![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on September 26, 2004, at 22:54:03
In reply to Support, posted by Toph on September 23, 2004, at 17:29:51
Aren't all participants with personality disorders (narcissistic, borderline, paranoid, schizotypic, etc) going to have some trouble conforming to the inflexible rules and social norms of Psycho-Babble?
Posted by Dinah on September 26, 2004, at 23:02:18
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 26, 2004, at 22:54:03
Posted by Toph on September 27, 2004, at 6:52:25
In reply to Nawww, some of us thrive on it. :D (nm) » Toph, posted by Dinah on September 26, 2004, at 23:02:18
Posted by verne on September 27, 2004, at 8:01:57
In reply to Re: Support, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 7:03:43
I agree, "filibusters" harm the community as a whole.
I know of another site that offers games with an accompanying chat window. In their terms of service the following is against the rules:
"Disrupting the flow of chat in chat rooms with hitting the return key repeatedly or flooding [posting repetitive text]." When this happens the game slows down and the others are prevented from communicating.
In another place it says: "Improperly use in game support or complaint buttons to make false reports about other members."
I feel unsupported, shamed, and accused, having my posts repeatedly submitted to administration for admonishment. I feel less like posting.Verne
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 8:54:30
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 26, 2004, at 22:54:03
> Aren't all participants with personality disorders (narcissistic, borderline, paranoid, schizotypic, etc) going to have some trouble conforming to the inflexible rules and social norms of Psycho-Babble?
Potentially. Yours truly, who has PTSD, and its triggering effect, certainly has had problems. Being triggered means you can lose control entirely. Anybody can learn to accommodate their challenges in the context of Babble, though. The requirement that every post be confirmed before sending is one very potent management opportunity.
Bob has oft times said that Babble may not be a good fit for everyone, though. And, unfortunately, I would argue that some of the rules are anything but inflexible. I have yet to grasp their definition at all. We're debating one such case at the moment.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 9:35:39
In reply to Re: Support, posted by karaS on September 26, 2004, at 17:15:34
But I think there might be more than one perfect answer. And it all revolves around clarifying the question. I see two distinctions in this discussion.
Sometimes it seems that people are talking about asking the *same* question over and over again - either to Dr. Bob or another question. Kind of "are you going to answer my question Dr. Bob?"
Other times it seems that people are talking about a posting style that might or might not be caused by a person's disease. This seems to me to be more like finishing the post before the entire thought process. More like a "wait - I forgot to say - Dr. Bob" type of post.
Both involve multiple postings, but seem to me to be for different reasons. Should they be considered together?
Posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 9:39:54
In reply to Re: Maybe it's just me...... » karaS, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 9:35:39
> But I think there might be more than one perfect answer. And it all revolves around clarifying the question. I see two distinctions in this discussion.
>
> Sometimes it seems that people are talking about asking the *same* question over and over again - either to Dr. Bob or another question. Kind of "are you going to answer my question Dr. Bob?"
>
> Other times it seems that people are talking about a posting style that might or might not be caused by a person's disease. This seems to me to be more like finishing the post before the entire thought process. More like a "wait - I forgot to say - Dr. Bob" type of post.
>
> Both involve multiple postings, but seem to me to be for different reasons. Should they be considered together?
I don't think the necessity of imposing posting limits requires a judgment of intent.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 9:59:55
In reply to Re: Maybe it's just me......, posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 9:39:54
Good heavens! You aren't thinking of posting daily post limits are you? There are days I'm sure I'd go over my quota! I'd be bereft! Besides, charting my daily number of posts is a good way to judge my hypomania or depression.
Hey, Dr. Bob! You ought to add that to your monitoring package. A Daily Number of Posts chart for each month for a poster. I find that way more easy to understand than those frustrating questions with subjective answers that make me tear out my hair in frustration and give me horribly inappropriate testing results.
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:21:13
In reply to Re: Maybe it's just me...... » karaS, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 9:35:39
But I don't see a major problem here. I haven't really seen where Lou makes multiple requests to a fellow poster for clarification, because he knows that would violate the civility guidelines. And since Dr. Bob has complete control of the board, if Dr. Bob felt harassed by multiple posts, he can do something about it.
I admit that I wouldn't feel good about having one of my posts brought to Dr. Bob's attention. It would scare me and make me sad.
But most of the posts Lou brings for Dr. Bob to review are about Lou, or appear to be about Lou, so the solution seems easy to me. And the others are like any other of us complaining about a post. I've done it myself. I think it might be a good general rule to do it in email rather than on the boards, but that's part of Admin's purpose. It never feels good, but it's not against the rules.
Lou is Lou, just as Dinah is Dinah. I see nothing wrong with that. I like Lou just fine as he is. As long as he follows the civility guidelines, which he is always very scrupulous to do, I see no reason why he shouldn't fill the Admin board with posts to Dr. Bob. I often wish the Admin board would archive more quickly anyway. I hate seeing the detritis from past disagreements.
Lou, my only advice to you would be to open your heart to others even more than you usually do and give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes people are genuinely trying to start a dialogue with you, even if it could be interpreted differently, or they may not have put it as well as they could have. One way to judge might be to look at the poster's previous posts. If someone consistently posts kindly, wouldn't it be unlikely that they would suddenly change? Or if they have supported you in the past, wouldn't it be unlikely that they would suddenly put you down?
For example. I'm a dedicated and avowed Semitophile. If I were to write something that appeared anti-Semitic, wouldn't it be likely that I either phrased something poorly or there was a misunderstanding?
