![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 45 to 69 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2005, at 15:29:48
In reply to Re: Thank you, but one final appeal » Dr. Bob, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 26, 2005, at 11:29:51
It is written in this thread that,[...question posed habitually...]and [...it causes regular friction...].
When I request from Dr. Hsiung a determination, it is not my intention to cause friction. I belive that my requests have the potential to decrease friction because if a determination is made as a result of my request, then that has IMO the potential to benifit the community by having a more well-defined guidline.
It has also been written,[...shouldn't reporting uncivil behavior be done mostly by those directly involved?...]
I feel that all the members of the community are involved in my requests to Dr. Hsiung for a determination.
It has also been written,[...taking pieces of a post out of context...question raised that it might be antisemitic...].
I feel that if any poster wants to raise a question about a statement, then the administrative board is for that purpose. Now I do not belive that I raised a question as to if a statement in this thread was antisemitic. If so, could anyone here give me the URL and the statement in question where I ask if the statement is antisemitic? I sometimes may write a question as to if a statement {has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings}, which I think is different from asking if the statement is antisemitic.
It is also written,[...done behind your back...].
I do not understand this.Is not a post on the administartive board not done behind someone's back? If anyone can comment or clarify this, I would appreciate it.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2005, at 16:26:12
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on April 26, 2005, at 15:29:48
It is also writtenin this thread, [...the needs of many others...].
I have received many messages complimenting me on my requests to Dr. Hsiung for a determination. I feel that those messages show me, at least, that there is a need for others for me to post my requests to Dr. Hsiung.
It is also written in this thead,[...one kind of {disorder}...].
I do not feel that it is a {disorder} for anyone to request from the administarion clarification or a determination of acceptability in relation to the guidlines of the forum, regardless of the number of those requests, for of each request, there is the opportunity for the administration to reply and a reply IMO adds to the understanding that the members of the community could have.
It is also written in this thread, [...I feel harassed by this kind of behavior...].
It is not my intention to harass anyone if I request determinations for acceptability or clarification to the guidlines of the forum.
It is also written in this thread,[...will you... consider doing something about this?...]
DR. Hsiung has already written,[...I don't see asking a question as jumping to a conclusion,exaggerating, or overgenerlizing...]and,[...I can administer better if people inform me about questionable posts...]and, [...so for you, the cost of comming here may not outweigh the benefit...], and I do not see that Dr. Hsiung has not written that the number of requests by any poster is relevant.
My thinking is that Dr. Hsiung has offered the administrative board to accomodate people that have concerns about the acceptability or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum of statements. And I agree with Dr. Hsiung that the administrative board is a valuable part of a mental-health community because it allows members to have the administration further define the guidlines of the forum. Could it matter as to how many requests by a poster there are if what comes out of those requests benefits the community as a whole?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:46:31
In reply to Re: Thank you, but one final appeal » Dr. Bob, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 26, 2005, at 11:29:51
> I do mind that it causes regular friction in an environment that's meant to be supportive.
Be Teflon, and there won't be any friction?
> shouldn't reporting uncivil behavior be done ... by going to you, Dr. Bob, either through the Admin board or Babblemail.
Hmm, this may be another advantage of switching to a "report this post" button:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425076.html
> > Is it so hard to ignore posts on other boards?
>
> Respectfully, yes.So you read every post on every board you go to?
> will you please consider doing something about this?
>
> Thank you again for hearing my appeal.Thanks for your input. I do value it even if we disagree. And I'm sorry this is hard for you. But in some cases, the cost of coming here may outweigh the benefit. I have considered and will continue to consider other options. I just haven't been convinced yet that an alternative would be better overall for this community.
Bob
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 27, 2005, at 13:06:27
In reply to Re: one final appeal, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:46:31
Respectfully, are your questions rhetorical, or should I keep answering them? I felt a little put down by these... they seem a little sarcastic, IMO, though I did answer the second one.
It seems nothing is going to be done about this at this time, but might I ask what other options you have considered for the problem we've been discussing?
