![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 99 to 123 of 138. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 10:41:48
In reply to Re: Just to clarify new rule, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 5:38:39
The retroactive application of this new rule, (and I assume you have decided to implement it??) worries me in that there are some who are already "in the hole" and may not know it. In addition, I think it's unfair to apply a new rule to old events. If the rule were in place at the time of the old posts, the poster may have decided on a different approach.
In pro football, coaches need to use their requests for instant replay review carefully as they only have a limited number. I think this caution would apply here as well if people had known they had a limited number prior to posting.
So in short, I do not think it should be applied retroactively.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 22:36:51
In reply to Re: Just to clarify new rule » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 10:41:48
> In pro football, coaches need to use their requests for instant replay review carefully as they only have a limited number.
I agree, there are advantages to starting from scratch. But even if A has exhausted his or her 3 requests for reviews of B:
1. A can still monitor others.
2. Others can still monitor B.Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:13:22
In reply to Re: Just to clarify new rule, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 22:36:51
> > > 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.
>
> Even if A's requests ** were about something B said about A or something A had written ** (as opposed to some other question about the acceptability of what B posted)?Right, even then.
> we can't defend ourselves if we'd like to, because we don't need to?
>
> Minnie-Haha
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/513685.htmlSorry, let me back up. I think what makes this hard is defense sometimes becomes offense. It's always fine to clarify what you meant in a previous post (as long as you're civil), if that's what you mean...
--
> Sorry - it took a while to find them:
>
> AuntieMel
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/513714.htmlThanks for taking that time. So we do already have this rule! Sorry about my memory lapse.
I'd like to leave it up to posters whose posts are objected to to invoke this. If there's a third "false alarm", they can do so by letting me know the URLs of the objections.
Bob
Posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 19:29:23
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:13:22
Then if a person openly asks a general question about what it might be permissible to write here, then is the third such request deemed uncivil?
For example, this post is not a complaint. It is a question. How does it count?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:15:23
In reply to are 3 open inquiries about the FAQ uncivil? » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 19:29:23
> Then if a person openly asks a general question about what it might be permissible to write here, then is the third such request deemed uncivil?
The idea with this is just to limit complaints about specific posters. General questions should be fine.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 18, 2005, at 19:49:13
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:13:22
>
> Thanks for taking that time. So we do already have this rule! Sorry about my memory lapse.
>
> I'd like to leave it up to posters whose posts are objected to to invoke this. If there's a third "false alarm", they can do so by letting me know the URLs of the objections.Hi Dr. Bob,
I am interested in seeing how this rule will be applied, and thus, I am submitting these URL's to you for your inspection. They comprise 3 requests for determination from Lou to you regarding 3 of my posts. I've included your responses indicating you found my posts acceptable.I've also babblemailed these URL's to Lou as a courtesy.
Interested in how this works...
gg
Lou’s first request since the 3 complaint rule started:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/453884.html
Your reply:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/454907.htmlLou’s second request:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/510150.html
Your reply:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/510408.htmlLou’s third request:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/514678.html
Your reply:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/514805.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2005, at 1:31:32
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on June 18, 2005, at 19:49:13
> I am interested in seeing how this rule will be applied
Well, the idea is it's now up to Lou to deal in some other way with posts by you that he has issues with.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 19, 2005, at 11:46:53
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2005, at 1:31:32
Posted by so on June 25, 2005, at 23:46:55
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2005, at 1:31:32
> > I am interested in seeing how this rule will be applied
>
> Well, the idea is it's now up to Lou to deal in some other way with posts by you that he has issues with.
>
> BobIt appears all three of the post-and-replies linked here appeared at a time which the administrator was suggesting by his consideration of a future three-complaint rule that there was at that time no three-complaint rule.
I would be concerned about a person sanctioning another for violations of a self-styled rule that are alleged to have occured at a time when even the person promulgating the rule was acting as if no such rule was in force.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 21:54:25
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by so on June 25, 2005, at 23:46:55
> I would be concerned about a person sanctioning another for violations of a self-styled rule that are alleged to have occured at a time when even the person promulgating the rule was acting as if no such rule was in force.
I agree, that wouldn't seem right.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 15:41:53
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:13:22
Hi, everyone,
The deputies and I thought this was worth revisiting...
> So here's an idea, what if we adopt another 3-post rule? In this case, a limit of 3 objections per poster -- to posts I consider OK -- per other poster.
>
> Say A objects 3 times to posts by B. If I see a problem with those posts, then I'll enforce the rules, and A has helped me administrate. B may feel angry, but that would be considered an acceptable tradeoff.
>
> If I consider those posts OK, however, it would then be up to A [to] deal in some other way with posts by B, for example, by not even reading them.
