Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1092407

Shown: posts 3 to 27 of 29. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. Clearskies

Posted by SLS on September 27, 2016, at 5:42:42

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by Clearskies on September 27, 2016, at 0:17:52

> >
> REDIRECT
>
> For those people who would like to remain active on Psycho-Babble, it might be productive to deluge Robert Hsiung, MD (Dr. Bob) with requests to return as a moderator of these forums.
> >
> > I wrote two letters to Dr. Bob earlier today. I encourage others to write to him also.
> >
> > bob@dr-bob.org

Thanks, Clearskies.


- Scott

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation.

Posted by SLS on September 27, 2016, at 5:51:53

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. Clearskies, posted by SLS on September 27, 2016, at 5:42:42

> > > > I really wonder if babble will be reactivated again, it's defeintly operating, but it's deputies and bob are playing hide and seek....

> > > I'm not sure why we have remained unmoderated for so long. I believe that to return to a moderated forum - one that includes posting blocks - will be necessary to improve the function of the website as a resource for education and support.

> > but i think we're doing good, there's only 1 individual that seems to cause disturbance, even the dupties when active let him troll the boards, somehow i think this individual has law suite threats for being blocked for discrimination
> >
> > but still....we can say what we want, and ... it's going fine.....not blocked for saying a potty mouth word for 2 weeks

> I agree, I enjoy the increased freedom of expression without the old civility rules.
>
> With the current situation, it's not so much the incivility that bothers me, it's the off-topic, spammy nature of posts. No matter what the topic, someone starts in on their pet topics and won't stop. I'd be fine if someone wanted to post endlessly about the evil of psychiatry or perceived anti-Semitism at this site, as long as it wasn't introduced inappropriately into so many threads.

How would you go about preventing this?


- Scott

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation.

Posted by Tabitha on September 27, 2016, at 12:35:08

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by SLS on September 27, 2016, at 5:51:53


> > With the current situation, it's not so much the incivility that bothers me, it's the off-topic, spammy nature of posts. No matter what the topic, someone starts in on their pet topics and won't stop. I'd be fine if someone wanted to post endlessly about the evil of psychiatry or perceived anti-Semitism at this site, as long as it wasn't introduced inappropriately into so many threads.
>
> How would you go about preventing this?
>
>
> - Scott

One approach would be with re-directs. Religious content goes on Faith, debates about whether the board tolerates anti-kittenism go on Admin, and perhaps debates about the possible general dangers of meds could go to some new board. As I recall, the Faith and Admin boards were originally created to keep those types of discussions off of the main board, with some success.

As far as thread hijacking, we have the 3-post rule, which I think helped somewhat. Maybe we need a new rule about taking threads egregiously off-topic from the original post. However, many threads naturally drift, so there would be a judgement call about what's "off-topic". I do think it's clear that when someone starts a topic about a particular medication or particular symptoms or side-effects, it's off-topic to talk about how medication in general is deadly, and how the board is a hotbed of anti-kittenism. But, such a rule might already overlap with re-directs to Faith, Admin, and "Danger" board.

It's an open question whether such rules would be followed, or we'd just end up having to use blocks anyway. I'd personally prefer it if we could accommodate unusual posters rather than ban them outright, but I also don't want moderators to end up spending 90% of their effort on one poster.

What do you think?

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation.

Posted by SLS on September 27, 2016, at 16:54:08

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by Tabitha on September 27, 2016, at 12:35:08