*** And finally, I've lost track of the number of times I've asked now, but would you PLEASE just let me know if you think the kind of behavior we've been discussing here is civil? (Or uncivil? Or somewhere in between?) ***
> > I do mind that it causes regular friction in an environment that's meant to be supportive.
>
> Be Teflon, and there won't be any friction? ...
> > > Is it so hard to ignore posts on other boards?
> >
> > Respectfully, yes.
>
> So you read every post on every board you go to?No, but as I said previously, it is very hard to ignore such a flood of posts. I frequently have to pick through these kinds of posts to get to ones that *aren't* this kind of post. Do I read some? Yes. Sometimes (because it's been done to me in the past) I wonder if my words are being scrutinized without my knowledge; or sometimes because I want to support someone else whose words, IMO, have been taken out of context and put under scrutiny. Also, sometimes I just stumble into them as a result of reading some other post or following some other thread.
Posted by TofuEmmy on April 27, 2005, at 14:21:00
In reply to Re: one final appeal » Dr. Bob, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 27, 2005, at 13:06:27
"*** And finally, I've lost track of the number of times I've asked now, but would you PLEASE just let me know if you think the kind of behavior we've been discussing here is civil? (Or uncivil? Or somewhere in between?) ***"
It seems to me that if Bob thought the behavior was uncivil, he would PBC the poster. Since he does not, can't we assume that Bob has found the posts perfectly civil?
Maybe I am missing something here? I can be pretty dense.
em
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 27, 2005, at 14:39:35
In reply to Re: one final appeal » Minnie-Haha, posted by TofuEmmy on April 27, 2005, at 14:21:00
> It seems to me that if Bob thought the behavior was uncivil, he would PBC the poster. Since he does not, can't we assume that Bob has found the posts perfectly civil?
>
> Maybe I am missing something here? I can be pretty dense.You make a good point. But since Bob does sometimes seem to depend on having possible violations brought to his attention, I just wanted to get an explicit answer.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:46:38
In reply to Re: one final appeal » TofuEmmy, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 27, 2005, at 14:39:35
Hi there. I haven't been keeping up with this thread or the issue that you were raising though I think (I think) I've read enough to get the general gist...
(That was just a lead in for me to say please ignore whichever parts of the following don't apply because they are solely the result of my misunderstanding.)
I think the issue is about frequent requests for determination on the acceptability of posts / phrases with respect to the civility guidelines.
Whether such requests are themselves civil.
Similar issues have come up fairly frequently. Not with respect to the civility of such requests (to the best of my knowledge) but with respect to other people wishing such frequent requests were not made.
I remember joining in such a thread. Reading about how people felt when their posts (or aspects of their posts) were brought to moderators attention for determination. People seemed upset with their posts being the subject of such scrutiny and they wished that they were not brought to the moderators specific attention. I agreed at the time - seeing how upset people were with their posts being singled out.
Over time I have changed my views on that. I think that it is nice that it is okay for frequent requests for determination because I think I have come to understand a little about the INTENTION behind such requests for determination.
- The intent isn't to single out a particular poster. To get them in trouble.
- The intent isn't to upset the poster.
- The intent seems to have a lot more to do with an attempt to understand the civility rules. Both with respect to the poster who is requesting determination and with respect to the forum as a whole. So that we can all come to understand the civility rules better by coming to understand WHY some aspects of posts are deemed acceptable while others are not. (Whether this strategy actually helps with that is another question and I am not so sure on the answer to that...)
- The intent seems to have a lot more to do with coming to understand that so that the poster who requests determinations is able to understand the civility rules because there is stuff that they want to say and they aren't sure how to say what they want to say within the civility guidelines.And so the intent isn't to hurt or accuse or anything like that. And that is why (IMO) it would be a shame to curb that anymore than has already been done with the introduction of the three post rule.
So. Some people are upset with their posts being singled out for specific attention. That fact remains. But does seeing the intention in that way help with that upset?
I guess there has to be a tradeoff between freedom of expression (or requests for determination in this case) and other people feeling offended or hurt.