>
> A could still object to posts by C, and the 3-post "clock" would start over.Others could still object to posts by B.
> And it would go both ways, B could object to posts by A, but subject again to this 3-post rule.
> > I thought the perfect solution would be for people with concerns (including "requests for determination") to email Dr. Bob privately, rather than making a public comment on the Admin board. However, Dr. Bob recently wrote: "Thanks for the suggestion. I know it has its downsides, but overall, I think it's better for this to be out in the open."
>
> I think it's like having PBCs out in the openWell, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to appreciate this, but I think the above was a faulty analogy. A determination is like a PBC, but a request for a determination isn't.
I do think a better solution would be for requests to be emailed (or babblemailed) to me and the deputies. The time we have to deal with them is limited, however, so I'd still like to limit them.
If we do determine that there are issues, we'll continue to deal with them out in the open. And it'll continue to be fine to discuss both the particular actions we take and our general policies here.
So, to recap, we'll now consider it uncivil (1) to object here to specific posts and also (2) to object directly to us more than three times per poster per other poster.
> > If you are saying that I can email to you ... what could I do to deal with it if you do not reply to me within some time period that we have not established yet ... ?
>
> The time period we discussed before was 2 days.If you email all of us and don't hear back from any of us within 2 days, then please email all of us again. If you don't hear back from any of us within another 2 days, then go ahead and post here, but just to ask us to check our email, not to object.
> I'd like to leave it up to posters whose posts are objected to to invoke this. If there's a third "false alarm", they can do so by letting me know the URLs of the objections.
Since those posters may no longer be aware of any objections, the deputies and I will take responsibility for keeping count.
OK, how does that sound?
Bob
Posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 4:48:19
In reply to Re: objection rules, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 15:41:53
> to object directly to us more than three times per poster per other poster.
i didn't think people objected to posters so much as objecting to posts. i don't see why there should be a limit since it isn't personal...
Posted by AuntieMel on August 9, 2006, at 9:50:33
In reply to Re: objection rules, posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 4:48:19
Maybe, but if a person objects to a large number of posts by the same poster wouldn't it start to *feel* personal?
And, though Dr. Bob didn't say it, the three times rule was three objections that were ruled *not* uncivil. It didn't apply to more than three objections to truly uncivil posts.
Posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 10:12:53
In reply to Re: objection rules » Estella, posted by AuntieMel on August 9, 2006, at 9:50:33
I don't think the poster gets to see them anymore (if they are emailed to deputies / bob).
but yeah i stand corrected on the only if i've said they are civil point.
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 11:15:13
In reply to Re: objection rules » AuntieMel, posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 10:12:53
I think previously one could email as many objections as one wished. It was only on board objections that were limited.
Now it would appear on board requests for determinations to specific posts are limited to none at all and off board ones are now limited.
I think I approve of the former part, about on board requests for determinations. But I'm not sure I agree with that latter part... I can see times when that might not really be fair. But I suppose if other people saw problems with the post they could bring it to the attention of Dr. Bob and deputies.
Posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 16:54:16
In reply to Re: objection rules » Estella, posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 11:15:13
As I said somewhere, I don't understand the utility of this rule, except if Bob is overwhelmed with objections in his private email.
Even then, I can't say this strikes me as a fair idea.
I could understand limiting people's objections beyond a certain point--which I can't imagine is three per other poster per lifetime-- or if there seems to be some sort of personal issue, to asking people not to object for a while, and to give it more thought.
But three objections that Bob doesn't agree with per lifetime? That seems draconian.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Bob doesn't agree, but is wrong.
Or let's say that the poster"s comments are close to the line, but Bob wants to be more rather than less accepting. Let's say that for some reason, Bob later realizes the person has been using the suppression of objections to be just-so close to the line, but not over. He begins to regret his leniency.
Yet for all this time, everyone who's objected more than three times has been estopped from asking about Bob's judgment.
This can impose costs on many people who might want to join in on threads where this poster is active, to interact with those other than the one poster.
I don't know. I could see limits-- but three? per lifetime per objected-to poster?
Jost
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 19:53:50
In reply to Re: objection rules, posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 16:54:16
I actually agree.
I see the purpose for it on the board, but I don't really see it in emails.
I agree that at some point there should be limits, but three per person no matter what the time frame doesn't seem to be the best use of limits. And the burden of counting the requests from/to might be greater than the burden of receiving a few more emails.
Maybe the limits should be defined in another way? And perhaps after the rule of email only requests has been in place for a while, and areas of concern have been identified?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 10:30:52
In reply to Re: objection rules, posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 16:54:16
> As I said somewhere, I don't understand the utility of this rule, except if Bob is overwhelmed with objections in his private email.