>
> > > With the current situation, it's not so much the incivility that bothers me, it's the off-topic, spammy nature of posts. No matter what the topic, someone starts in on their pet topics and won't stop. I'd be fine if someone wanted to post endlessly about the evil of psychiatry or perceived anti-Semitism at this site, as long as it wasn't introduced inappropriately into so many threads.
> >
> > How would you go about preventing this?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> One approach would be with re-directs. Religious content goes on Faith, debates about whether the board tolerates anti-kittenism go on Admin, and perhaps debates about the possible general dangers of meds could go to some new board. As I recall, the Faith and Admin boards were originally created to keep those types of discussions off of the main board, with some success.
>
> As far as thread hijacking, we have the 3-post rule, which I think helped somewhat. Maybe we need a new rule about taking threads egregiously off-topic from the original post. However, many threads naturally drift, so there would be a judgement call about what's "off-topic". I do think it's clear that when someone starts a topic about a particular medication or particular symptoms or side-effects, it's off-topic to talk about how medication in general is deadly, and how the board is a hotbed of anti-kittenism. But, such a rule might already overlap with re-directs to Faith, Admin, and "Danger" board.
>
> It's an open question whether such rules would be followed, or we'd just end up having to use blocks anyway. I'd personally prefer it if we could accommodate unusual posters rather than ban them outright, but I also don't want moderators to end up spending 90% of their effort on one poster.
>
> What do you think?

I am not sure. You are right about not spending 90% of a moderator's time on one poster, especially when such a poster is refractory to a moderator's suggestions. Some people will continue to push the envelope with impunity as long as there is no risk of being blocked from posting as a consequence.


- Scott

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. SLS

Posted by Tabitha on September 27, 2016, at 18:32:27

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by SLS on September 27, 2016, at 16:54:08

> Some people will continue to push the envelope with impunity as long as there is no risk of being blocked from posting as a consequence.
>

Agreed. What I can't recall is whether there was good rule adherence when blocks were a threat. I think our unusual poster was blocked repeatedly, up to one year. So I may be kidding myself to think that some rule modification + block threat would change posting behavior significantly. But, if it were possible to do that, I'd prefer it to immediate banning.

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation.

Posted by SLS on September 27, 2016, at 21:27:56

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. SLS, posted by Tabitha on September 27, 2016, at 18:32:27

> > Some people will continue to push the envelope with impunity as long as there is no risk of being blocked from posting as a consequence.
> >
>
> Agreed. What I can't recall is whether there was good rule adherence when blocks were a threat. I think our unusual poster was blocked repeatedly, up to one year. So I may be kidding myself to think that some rule modification + block threat would change posting behavior significantly. But, if it were possible to do that, I'd prefer it to immediate banning.

It would be ideal if a single, one-week posting block would change the posting behavior of the blocked poster forever. In some cases it might. In some cases not. I think there must be a balance between advocating for the individual and advocating for the community. In some cases, advocating for the individual over the opinion of the community can ultimately protect and improve the health of the community.

I would hope that Dr. Bob or a new moderator would start everyone off with a "clean slate" with no one in particular being targeted for sanctions. The announcement by a moderator that posting blocks would be reinstituted might in itself resolve problematic posting behaviors. Personally, I would rather see less moderation rather than more. I felt very constrained when Dr. Hsiung first introduced his system of enforced posting civility. I would prefer not to return to that exact paradigm.


- Scott

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. SLS

Posted by Tabitha on September 27, 2016, at 23:06:17

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by SLS on September 27, 2016, at 21:27:56

> I think there must be a balance between advocating for the individual and advocating for the community. In some cases, advocating for the individual over the opinion of the community can ultimately protect and improve the health of the community.
[...]
> Personally, I would rather see less moderation rather than more. I felt very constrained when Dr. Hsiung first introduced his system of enforced posting civility. I would prefer not to return to that exact paradigm.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>

I think we are on the same page :-)

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation.

Posted by rjlockhart37 on October 18, 2016, at 15:11:35

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. SLS, posted by Tabitha on September 27, 2016, at 23:06:17

Robert Hsuing i think is taking a break, but still browses babble, it's obviously less controlled and people can write anyhing right now, without being blocked or warned, in a way it's good.....because there's no time out in the corner for saying offensive words..... there's no "civil" warnings anymore

he may respond, our posts i think are entertaining to other people on the internet since babble is so open to the web to read, 0 prviacy

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation.

Posted by rjlockhart37 on October 18, 2016, at 15:19:42

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by rjlockhart37 on October 18, 2016, at 15:11:35

what i ment, is we can say rude things, not that it's a good thing, but where not placed in a "happy-be nice" posting styles.....and tapped on the hand when we say rude words, i think sometimes there has to be rude or offensive words to express a emotion to convey a point about something, but if it inference's with someone's well-being like another person, (cyber-bullying) is when it's a problem

but i think it's going good right now, we get along pretty good here and don't fight and attack, i think it's going well right now......