But how much to limit freedom of expression?
And how much to take it as an opportunity to learn to better manage the hurt?
Hmm.If this is all way off and irrelevant I apologise.
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 27, 2005, at 22:21:52
In reply to Re: one final appeal, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:46:31
Be Teflon, and there won't be any friction?
ya right...
come on bob give me the ignore button to push...
I am so sick of this..
please
please..
no teflon here.
so sticky
come on please let me push a button....
Jai
Posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 22:29:13
In reply to Dr. Bob give me that button....the ignor button..., posted by Jai Narayan on April 27, 2005, at 22:21:52
Aw Jai :-(
Do you want to ignore me???
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 28, 2005, at 9:59:48
In reply to Dr. Bob give me that button....the ignor button..., posted by Jai Narayan on April 27, 2005, at 22:21:52
There is no way in the world I would want to ignore you, Alex...
I tune into your posts to see what's happening...I am just sick and tired of...
how can I say this without hurting someone or getting kicked off the site?
but I have hit my limit...
actually I am way over my limit.sorry I'm so unable to cope.
I see it as a failing of mine..I wish I were more ZEN
but here I am in all my weakness...
I wonder how the ignor button would work?is it employed on another site?
Does PC have it?
I want to be kind to all and forever supportive..sorry
Jai
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 28, 2005, at 11:04:50
In reply to Re: one final appeal » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:46:38
> ... Over time I have changed my views on [the frequent civility-rule requests]. I think that it is nice that it is okay for frequent requests for determination because I think I have come to understand a little about the INTENTION behind such requests for determination...
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yes, I did touch on this further back in the thread, but I don't mind explaining my feelings again. IMO, the intention isn't the important thing but the behavior itself. For instance, some people salt their speech with profanities. They don't intend to offend, they just use four-letter-words as adjectives or interjections or whatever. And many people can listen to that and not be offended at all, but others are offended and that's why curse words (according to Webster's) are forbidden here. The intention is not being curtailed, but the behavior, because it is hurtful and offensive to enough people to be restricted. (And I think enough people have been offended by the behavior we're talking about to justify restriction. There are plenty of threads and individual posts on the subject, plus the Babblemail people trade when they're afraid to or tired of bringing up the subject.)
> ... But how much to limit freedom of expression?Sarcasm, put downs, etc. are not allowed here and that limits freedom of expression, but they are considered hurtful or offensive and therefore not in the best interest of the group. And freedom of speech is not absolute, as Campbell explains in the document Dr. Bob direct us to in his FAQ on civility.
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WAFS
> And how much to take it as an opportunity to learn to better manage the hurt?Well, IMO, if someone is offended by uncivil behavior, they should not have to modify their behavior, but the offender should.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 28, 2005, at 11:10:23
In reply to Re: one final appeal » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:46:38
> ... But how much to limit freedom of expression?
Sarcasm, put downs, etc. are not allowed here and that limits freedom of expression, but they are considered hurtful or offensive and therefore not in the best interest of the group. And freedom of speech is not absolute, as Campbell explains in the document Dr. Bob direct us to in his FAQ on civility.
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Then click on or scroll down to "What About Freedom of Speech"
Posted by alexandra_k on April 28, 2005, at 19:19:14
In reply to Re: one final appeal » alexandra_k, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 28, 2005, at 11:04:50
> > ... Over time I have changed my views on [the frequent civility-rule requests]. I think that it is nice that it is okay for frequent requests for determination because I think I have come to understand a little about the INTENTION behind such requests for determination...
> Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yes, I did touch on this further back in the thread, but I don't mind explaining my feelings again. IMO, the intention isn't the important thing but the behavior itself.
From the link you supplied:
>An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
So the intention of a troll is to:
- sow discord.
- try to start arguments with the intention of upsetting people.If this isn't the intention then it would seem that the person isn't being a troll (by definition). Intention does seem to be important with respect to whether someone is being a troll or not...
>For instance, some people salt their speech with profanities.