There's that, not wanting to be overwhelmed, but I think it could also help keep our focus on support...
> I could understand ... if there seems to be some sort of personal issue, to asking people not to object for a while, and to give it more thought.
Maybe people will give them more thought because there's a limit?
> Or let's say that the poster"s comments are close to the line, but Bob wants to be more rather than less accepting. Let's say that for some reason, Bob later realizes the person has been using the suppression of objections to be just-so close to the line, but not over. He begins to regret his leniency.
>
> Yet for all this time, everyone who's objected more than three times has been estopped from asking about Bob's judgment.Those particular posters would be, but others could still object...
> This can impose costs on many people who might want to join in on threads where this poster is active, to interact with those other than the one poster.
Costs because that poster would be posting uncivilly? Maybe, but part of the idea is that if we haven't acted on 3 objections, there's a reasonable chance we wouldn't on additional ones, either.
Thanks for your input, and let me know if you have any other questions,
Bob
Posted by Jost on August 10, 2006, at 11:09:07
In reply to Oh OK Thanks, posted by zazenducks on August 8, 2006, at 19:05:42
Is that a rule, or a suggestion that there be discussion of a proposed rule?
I find myself baffled by the rule and at a loss as to the problem the rule solves.
But mostly, I don't understand why there should be a lifetime restriction of three objections that Bob doesn't agree with by any one poster A against posts by any other poster B.
???
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 11:09:08
In reply to Re: Oh OK Thanks, posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 4:10:06
> Is that a rule, or a suggestion that there be discussion of a proposed rule?
I'm not sure on that one either.
> I find myself baffled by the rule and at a loss as to the problem the rule solves.The three post rule.
I think at one point in Babble history someone wanted to post 100 posts on something or other... It thus became an issue as to whether there should be some limits set on how many posts one could post without others responding along the way. I have some sympathy for setting limits. I remember thinking at the time that a three post limit was a good idea. Then hearing the other side and thinking they had a point. And back and forth I went. I post maybe 4 or 5 in succession sometimes. As my thoughts unfold. If I remember rightly that was what the person thought about their posting style too. I guess that too many posts by one person can look a little overwhelming. I'm still not sure.
> But mostly, I don't understand why there should be a lifetime restriction of three objections that Bob doesn't agree with by any one poster A against posts by any other poster B.I don't quite get that one either. I think at one point in Babble history there were frequent requests for determination on the civility of posts. By frequent I mean... That limits were set so that you weren't allowed to request more than three civility determinations in one day (I think that is right). People felt like the poster was trying to get others in trouble. The poster said that was *not* the intention it was more around trying to clarify the civility rules for the benefit of the forum as a whole. People took it personally when civility determinations were requested on their posts. Hard not to even if you do accept that the poster wasn't trying to get one blocked. There would still be that little bit of worry that one might be blocked until the determination came through... Hope this helps.
Posted by notfred on August 10, 2006, at 11:09:08
In reply to Re: Oh OK Thanks, posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 4:10:06
A poster in the past was unable to post without making multiple posts to cover, what would be for most, one post. People complained as they did not like reading ~10 posts in a row for what they felt could of taken one post, but to poster did not modify their posting style.
The same poster would request that dr bob review lots for posts; sometimes these requests would number several (different or same posters) within the same day.
That is were these rules started.
Posted by greywolf on August 10, 2006, at 11:09:09
In reply to Re: Oh OK Thanks, posted by notfred on August 9, 2006, at 10:15:23
What about a rule that rules should not be created unless truly necessary to control or avoid a significant problem?
Posted by gardenergirl on August 10, 2006, at 11:09:09
In reply to Re: Oh OK Thanks, posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 4:10:06
> Is that a rule, or a suggestion that there be discussion of a proposed rule?
It's been a rule since late Oct. 2004. It came back up again in June 2005, and at that time Dr. Bob confirmed that it would continue.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/514263.htmlNow the procedure for requesting administrative review of a post is changing, but the rule is still in place. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/674584.html
gg
Posted by madeline on August 10, 2006, at 11:09:09
In reply to Re: Oh OK Thanks » Jost, posted by gardenergirl on August 9, 2006, at 11:46:37
ok, so to see if I understand this.
If we have a problem with a particular post, or poster, we are to babblemail Dr. Bob or the deputies with our concerns. They will look at the post and decide whether or not they agree with our concerns and will act appropriately.
Regardless of any action, inaction taken, we can only complain about a particular poster (but not about the posts from other babblers) three times.
Is this right?
Posted by Dinah on August 10, 2006, at 11:09:09
In reply to Re: Oh OK Thanks, posted by madeline on August 9, 2006, at 12:38:03
Only if no action is taken.
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.