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. rjlockhart37

Posted by SLS on October 19, 2016, at 0:38:04

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by rjlockhart37 on October 18, 2016, at 15:19:42

> what i ment, is we can say rude things, not that it's a good thing, but where not placed in a "happy-be nice" posting styles.....and tapped on the hand when we say rude words, i think sometimes there has to be rude or offensive words to express a emotion to convey a point about something, but if it inference's with someone's well-being like another person, (cyber-bullying) is when it's a problem
>
> but i think it's going good right now, we get along pretty good here and don't fight and attack, i think it's going well right now......

I think I would prefer to have some type of moderation with posting blocks rather than no moderation at all. Perhaps we can establish a different balance of intervention. What are your thoughts on this? If you were the moderator, how would you go about it?


- Scott

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation.

Posted by rjlockhart37 on October 19, 2016, at 22:15:50

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. rjlockhart37, posted by SLS on October 19, 2016, at 0:38:04

mainly if i was moderater i would block true cyberbullying, where they repeatdly attack, and cause chaos, im not talking about anyone here on the board currently, but if they repeatdly offend and curse after warnings, that's when block would come......and in the manner they used it in, is accurately cyber-bulling

see it's also would be irritating to be having your hand tapped all the time, but if it to a point after warnings, "please be civil" i guess is the warning we have here on babble, but i would not block over small issues with conflicts, that's very irritating and it's like kindergarden be nice or go stand in the corner.....you know we should be able to express opinions, and if that has be used in harsh way to come across.....yea, but when it get's over the top where it's causing chaos on the boards. Cyberbullying would be a big concept if i was a moderator, mainly right now we have more of a troll problem than a cyberbulling problem

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. rjlockhart37

Posted by SLS on October 20, 2016, at 6:20:04

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by rjlockhart37 on October 19, 2016, at 22:15:50

> mainly if i was moderater i would block true cyberbullying, where they repeatdly attack, and cause chaos, im not talking about anyone here on the board currently, but if they repeatdly offend and curse after warnings, that's when block would come......and in the manner they used it in, is accurately cyber-bulling
>
> see it's also would be irritating to be having your hand tapped all the time, but if it to a point after warnings, "please be civil" i guess is the warning we have here on babble, but i would not block over small issues with conflicts, that's very irritating and it's like kindergarden be nice or go stand in the corner.....you know we should be able to express opinions, and if that has be used in harsh way to come across.....yea, but when it get's over the top where it's causing chaos on the boards. Cyberbullying would be a big concept if i was a moderator, mainly right now we have more of a troll problem than a cyberbulling problem

I agree. I would like to see the "Please be civil" subject line, though. Hopefully, it would be used only infrequently.

I am unclear on what constitutes "cyberbullying". Can you give an example?


- Scott

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. rjlockhart37

Posted by Clearskies on October 20, 2016, at 19:52:01

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by rjlockhart37 on October 19, 2016, at 22:15:50

> mainly if i was moderater i would block true cyberbullying, where they repeatdly attack, and cause chaos, im not talking about anyone here on the board currently, but if they repeatdly offend and curse after warnings, that's when block would come......and in the manner they used it in, is accurately cyber-bulling
>
> see it's also would be irritating to be having your hand tapped all the time, but if it to a point after warnings, "please be civil" i guess is the warning we have here on babble, but i would not block over small issues with conflicts, that's very irritating and it's like kindergarden be nice or go stand in the corner.....you know we should be able to express opinions, and if that has be used in harsh way to come across.....yea, but when it get's over the top where it's causing chaos on the boards. Cyberbullying would be a big concept if i was a moderator, mainly right now we have more of a troll problem than a cyberbulling problem

Having a policy for dealing with trolls would help a great deal.

