Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2003, at 12:13:01
In reply to Question, Dr. Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by bozeman on April 10, 2003, at 1:01:24
> I *thought* I saw something (at least twenty posts ago) that meant such "don't post to me requests" would be *thread specific*.
That was Dinah's idea:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/216668.html
> The dialogue I have been reading above appears to be more permanent and globally-orientated in nature
That was how I was thinking originally....
> That is to say that if I ever, once, ask someone not to direct a post to me, that it means "forever", and if five years from now, that person directs an innocent, two-word post to me, like "Well said!" then they are de facto being uncivil and subject to being blocked.
Well, it wouldn't be completely innocent if they knew they weren't supposed to do that...
> Alternatively, and perhaps more disturbing, anyone could conceivably post a message addressed to the community as a whole, with the premeditated intent to rebuff or exclude a particular poster. To me, this seems somewhat unreasonable, considering the stated "purpose" of these boards as a mutual support community, and at worst . . . . well, it reminds me of the stuff that happened in school on the playground. "Let's play a game and not let so-and-so play."
I've also been worried about unreasonable requests:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/217289.html
So I've been thinking "global-only" might be better...
> It seems one thing for me to post something, get several posts in response, not be comfortable where the thread is going, and ask someone in particular to *not* continue to direct posts to me about it for the remainder of that thread or discussion...
The thing is, it's hard to control where a thread goes. Even if posts by one person to you weren't allowed, posts by them to others, undirected posts by them, and posts by others, to you or otherwise, would be, and could affect where the thread went.
> and another thing entirely for me to say to them, effectively, "don't you ever speak to me again."
Well, it wouldn't really be "ever again", it would be "unless I change my mind"... Remember, the original concern was about people feeling harassed. And not allowing posts to them would in fact be an effective way to prevent that...
> As the board grows more rapidly ... the presence of a single human moderator becomes more and more sporadic and unreliable due to the sheer number of posts involved.
I know, especially lately, and I still would like to bring back "deputy administrators", but that's another discussion...
> THREAD 1: (started by A, joined by B and C)
> C: ------- Say, A, what meds are you taking anyway? I think Smilesalot is a great drug, and if you took it you probably wouldn't care if your therapist doesn't understand you.
> C: ------- I really think you should just get you some Smilesalot!!! What could it hurt?
> C: ------- Why don't you try the Smilesalot? It's great stuff, really helped me and another poster I know.
> C: ------- I know where you can get Smilesalot cheap, perfectly legal so Dr. Bob won't mind, in your own country, and it's a toll-free number. How's that for a deal?
> A: ------- I know you mean well, C, and I'm really happy Smilesalot worked for you. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't keep urging me to take a drug you know I have reservations about. I'm very upset and sensitive about this situation, and frustrated already, so please don't post to me anymore on this thread, OK?C isn't supposed to pressure A, so I'm not even sure an anti-harassment policy is needed here...
> THREAD 3: (started by D, joined by B, C, and E, but not A, as A is forbidden by D to enter the conversation)
> D: ------- I just got the worst news. My wife just called and said she was leaving me to join the peace corps!!! ... And by the way, A, don't you respond to me about this, I'm tired of hearing about your ex-husband-who-left-you-for-another-woman and his-twin-brother-your-pdoc saga. There's no similarity whatsoever in our situations.
>
> Dr. Bob -- in this situation, is D civil and justified, and living within the (new) rule to forbid A from posting to him? How can he *know* what she would have said or not said? Does it *matter* what she would have said, or not said, if he doesn't want to talk with her? How would you apply the rule this time?"Tired of hearing about your saga" could be rephrased, but if D had felt harassed with the saga, then D could request the above.
> THREAD 4: (started by D, joined by B and E, but not A or C, as they are forbidden by D to enter the conversation)
> D: ------- I just got the worst news. My wife just called and said she was leaving me to join the peace corps!!! ... And by the way, don't any women respond to me about this. I need a man's perspective.
>
> Dr. Bob -- in this situation, is D civil and justified, and living within the (new) rule to forbid A and B (and all other women) from posting to him? How can he *know* what they would have said or not said? Does it *matter* if he doesn't want to talk with them? How would you apply the rule this time?I think I'd consider that an unreasonable request. Like the second scenario in:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/217498.html
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:216901
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/219225.html