![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 59 to 83 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:02:17
In reply to Will you PLEASE PBC me so I can go for a block? (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 18:56:42
I can't post at all under those conditions.
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:05
In reply to 48 week block would be even better, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:02:17
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:32
In reply to Please don' t make me actually be uncivil (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:05
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:04:06
In reply to That would make me feel even worse (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:32
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:04:36
In reply to I can do this all night (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:04:06
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:09:07
In reply to But I'd really rather not (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:04:36
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:13:19
In reply to Please? Really. Please? (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:09:07
Posted by daisym on September 27, 2004, at 20:33:37
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 18:54:21
This is a pretty major rule change. I think you owe it to people to tell them in some way before you bust in and block them. Some of our posters would be mortified to break a rule, and I think they might be upset that they weren't informed. Most of us don't read admin unless directed by someone else to.
Daisy
Posted by crazymaisie on September 27, 2004, at 22:06:31
In reply to Dr. Bob. You're causing me harm. Please block me. (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:13:19
Dinah,
don't go away. we'd miss you too much. i hope you get your work done, though
maisie
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:05:42
In reply to Thanks for the solidarity. :) » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 17:37:15
If I don't join you I might be the sole remaining virgin. Isn't it bad enough I don't like to cuss?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 23:07:56
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, Dr. Bob, posted by daisym on September 27, 2004, at 20:33:37
> This is a pretty major rule change. I think you owe it to people to tell them in some way before you bust in and block them. Some of our posters would be mortified to break a rule, and I think they might be upset that they weren't informed. Most of us don't read admin unless directed by someone else to.
>
> DaisyI'm with Daisy on this one. Also, you are already talking about exceptions specifically and allowing for exceptions on a what sounds like a case by case or unusual circumstances basis. I'm confused, and I am in a doctoral program, so I assume I am of at least average intellect.
Please summarize this rule in it's entirety and post it so that all can follow it without getting spanked. I know that you know that behavior theory encourages if not demands that the person whose behavior is to be changed needs to know the expectations. Acting and then punishing is not a particularly effective way of changing behavior.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:08:29
In reply to 48 week block would be even better, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:02:17
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 18:54:21
>> I reviewed several boards here, and found a relatively few instances where 4 or more consecutive posts were submitted.
>This does *not* have to do with whether I like people. Please, everyone, try not to take it personally.
BUT - let's apply some logic here (at least my version of logic)
If it really happens very few times then the rule would be applied rarely. But you say it is not personal. Lou happens to use this posting style. You say that the rule will be applied fairly (theory), but Lou is the only one that the new rule (practice).
In fact, you have already listed at least two exceptions to the rule - the replies to multiple posters (Susan's case) and the meltdown case (Dinah's case). What happened to 'rules is rules' and no exceptions??
And you say don't take it personal? It seems to me that this rule is designed for one person.
This ONLY came up because of Lou's
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:25:41
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
The last sentence was to have been deleted.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:26:39
In reply to Re: ^^^^Addendum to above Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:25:41
Posted by saw on September 28, 2004, at 4:03:06
In reply to Re: Above was only supposed to be two posts (nm), posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:26:39
isolated to the Admin board. If a limit has to be placed, why not restrict it to the Admin board only? The other boards are behaving themselves and are not causing undue distress!
Reconsider? Please?
Posted by partlycloudy on September 28, 2004, at 4:52:39
In reply to Dr Bob, the problem seems to be, posted by saw on September 28, 2004, at 4:03:06
If someone is making repeated posts to the same person in a thread, can the person not ask, "please don't post further about this subject to me," or even, "can we take this discussion offline?" and discuss it via Babblemail?
I think if someone is asking for a "ruling" about a post, it would be more appropriate to email the moderator if it doesn't seem to be coming to a fruitful conclusion.
...as if we needed any more 2 cents added...
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 8:07:11
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
> > I reviewed several boards here, and found a relatively few instances where 4 or more consecutive posts were submitted.
> If it really happens very few times then the rule would be applied rarely.
This is a good thing, right?
> But you say it is not personal. Lou happens to use this posting style. You say that the rule will be applied fairly (theory), but Lou is the only one that the new rule (practice).
How many people here have commited murder?
> In fact, you have already listed at least two exceptions to the rule - the replies to multiple posters (Susan's case) and the meltdown case (Dinah's case). What happened to 'rules is rules' and no exceptions??
Perhaps we should let things settle down a bit without forcing the moderator to take further actions that would only create more upset? Flexibility here would seem prudent.
> And you say don't take it personal? It seems to me that this rule is designed for one person.
I think it was designed for any person. Any person could have posted 100 consecutive posts. The proscription of murder was designed for any person, not one person.
> This ONLY came up because of Lou's
This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive. I am sure there are many people who did not find Lou's behavior thusfar to be disruptive. It is not about him. It is about a potential for abuse. I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.
I didn't go so far as to develop a plan to address the lack of checks and balances in the posting policy regarding numbers of posts. However, I think Dr. Bob's solution is reasonable, effective, and easily implemented. Some threshold had to be chosen. 3 posts seems to work based upon the infrequency of 4 or more posts having thusfar been submitted.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 8:25:34
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:54:10
> 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!I can't imagine that Dr. Bob would sanction anyone, in those circumstances. I had the distinct impression that the posting limit would apply in the context of pressure/harassment. Not one of your examples above would be unsupportive, except forgetting to count, if you were challenging a post made by another. Debate is fine. Harassment isn't. Limit three consecutive *unanswered* attempts. That's how I read this, anyway. If I'm wrong, I sure hope Bob clarifies.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 8:49:51
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Toph, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:41:51
> I think there are very bad consequences to making a general rule. If Dr. Bob is trying to solve a situation that frequently pops up, that applies to many posters, and that he has long wanted to address, that's fine.