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. Clearskies

Posted by SLS on October 22, 2016, at 14:09:58

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. rjlockhart37, posted by Clearskies on October 20, 2016, at 19:52:01

> Having a policy for dealing with trolls would help a great deal.

How would you recognize or define a "troll"?

I like to think that the website FAQ posting guidelines as they currently exist would help to keep trolling to a minimum. Interpretation of the guidelines and determining violations is not easy, I imagine. Dr. Bob has set some precedents that can be worked with that act as amendments or qualifiers to the extant FAQ guidelines.

What are some of the posting behaviors or verbiages used by a troll that you think would be helpful to identify one and act on?


- Scott

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. SLS

Posted by Clearskies on October 23, 2016, at 19:57:53

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. Clearskies, posted by SLS on October 22, 2016, at 14:09:58

> > Having a policy for dealing with trolls would help a great deal.
>
> How would you recognize or define a "troll"?
>
> I like to think that the website FAQ posting guidelines as they currently exist would help to keep trolling to a minimum. Interpretation of the guidelines and determining violations is not easy, I imagine. Dr. Bob has set some precedents that can be worked with that act as amendments or qualifiers to the extant FAQ guidelines.
>
> What are some of the posting behaviors or verbiages used by a troll that you think would be helpful to identify one and act on?
>
>
> - Scott

I think that is a great question to present to the forum membership as a poll. Gathering data from users and responding to needs is what this board is all about.

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation.

Posted by rjlockhart37 on October 24, 2016, at 12:38:27

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. rjlockhart37, posted by SLS on October 20, 2016, at 6:20:04

the term actually refer's to children on the internet, but cyber bullying how i view it is when it's harrasment, and repeated attacks on someone, causing emotional damage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. rjlockhart37

Posted by SLS on October 24, 2016, at 13:56:09

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation., posted by rjlockhart37 on October 24, 2016, at 12:38:27

> the term actually refer's to children on the internet, but cyber bullying how i view it is when it's harrasment, and repeated attacks on someone, causing emotional damage
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying

Thanks, RJ.

I hope you are having a good day.


- Scott

 

Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. SLS

Posted by Clearskies on October 24, 2016, at 14:48:51

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. rjlockhart37, posted by SLS on October 24, 2016, at 13:56:09

> > the term actually refer's to children on the internet, but cyber bullying how i view it is when it's harrasment, and repeated attacks on someone, causing emotional damage
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying
>
> Thanks, RJ.
>
> I hope you are having a good day.
>
>
> - Scott

I think referring to the standard definition of cyperbullying would suffice for a policy, don't you?

 

Moderation Clearskies

Posted by SLS on October 24, 2016, at 15:23:00

In reply to Re: Letter-writing campaign to Dr. Bob - Moderation. SLS, posted by Clearskies on October 24, 2016, at 14:48:51

> > > the term actually refer's to children on the internet, but cyber bullying how i view it is when it's harrasment, and repeated attacks on someone, causing emotional damage

> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying
> >
> > Thanks, RJ.
> >
> > I hope you are having a good day.

> I think referring to the standard definition of cyperbullying would suffice for a policy, don't you?

From what I read in that Wiki article, trolling and cyberbullying are separate things that often overlap. I think both definitions are relevant. The description of posting guidelines in the PB FAQ covers most of the verbiage seen in these behaviors that constitute incivility.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil

I must say that the good doctor did a nice job constructing the guidelines. They cover many problematic posting behaviors and offer some suggestions on how to deal with him. I take from them that most trolling and cyberbullying posts would be considered uncivil and qualify for posting blocks.

I'm sure there are problematic posting behaviors that are not addressed in the FAQ. What do you think should be added or changed?

I'm sure your input is greatly appreciated.


- Scott

 

Re: Moderation SLS

Posted by Clearskies on October 24, 2016, at 15:34:44

In reply to Moderation Clearskies, posted by SLS on October 24, 2016, at 15:23:00

Scott, the subject of civility and how to best - for the entire community - blocks would be assigned was a common topic.
Many times the issue was tabled, or left for Dr Bob to decide upon. Leniency was the trend.

