![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 208 to 232 of 291. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dinah on October 1, 2004, at 0:51:35
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dinah on October 1, 2004, at 0:49:18
See?
Posted by All Done on October 1, 2004, at 1:05:23
In reply to Re: how we dicuss this » All Done, posted by TofuEmmy on September 30, 2004, at 12:38:48
Posted by All Done on October 1, 2004, at 1:23:57
In reply to Lou's reply to All Don's reply to Lou » All Done, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 15:25:47
> 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
>
>Lou,
If you have questions, please ask. Or, since you're concerned about the posting limits, you can always Babblemail me or just send a message to alldone72 at yahoo.com.
Also, I hope you did not take offense at my use of the word unique. Please let me assure you I meant nothing unkind.
Take care,
Laurie
Posted by alesta on October 1, 2004, at 4:12:54
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 16:08:43
hi, again, dinahmari,
i didn't mean to shoot down your idea..after letting it sink in a bit, on second thought, maybe that could be a good solution. i really don't want to see lou get the axe. i just hope ppl don't help others less for fear that it'll add too much to their number of posts. maybe if we set the number high enough, it could work. i'm curious as to how many posts you do, lou, in one of your "posting marathons".:)could you or someone else please post a link to one of the offending series so i can see what we're dealing with? and dinahmari, my apologies for not acknowledging the potential of your great idea.:)take care,
amy:)
Posted by alesta on October 1, 2004, at 4:17:41
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » SLS, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 17:18:19
> I need to put a timer on responding to posts, I think.
i can relate to that feeling..:)
amy:)
Posted by SLS on October 1, 2004, at 6:14:10
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dinah on October 1, 2004, at 0:49:18
> 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?
This is a major drawback of the new rule.To allow for this type of posting, either:
1. Flexible enforcement will allow for this.
2. The posting rule could be modified to allow for only 3 consecutive posts per posting date.#2 sounds good, but would still allow for the filling of a slower board with long strings of consecutive posts. Perhaps this can be tried on a probationary basis.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2004, at 8:08:23
In reply to Re: Questions, Lou? » Lou Pilder, posted by All Done on October 1, 2004, at 1:23:57
All Done,
You wrote, [...I hope that you did not take offense to the word, "unique"...].
I would like for you to know that I did not take offense to your using that word.
The reason that I posted it was that I thought that there could be others that also use that style and that is why I put a question mark after the word.
Thanks for your email adress and you can email me at :
lpilder_1188@fuse.net.
However, atthe moment, my email provider, zoomtown here inCincinnati has problems sending my email to AOL. I have not sent to yahoo recently , but there may be problems with that also. So if I do not reply immmediatly, it could be the system problem that I am having with fuse.net.
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 10:21:41
In reply to Lou's response to aunti Mel » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 14:56:18
'gone down the tubes' is like 'gone downhill' only further. 'gone downhill' implies there is more going down to be done. down the tubes means it's all gone. I've also heard 'down the sewer.'
I didn't think it was, but maybe 'down the tubes' is speaking Texan?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2004, at 10:29:38
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dinah on October 1, 2004, at 0:49:18
> 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?
I didn't mean to imply that this kind of posting was more discouraging than others. Other rules may or may not follow, it depends on what comes up...
> whether or not any particular posting behavior on my part is displeasing to you.
This does *not* have to do with whether I like people or their posting behavior. Please, everyone, try not to take this personally.
> Then there are meltdowns. (I gave you an url for an example). What would you do in that situation?
I'm not sure, I think it would depend, let's cross that bridge when we come to it?
> And then there are the diaries
That's a good point, I think they would be another exception.
> How would this work? Would it be worded as a Please Be Civil?
I think so. Would you suggest differently?
> 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?
My inclination would to be to leave it up to the deputy. What about reply-tos?
> 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
Sorry, I know I don't always do that, but good ideas can always be incorporated, and we can always go back...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 10:59:38
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2004, at 10:29:38
>> And then there are the diaries
>That's a good point, I think they would be another exception.
This is now the third (or fourth) case of an exception.
>> 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?>My inclination would to be to leave it up to the deputy. What about reply-tos?
'reply-tos' are already in the group of your exceptions:
>> What if I post something and I get multiple replies? I like to respond to everyone individually
>>
>> Laurie>I think responding to different posts individually would need to be an exception. Scott, thanks for the data, was that what was happening in those instances?
Here would be one or two more exceptions...>> Sometimes Social is a place where people play around and make multiple posts at once.
>>
>> Or sometimes during my meltdowns I feel the need to clarify my posts many many times.
