![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 61 to 85 of 104. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 29, 2005, at 16:37:32
In reply to Re: Could we all remember one thing?????, posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 15:33:16
Auntie Mel,
You wrote,[...Lou is a person...I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now...].
Could you clarify why you would not want to be in my shoes right now?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 29, 2005, at 16:39:35
In reply to I wouldn't either. :( (nm) » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 16:15:42
Dinah,
Your subject line was,[...I wouldn't either...]
Could you clarify why you would not want to either?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 18:02:47
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 29, 2005, at 16:39:35
I'm sorry, but no Lou. Because yours aren't the only shoes I wouldn't want to be in right now. I feel empathy for everyone involved.
I hope you understand.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 21:41:01
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 29, 2005, at 12:42:42
> If... The fact is, we can none of us *really* know any other person's intention, even if they tell us what it is.
Absolutely. Our own can be like that too. In these cases it is 'polite' or 'acting in good faith' to assume the most charitable interpretation possible. Why? Because it makes life more pleasant, I suppose. If we assume others have malevolent intent it makes US hard to be around whereas if we attempt to assume that people are well intentioned then WE are easier to be around and we tend to be happier because the world (and more especially the people in the world) seem more pleasant.
>There are those here who think the behavior we’re talking about is not intentional and others who think it is.
I think that most people think the behaviour is intentional (that it is done on the basis of beliefs and desires) - the point at issue seems to be about what in actual fact the intention behind the behaviour 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.
Ah. So by 'intentional' you aren't really talking about the behaviour - but rather whether the poster intends for other people to respond by feeling offended.
I guess I disagree that the 'behaviour is offensive'. Rather - it is an undeniable fact that some people feel offended by the behaviour. What is the difference? Well, I am not offended by the behaviour. Maybe the difference is that I do not believe that the poster intends for other people to feel offended.
A little bit of evidence for that is that the poster does not seem upset when people are not offended. I dare say he much prefers it when people are not offended with his posts. That seems to give some support for the hypothesis that he does not desire to cause offense by his posts.
The intention that I summarised before is what I have gathered over the time that I have been here. A combination of what the poster has said himself and of a hypothesis that I have come to based on the way that he responds when people are upset.
>That brings us to at least two possibilities. One is someone who doesn't offend intentionally, but who doesn't care if he does.
Lets say that I enjoy singing a great deal. But that I am really very bad at it. I am so very bad at it that my SO finds it to be offensive in fact. Lets say that one day I sing. I know my SO finds it offensive - but I sing anyway. Does it follow from that that I don't care that my SO is offended? No. It doesn't. It is possible that I realise my SO will be offended and that I do care about that - but that I also have my own needs and desires and sometimes after weighing the costs and benefits I need to do what I need to do. Maybe this situation is something like that in that the poster feels very strongly about what he is attempting to do with his posts - and while he appreciates that some people do feel offended he needs to do what he needs to do.
>The other also doesn't offend intentionally, but can't stop himself from doing so. The former, IMO, is still uncivil.
Would it be uncivil for me to sing?
(I admit the analogy isn't perfect - in fact it isn't very good at all. But do you see what I am trying to say? Just because someone finds someones behaviour to be offensive doesn't mean that the behaviour itself is offensive.)
> > > Well, IMO, if someone is offended by uncivil behavior, they should not have to modify their behavior, but the offender should.But the behaviour itself is neither offensive nor uncivil.
I guess that civility has a fairly technical meaning here... It is a tricky one.
> You shouldn’t try to change who a person IS, but it's OK to ask them to modify offensive behavior.Sure.
>And if they don't, it's OK to exclude them (the length of time depends) from the group.
Once again there is a difference between 'offensive' behavior and the fact that some people respond to certain behaviour by taking offense.
IMO it is actually uncivil to call the behaviour (itself) uncivil or offensive. Because that is judging it negatively. The same with assuming the worst with respect to peoples intentions.
How about:4. Try to come to understand the posters intentions (by using the principle of charity). I really think that if people understood more about where the poster was coming from they wouldn't find the behaviour so distressing anymore. Then it would be easier to ignore - or people might even be a bit more interested in the determinations that are made.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 29, 2005, at 23:15:15
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 21:41:01
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 30, 2005, at 0:13:16
In reply to alexandraK, You are so darned cool! (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 29, 2005, at 23:15:15
Brava!
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 30, 2005, at 5:02:14
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 21:41:01
I agree it is uncivil to say another post is uncivil.
I also believe that it is uncivil to *suggest* another post is uncivil.
Isn't that the whole basis of this entire thread?
Maybe I should go back to bed and get some more sleep.. But I'm seriously confused here.. Its *not* OK for someone to ask whether repeated requests as to whether posts are uncivil or not (when in the vast majority of cases, the posts being questioned *are* civil), but it *is* OK for those repeated *suggestions* that a post is uncivil?
Yeah, I need more sleep *L*
Nikki x
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 30, 2005, at 12:48:31
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break » alexandra_k, posted by NikkiT2 on April 30, 2005, at 5:02:14
> I agree it is uncivil to say another post is uncivil.
>
> I also believe that it is uncivil to *suggest* another post is uncivil.