I am not sure whether It helped or hindered. I think that timeliness was a very big factor, and we lost that relevancy, imo. Perhaps it's the response time that should be considered rather than further definitions.

 

Re: Moderation Clearskies

Posted by SLS on October 24, 2016, at 20:27:24

In reply to Re: Moderation SLS, posted by Clearskies on October 24, 2016, at 15:34:44

> Scott, the subject of civility and how to best - for the entire community - blocks would be assigned was a common topic.
> Many times the issue was tabled, or left for Dr Bob to decide upon. Leniency was the trend.
>
> I am not sure whether It helped or hindered. I think that timeliness was a very big factor, and we lost that relevancy, imo. Perhaps it's the response time that should be considered rather than further definitions.

I agree with you regarding timeliness.

Under what circumstances would you block someone from posting?


- Scott

 

Re: Moderation SLS

Posted by Clearskies on October 24, 2016, at 22:19:19

In reply to Re: Moderation Clearskies, posted by SLS on October 24, 2016, at 20:27:24

> > Scott, the subject of civility and how to best - for the entire community - blocks would be assigned was a common topic.
> > Many times the issue was tabled, or left for Dr Bob to decide upon. Leniency was the trend.
> >
> > I am not sure whether It helped or hindered. I think that timeliness was a very big factor, and we lost that relevancy, imo. Perhaps it's the response time that should be considered rather than further definitions.
>
> I agree with you regarding timeliness.
>
> Under what circumstances would you block someone from posting?
>
>
> - Scott

I woukd take any incivility in context of the situation in which it happened, and act accordingly. For example, if we had a poster exhibiting troll like posting behavior, I would think they would be blocked.


 

Re: Moderation Clearskies

Posted by SLS on October 25, 2016, at 0:33:29

In reply to Re: Moderation SLS, posted by Clearskies on October 24, 2016, at 22:19:19

> > > Scott, the subject of civility and how to best - for the entire community - blocks would be assigned was a common topic.
> > > Many times the issue was tabled, or left for Dr Bob to decide upon. Leniency was the trend.

> > > I am not sure whether It helped or hindered. I think that timeliness was a very big factor, and we lost that relevancy, imo. Perhaps it's the response time that should be considered rather than further definitions.

> > I agree with you regarding timeliness.
> >
> > Under what circumstances would you block someone from posting?

> I woukd take any incivility in context of the situation in which it happened, and act accordingly. For example, if we had a poster exhibiting troll like posting behavior, I would think they would be blocked.

I like that you are more focused on behaviors rather than labels.

Generally, we don't have very many people exhibiting trolling or bullying behaviors here. I don't see many conflicts. For the sake of equity, I think it is important to approach moderating by blocking behaviors rather than blocking people. For instance, someone might posts things that ["...sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages"]. Perhaps this person is indeed a troll by definition, but calling him a troll is itself a put down. It is not necessary to place a label on someone. It is more important to recognize and describe uncivil words than it is to account for them. The judging of intent or motives might best be avoided to maintain objectivity and fairness.

How would you critique this in order to make it better?


- Scott

 

Re: Moderation SLS

Posted by Clearskies on October 25, 2016, at 21:39:49

In reply to Re: Moderation Clearskies, posted by SLS on October 25, 2016, at 0:33:29

I would have to research how other forums handle these situations. For all I know, there is a protocol. Who knows? I am not an avid user of forums. Pretty clumsy, honestly.

CS

 

Re: Moderation

Posted by rjlockhart37 on October 26, 2016, at 19:49:07

In reply to Moderation Clearskies, posted by SLS on October 24, 2016, at 15:23:00

main thing is when un-predicted or unacceptable verbal abuse are a main thing to know of, my previous posts in the past, i didnt think of how the readers would react to my posts, i was just posting and not even having a coherecy how it will be reacted too, at the time wanst fully developed, and didnt have social ques on things, but i think mainly having a serious attack on someone who is doing damage. I think being "civil" is respecting other's opinions yet not totally agreeing with it. If they redid the civil posting polices, someonw would have to totally analyze and understand the nature of a attacker, why there doing it


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.