I might have had an uncivil meaning in mind. You then substitute the obvious meaning I intended with your own imagined meaning, and subsequently block me for that. You're not blocking what I said. You're blocking what you imagined. That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination.
In *my* sense of what is civil, where ambiguity arises in another's words, one does one of two things: A) one seeks a clarification, a rewording perhaps; or, B) one takes the more charitable meaning as the intent. Each time it arises, not once ever. In your regime, you only get one ambiguity? One lifetime ambiguity?
Moreover, and this is a critical point, civility as I know it rewards effort. Always. One shapes behaviour towards an ideal, and one both gives and receives reward for the effort expended. Under your regime, 99.9% perfection is total failure (i.e. "Block with his head" ....errrr, you know what I mean). It could come two weeks later......whammo! Educational? Not.
I have seen many sincere and emotional posts on this board since I was last blocked. From posters who were emotionally wounded by your determinations of civility, Dr. Bob. I, and all these others are asking you to consider the unintended consequences of the implimentation of your civility regime.
As you say, sir, you don't consider intent. How is it, then, that you hide behind your intent when adverse effects of your system are made known to you?
How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated? Keeping that one in reserve, to nail somebody else?
How is it that I still don't have a clear idea of what you mean when you use the word civility? I cannot find a definition, anywhere, that comes close to yours. No civil system splits hairs.
Bobjectivity. I know it when I see it. And it makes me angry.
Lar
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.