I really think it is meant to clarify the pressure/harassment concept in the civility guidelines.
We really need Bob to make more meaningful and contextual comments about the applicability of any new rule. We're arguing about implications that he could have entirely precluded by more explicit descriptions of his intent.
Way back when, I got into it with a guy named maxx or something. He repeatedly suggested there were scientific references for a particular claim, and I asked him to provide them. He'd say they're all over the place. I'd say show me one. It was in the form of a dialogue. I got PBC'd for harassment (I also go blocked in the ensuing discussion, but after I checked the archives, I can see I started with a PBC with respect to the repeated questioning). I don't think I did anything wrong then, and I don't now.
The way Bob has worded his suggested new rule, I still don't see if I'm allowed to interact that way in a dialogue or not. I only renewed my request for information because he renewed his assertion there was ample information available. I did exceed three total requests, but I did not ever make three consecutive requests without any topical reply from the other party. I wanted to consider his evidence, not just his conclusions about the evidence. Those are very different things.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 8:55:18
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
> This ONLY came up because of Lou's
This time. I've got a substantial block hanging over my head on the issue.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 8:56:33
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
Auntie Mel,
You wrote,[...let's apply some logic...].
I would like to read your perception of the situation further. The issue here, as I can see it, is that I write , stop, then write again. As it appears to me, so do others. Then (some) posters raise an objection to me writing, stopping, and writing again consecutivly more than 3 posts, but some posters have raised an objection to the restriction.
Now other posters here can reply at any time to my posts, which would stop the consecutivness of the posts. But what harm, in your logical opinion, could occur to those who object to me writing more than 3 posts, since it would be allowed to write 100 posts as long as someone posts in the thread before 4 posts are made consecutivly.
I ask you, you who have written,[...let's apply some logic...], could you offer an alternative to the situation that would accomodate the group of posters that want me to not be allowed to write more than 3 consecutive posts that is different than the rule that has been made ? Or, in accordance with your logic, do those posters need to be accomodated since they have the opportunity at any time to reply to any of my posts.
?
If you could share your logic with me here, I would appreciate it.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 9:04:57
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 8:49:51
> I had the distinct impression that the posting limit would apply in the context of pressure/harassment.
I doubt that the posting quota will be limited to a particular context. Unfortunately, the system would still be vulnerable to abuse if this were the case.
> Way back when, I got into it with a guy named maxx or something. He repeatedly suggested there were scientific references for a particular claim, and I asked him to provide them. He'd say they're all over the place. I'd say show me one. It was in the form of a dialogue. I got PBC'd for harassment (I also go blocked in the ensuing discussion, but after I checked the archives, I can see I started with a PBC with respect to the repeated questioning). I don't think I did anything wrong then, and I don't now.
I remember the incident, but I don't remember the exact text of the reasons cited for sanction. Perhaps Dr. Bob's thoughts on the matter have evolved since. He may have made a mistake.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 9:10:40
In reply to Lou's response to Auntie Mel-1 of many » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 8:56:33
> Now other posters here can reply at any time to my posts, which would stop the consecutivness of the posts. But what harm, in your logical opinion, could occur to those who object to me writing more than 3 posts, since it would be allowed to write 100 posts as long as someone posts in the thread before 4 posts are made consecutivly.
The interruptions of consecutive posts should make for a wonderful discussion.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 9:13:45
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 8:07:11
Scott:
Please be known that I consider you to have valuable input to Babble. I just have a difference of opinion with you regarding this issue.
> > But you say it is not personal. Lou happens to use this posting style. You say that the rule will be applied fairly (theory), but Lou is the only one that the new rule (practice).
>
> How many people here have commited murder?
>I think this is a bad example. Murder does actually hurt another person. Multiple posts to admin hurt nobody.
Besides, I prefer to think of babble as NOT being a democracy (majority rules.) I prefer to think of it as a place where the rights of the minority are protected against the majority. Isn't that what we are all looking for???
> > In fact, you have already listed at least two exceptions to the rule - the replies to multiple posters (Susan's case) and the meltdown case (Dinah's case). What happened to 'rules is rules' and no exceptions??
>
> Perhaps we should let things settle down a bit without forcing the moderator to take further actions that would only create more upset? Flexibility here would seem prudent.But how much has flexibility been used in other cases? Every time I've stood up for someone, I've been told that 'rules is rules' and intent is too hard to determine to be able to take it into account. NO EXCEPTIONS, I've been told. Why is this different??
Question: what do you consider 'settle down' to be? Give the new rule time to gel, and those of us that have a problem with it shut our trap? Or chunk the rule completely?
> > And you say don't take it personal? It seems to me that this rule is designed for one person.
>
> I think it was designed for any person. Any person could have posted 100 consecutive posts. The proscription of murder was designed for any person, not one person.Yes, but only one person has actually done multiple posts with regularity. So, while theoretically it applies to all, in practice it only applies to one. And it's NotMurder!
>
> This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive. I am sure there are many people who did not find Lou's behavior thusfar to be disruptive. It is not about him. It is about a potential for abuse. I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.Two separate thoughts here. If we worry about *potential* for abuse, then we have the *potential* of laying down so many rules that there is the *potential* for even smileys to be banned.
If someone *personally* finds it disruptive (especially on admin) then - As Dr. Bob says so often, there are other pages to visit.
It is my opinion that any rule that has built in flexibility (considering intent) and an arbitrary line drawn (3? why not 2? or 6?) is a bad rule. Why base the number on one archiving?
Mel
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.