Yeah, I swear a fair bit myself.
>They don't intend to offend, they just use four-letter-words as adjectives or interjections or whatever. And many people can listen to that and not be offended at all, but others are offended and that's why curse words (according to Webster's) are forbidden here.
Actually, what to do about swearing on these boards was a hard decision to make for the very same reasons that this situation is hard:
A weighing of freedom of expression and the fact that some people really are offended. A comprimise was made here. You can swear as much as you like and the civility filter will handle it. IMO that is coming down more on the side of freedom of speech than of the people who are feeling offended.
>The intention is not being curtailed, but the behavior, because it is hurtful and offensive to enough people to be restricted.
Only to the extent that an asterisk is being inserted. And the system is far from perfect.
B*llshit. He he.> > ... But how much to limit freedom of expression?
> Sarcasm, put downs, etc. are not allowed here and that limits freedom of expression, but they are considered hurtful or offensive and therefore not in the best interest of the group. And freedom of speech is not absolute, as Campbell explains in the document Dr. Bob direct us to in his FAQ on civility.I'm not advocating COMPLETE freedom of speech.
> > And how much to take it as an opportunity to learn to better manage the hurt?
> Well, IMO, if someone is offended by uncivil behavior, they should not have to modify their behavior, but the offender should.Yes. Though the behaviour doesn't seem to be either uncivil or trolling.
Sometimes in life we can't change others.
All that is left to be done is to work on our responses to them.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 28, 2005, at 19:21:12
In reply to in desperate need of the ignore button, posted by Jai Narayan on April 28, 2005, at 9:59:48
I know you didn't want to ignore me.
I was kidding.
I'm not that keen on the idea of an ignore button.
Yes there is that option at PC.
I used it for a few days.
But found it next to impossible to follow some threads
And didn't like the idea of it.
I would hate it if I thought someone was ignoring me.
So I wouldn't do that to anyone else either.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:32:42
In reply to Re: one final appeal » Dr. Bob, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 27, 2005, at 13:06:27
> Respectfully, are your questions rhetorical, or should I keep answering them?
Some of them are rhetorical, but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't answer them...
> It seems nothing is going to be done about this at this time, but might I ask what other options you have considered for the problem we've been discussing?
Please see the archives? No, I'm not going to do anything else about this at this time.
> *** And finally, I've lost track of the number of times I've asked now, but would you PLEASE just let me know if you think the kind of behavior we've been discussing here is civil? (Or uncivil? Or somewhere in between?) ***
Sorry, but I'd rather not label it.
> Sometimes (because it's been done to me in the past) I wonder if my words are being scrutinized without my knowledge
How does it make you feel when your words are being scrutinized? That's something I do, too...
Bob
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 29, 2005, at 6:25:36
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:32:42
Dr. Bob are you saying that your actions and the actions in question are the same?
All we are left with is our reaction?
and then you scrutinize our feelings about our reactions?this feels like a cat chasing it's tail.
I can tell this is your way of saying there aren't any answers coming. Am I right?
Ja* Nar*y@n
Posted by nikkit2 on April 29, 2005, at 7:58:44
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:32:42
Dr Bob,
This is your site. Its your role, as administrator to check the posts. You also only comment on them when they *are* uncivil.
Can you not understand the pain this causes people?
Please please instigate a "report this" button so we can put a stop to admin posts that subject people to intense scrutiny, where their words are *often* taken out of context, and not reproduced accurately.
By para phrasing and using [..]'s we can easily take almost any post and turn it into something different to what it is.
It HURTS, incredibly, to be accused of being anti semitic when that is very far from the truth, it hurts to have your civility questioned when in fact there is nothing in the post remotely uncivil.
Nikki x
Posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 9:07:53
In reply to Re: being scrutinized » Dr. Bob, posted by nikkit2 on April 29, 2005, at 7:58:44
Would it help if only complete sentence quotes were allowed in this type situation? No condensing to just a few words or paraphrasing allowed?