>
> Isn't that the whole basis of this entire thread?
>
> Maybe I should go back to bed and get some more sleep.. But I'm seriously confused here.. Its *not* OK for someone to ask whether repeated requests as to whether posts are uncivil or not (when in the vast majority of cases, the posts being questioned *are* civil), but it *is* OK for those repeated *suggestions* that a post is uncivil?
>
> Yeah, I need more sleep *L*
>
> Nikki xBut... bwah-ha-ha... *my* intentions are uncivil, don't you see. ;)
I go bye-bye now. This is not a debate that can be won here (for the time being). I don't mean I'm going bye-bye from the site, just from this thread. I sure wish all you ladies would come over to the PB-Sisters group and get to know me better; I think I'm rather likeable. And I'd sure like to get to know you better, but I use idioms and I don't want to be the possible target of an inquisition right now... Emotions are feeling rather raw. I don't know if anyone has the charity to believe that my intentions here were good (IMO), but they were. It took a lot of courage on my part to bring up the topic, but I think my arguments were very logical.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 30, 2005, at 13:06:54
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 21:41:01
> Ah. So by 'intentional' you aren't really talking about the behaviour - but rather whether the poster intends for other people to respond by feeling offended.
No. Perhaps I did I poor job of making this clear in that post, but I only discussed intention because some here don't want to consider behavior alone, which is what I'd prefer to do. I still contend that once the poster learns that the behavior is offensive, if he/she continues to do it, his or her intentions need to be more deeply examined, because he/she now knows the behavior is offensive.
For example, once you get a PBC here (an *official* civility warning), you know that you're on notice; the next time you're uncivil, you'll be blocked, regardless of your intentions.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 14:55:35
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 29, 2005, at 12:42:42
> 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.
So either the poster intends to offend or he doesn't care how others feel? Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
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 April 30, 2005, at 14:57:50
In reply to Re: being scrutinized » Dr. Bob, posted by nikkit2 on April 29, 2005, at 7:58:44
> > How does it make you feel when your words are being scrutinized?
>
> 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?
>
> 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.1. True, it's my role to check the posts. Still, that means I scrutinize your words, and you might have feelings about that.
2. Civility is subjective, and reasonable people can disagree. And have. :-)
3. I understand it can be uncomfortable to be accused, or even just scrutinized. But if you know something's very far from the truth? Would it hurt to be accused of having two heads?
> 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.But isn't one of the advantages of this medium that inaccuracies like that are easily corrected?
> Please please instigate a "report this" button so we can put a stop to admin posts that subject people to intense scrutiny
The button may help, but I don't know if it's going to put a stop to all conflict...
Also, a button shouldn't be too hard to add, but there's also the issue of how a "report" should then be handled. Any thoughts regarding that?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 15:14:58
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 14:57:50
What do you mean? Wouldn't the button just generate an email to you, with perhaps the id of the poster reporting and a short message space to explain what they think is wrong?
Then you could look at the posts reported and send back an automated message to the reporter along the lines of "I've looked at this and it appears to comply with the civility guidelines" or "I've looked at this and handled it accordingly"?
Are you asking if there should be a public report of posts reported? That would appear to be contrary to the spirit behind the whole button idea.
Weren't you giving some thought to allowing the button reporting to replace your reading every post and save you time? Are you still considering that? Or do you still want to look for things that others might not have found uncivil but you would.
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 30, 2005, at 15:38:51
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 14:57:50
3. I understand it can be uncomfortable to be accused, or even just scrutinized. But if you know something's very far from the truth? Would it hurt to be accused of having two heads?
To borrow a phrase, if someone is accused of being anti semitic, this could lead others to believe it. Having two heads is impossible.. but to be thought of as anti semitic, in my mind, is closer to be thought of as ignorant.
Would you allow it if someone "suggested" another was a peadophile? Both are illegal here in the UK (anti semitism falls under "inciting racial hatred" I believe)..Installing the "report it" button (Dinah's suggestion sounds perfect by the way) would remove all of this..
If you use outlook for your emails I might even be able to work out how you can just press a button to send the appropriate reply!Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2005, at 0:27:08
In reply to Re: being scrutinized » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 15:14:58
> Then you could look at the posts reported and send back an automated message to the reporter along the lines of "I've looked at this and it appears to comply with the civility guidelines" or "I've looked at this and handled it accordingly"?
I was thinking maybe the reports should go to not just me, but also the deputy administrators. So we'd need to be coordinated on the other end. And would having a button mean people couldn't report something here?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2005, at 0:27:12
In reply to Re: being scrutinized » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on April 30, 2005, at 15:38:51
> > I understand it can be uncomfortable to be accused... But if you know something's very far from the truth? Would it hurt to be accused of having two heads?
>
> To borrow a phrase, if someone is accused of being anti semitic, this could lead others to believe it.Even if it's very far from the truth? They'd be swayed by one accusation?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 1, 2005, at 0:46:47
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2005, at 0:27:12
Ah, Dr. Bob.
You know full well that no one is allowed to accuse another poster on Babble under the civility rules.
The distinction is whether one is being accused or not, not whether being accused is ok.
Not that this doesn't make for an interesting discussion.
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.