>>>As with all rules, I think exceptions would probably make sense from time to time.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395995.html
So, to date, we have 'meltdowns' 'reply-tos' 'play in social' 'diaries'In light of this, I think Dinah poses a pretty good question about what deputies should do.
Mel
ps - trying to fit it all in one post. it's bound to make this disjointed, but here goes:
in light of all the exceptions, and what seems to me a dropping of this being 'hypothetical' how can this be considered a 'general' rule?
Posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 11:23:02
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 15:02:34
It just seems to me (I don't want to refer to specific posts because I don't want to accuese anyone) that this is no longer a 'hypothetical' question, and that Lou is used by name a lot now.
And it kind of torques me off that exceptions are made for several other things, but none is made for a neurological problem. Geez! If I were to strart thinking of offing myself should I be restricted from posting about it because it might upset some people? I would think that here, of all places, there would be more understanding.
Venting over...
How's your day Scott?
Posted by gardenergirl on October 1, 2004, at 12:17:44
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 11:23:02
Good point. If anything, an exception for a neurological disorder would be more in line with the spirit in which the ADA laws were created. Which would be a good thing.
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 1, 2004, at 13:18:03
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2004, at 10:29:38
a) It is admittedly hard not to take something personally when a behavior you engage in is being outlawed. I don't think you can take the personal out of it. Especially when I don't know which of my posting behaviors will next be on the block. It's kind of hard to feel happy and secure in that environment, you know?
b) Isn't it funny that I have ultimate trust in you to not post harmful photos on Babble, yet no particular trust in this particular area. I guess I have trust that you'll do everything you can to do what you think is right for Babble, but not for Babblers. I guess that makes sense, given your responsibility here. Oh well, like I said, some things aren't worth saving.
c) I wouldn't want to enforce it, were I a deputy, because of all the exceptions, "I don't know how I'd handle that. Let's wait till it happens", etc.
d) I think a Please be Civil would be dreadful wording. I'd prefer a subject line of "Excuse Me" and a body something like "I'm dreadfully sorry but I have this totally arbitrary rule that you have broken in complete lack of awareness. My apologies, but could you please not post more than three consecutive posts, and here's a link for all the myriad exceptions. I'm dreadfully sorry, but that's the conditions for posting here. Here's a link to some other sites that don't have these arbitrary restrictions." But barring that, how about "Please refer to the guidelines on consecutive postings" rather than a PBC with a link to the URL.
e) Has there ever been an instance on Babble where we've gone back?
Posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 15:30:08
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on October 1, 2004, at 12:17:44
Sometimes I feel like there must be something wrong with me to disagree with the majority..
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2004, at 11:47:49
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 11:23:02
Hi.
> It just seems to me (I don't want to refer to specific posts because I don't want to accuese anyone) that this is no longer a 'hypothetical' question, and that Lou is used by name a lot now.
It was Lou's submitting multiple series of up to 12 consecutive posts that made the problem visible.
This is the point at which I became particularly concerned:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394601.html
It is factual to state that it was the posting behavior of Lou Pilder that upset me. This is not to be a secret. However, I don't think it is productive to continue to bring his name up during this discourse as it is not his fault that the boards were vulnerable to posting abuse. Although it might not have been Lou's intention to be abusive or disruptive, the fact still remains that his posting behavior became problematic. 100 consecutive posts is unacceptable in my opinion.
> And it kind of torques me off that exceptions are made for several other things, but none is made for a neurological problem.
I have a neurological problem too. It truly makes it much more difficult for me to review a board that is filled with so many consecutive posts made by a single individual.
There was an instance when I submitted perhaps 10 consecutive posts because of an obsessive need to make a single point. It was an eyesore on the board, and I was encouraged by the moderator not to do so. I made adjustments. Can everyone else make adjustments? I hope so. Nonetheless, 100 consecutive posts is unacceptable. 99 consecutive posts is unacceptable. 98 consecutive posts is unacceptable. 97 consecutive posts is unacceptable. 96 consecutive posts is unacceptable. (I'll stop at 96). A limit needed to be set. I find multiple series of 10 or more consecutive posts to be disruptive to the communication dynamics of the board. I am in favor of encouraging a limit of 3 consecutive posts.
> How's your day Scott?
Thanks for asking.
Terrible. Cymbalta has abandoned me, and I can barely function well enough to fix myself breakfast. Posting is not entirely without effort either. (Writing is much easier than reading for me). God, this sucks. Sometimes, life seems too long - not too short.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2004, at 11:53:52
In reply to Re: Thank you » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 15:30:08
> Sometimes I feel like there must be something wrong with me to disagree with the majority..
I was beginning to feel the same way. I surely don't feel like part of the majority. It must be a silent one.
- Scott
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.