Posted by nikkit2 on April 29, 2005, at 9:36:36
In reply to Re: Would it help? » nikkit2, posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 9:07:53
I've asked for that many many times over the years and been told that paraphrasing and only using odfd words is, apparently, fine.
*shrugs*
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 29, 2005, at 12:42:42
In reply to Re: one final appeal » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 28, 2005, at 19:19:14
> From the link you supplied:
>
> >An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
>
> ... If this isn't the intention then it would seem that the person isn't being a troll (by definition)...If... The fact is, we can none of us *really* know any other person's intention, even if they tell us what it is. There are those here who think the behavior we’re talking about is not intentional and others who think it is. If it *is* intentional, then the poster will not curb it unless something compels him to. If it is *not* intentional, and the poster has seen and heard repeatedly that the behavior is offensive, then he will stop it on his own if he cares how others feel. That brings us to at least two possibilities. One is someone who doesn't offend intentionally, but who doesn't care if he does. The other also doesn't offend intentionally, but can't stop himself from doing so. The former, IMO, is still uncivil. And the latter is not exempt from being civil. (On this site, we all have disorders.)
> [On swearing] ... A weighing of freedom of expression and the fact that some people really are offended. A comprimise was made here. You can swear as much as you like and the civility filter will handle it. IMO that is coming down more on the side of freedom of speech than of the people who are feeling offended.The filter is a great tool. You can swear as much as you like -- as long as it's not directed at anyone. (Not even on the Admin board. Anyone who posted, "Do you think Minnie is acting like a b*tch?" would jeopardize their freedom of speech here). And some people really are feeling offended by the behavior we're talking about.
> > Well, IMO, if someone is offended by uncivil behavior, they should not have to modify their behavior, but the offender should.
>
> Yes. Though the behaviour doesn't seem to be either uncivil or trolling.That depends on who you ask. Cursing, in general doesn't seem uncivil to me. Asking questions or making comments about others, IN GENERAL, doesn't seem offensive either. But there are circumstances under which both could be offensive, IMO.
> Sometimes in life we can't change others. All that is left to be done is to work on our responses to them.You shouldn’t try to change who a person IS, but it's OK to ask them to modify offensive behavior. And if they don't, it's OK to exclude them (the length of time depends) from the group. I just think it’s sad that there are only three options here.
1. Approach the person, which in IMO sometimes leads to enlightenment, but more often to discord or stalemate.
2. Ignore the person, which is hard to do whether he posts (usually repeatedly) to a thread you're on, or simply floods a board with dozens of posts.
3. Leave the community, because arguing for action on this gets you nowhere but to an eventual “learn to live with it or you're free to leave” sort of reply. In between, I haven’t yet seen an opposing argument that convinces me we aren’t just making too-generous allowances for a certain individual’s behavior, at the expense of losing other good people.
Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 29, 2005, at 12:58:01
In reply to Lou's response top an aspect of this thread-nacl, posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2005, at 21:12:00
> It has been written in this thread that I requested that Dr. Hsiung write a determination as to the acceptability or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum as to the use of the idiom...
Could you please delete the post this is attached to? I never use the words in this idiom in this thread, and the idiom was already thoroughly scrutinized in an older thread.
Thanks.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 29, 2005, at 13:28:08
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:32:42
> How does it make you feel when your words are being scrutinized? That's something I do, too...
>
> BobJoining this group, I knew you were the moderator, so I expected you to monitor what I and others are saying and doing. (Also your appointed deputies when you aren't here.)
Posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 13:47:55
In reply to Re: Would it help? » nikkit2, posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 9:07:53
Apparantly a lot of what upsets folks is the shortening of what the post said and the possibility that could change the meaning.
Could you help with that by making a request (I hate to call it a rule) that when bringing issues to admin that the entire phrase under question be quoted verbatim?
It might even save you some time trying to find it.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 15:33:16
In reply to Re: one final appeal » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:46:38
Remember that Lou is a person, too, with feelings like the rest of us.
I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 16:15:42
In reply to Re: Could we all remember one thing?????, posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 15:33:16
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.