The same goes for some of the very kind people on this board. To name just two off the top of my head, I find it hard to believe that Scott (SLS) and Toph would intentionally be unkind. If you opened your heart to them, I don't think you'd be disappointed. (Isn't there something about that in one of the gates? I could be mistaken.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:23:48
In reply to Re: Support » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 8:54:30
> Another site I use limits the number of posts by people on their main board
>
> Nikki> a restriction of sequential posts by one poster would be fair, and perhaps even be a kindness.
> > What would your idea be as to how many posts that one poster should be restricted to to be fair?
>
> Well I've always been fond of the number three.
>
> ibbaG> I don't want any poster here to feel that they can't express themselves... On the otherhand, the board should not be able to be hijacked and monopolized by one individual out of fairness to all of the others.
>
> The only fair solution I see here is a compromise that would allow multiple but not endless postings. It's not perfect but I think it's the best that can be done under the circumstances.
>
> I would personally like to see no more than 5 posts that try to elicit the same response.
>
> Kara> since this is the only way that my limitations can allow mw to post, then I would not be allowed to be an equal member here if some quota system was implemented or that my style of posting could not be used because I would not be able to express myself in the restriction that I would be requiered to abide by.
>
> Lou> Bob has oft times said that Babble may not be a good fit for everyone
>
> LarThanks, everyone, for your comments and suggestions. Let's try a limit of 3 consecutive follow-ups to a post (or new threads). And see how it goes...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:54:10
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:23:48
But Dr. Bob!!!!!
I protest!!!!!!!!
This will be a serious impediment to my posting!
What if one of my dear friends needs an archive again after you refuse to delete subject headings?
What if I have many brilliant and insightful things to say all at once and want to give lots and lots of help?
What if I need lots and lots of help?
What if I mess up the Amazon link three times?
What if I forget to count?
I don't like this new rule!!! I think it descriminates against my posting style!
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:55:36
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:54:10
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:00:19
In reply to Re: oooh, i'm devastated!!!! (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:55:36
Seriously, Dr. Bob. Cr*ppy rule.
Sometimes Social is a place where people play around and make multiple posts at once. For example they might propose a name for something, then come back with other suggestions, all in the title line. This isn't uncivil.
Or sometimes during my meltdowns I feel the need to clarify my posts many many times. Or to add to them or to ask for reassurance. I know my meltdowns aren't fun for *anyone*. But the new rule could have serious mental health implications for me that I'd really rather not deal with just because of an abritrary post number.
I think an arbitrary post number of three is a horrible horrible idea.
There is already a harassment clause that can be used in posts directed to another poster. Can't you also use it as you deem necessary to protect yourself?
Posted by Toph on September 27, 2004, at 11:03:20
In reply to Re: Now maybe this is just me, Dinah, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:21:13
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:10:45
In reply to Re: I hope I'm that nice (nm), posted by Toph on September 27, 2004, at 11:03:20
You *seem* nice.
And I rather hope that when people open their hearts to most other people, they'll be met with kindness.
Maybe I'm just a Pollyana.
Posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 11:11:04
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:23:48
> Thanks, everyone, for your comments and suggestions. Let's try a limit of 3 consecutive follow-ups to a post (or new threads). And see how it goes...
>
> BobDr. Bob,
What if I post something and I get multiple replies? I like to respond to everyone individually sometimes to show my appreciation, comment on specific parts of their post, or even just to acknowledge that I read what they said to me. Will I have to consolidate my posts?
Thanks, in advance, for your respone.
Laurie
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:15:00
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 11:11:04
I read it as three consecutive replies to a single post, not a single thread. I wonder about three new posts on three different boards asking about three different topics?
I don't know that it matters to me... I'm bound to get blocked for life over this rule.
I didn't think Dr. Bob disliked posters posting like that. Now I'm very very sad. :(
Posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 11:25:50
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » All Done, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:15:00
> I read it as three consecutive replies to a single post, not a single thread. I wonder about three new posts on three different boards asking about three different topics?
>
> I don't know that it matters to me... I'm bound to get blocked for life over this rule.
>
> I didn't think Dr. Bob disliked posters posting like that. Now I'm very very sad. :(Thanks for the clarification, Dinah. I'm not so sure I like this rule very much, either. I believe it has the potential to get confusing and how will people know about it (i.e. new posters or posters that don't read Admin)?
I wondered about the new thread limit as well. (Does it count if you have new threads started on different boards?) If it does, should I solicit one of my friends to post in the middle of my posting "frenzy" so that I don't go over the limit? I can't imagine that Dr. Bob could keep track of this in a reasonable fashion.
I'm sorry your very very sad, Dinah.
Laurie
Posted by Toph on September 27, 2004, at 11:33:44
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:23:48
I assume the rule would be an attempt to curtail perseverated posts that are whinin the same thread. I hope you did not mean an individual is limited to 3 posts of any kind anywhere on PB per day. Perhaps you are teaching us here, *watch what you wish for.*
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:34:24
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 11:25:50
Now there's a good idea, Laurie. Mid-meltdown I could ask someone to post a reply to me. Any old reply.
But I still think I'm going to be blocked for life anyway, so what's the point of using technicalities to get around it.
Dr. Bob could just block me now and save us both time and trouble. :(
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:41:51
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Toph on September 27, 2004, at 11:33:44
I think there are very bad consequences to making a general rule. If Dr. Bob is trying to solve a situation that frequently pops up, that applies to many posters, and that he has long wanted to address, that's fine.
In that case, I think he would definitely include my posts as problem posts, and I should just leave.
If Dr. Bob is implementing a general rule to solve a specific problem, I don't think that's a very wise thing to do at all. Usually in all situations there is an existing law that can be used. Making new laws to solve a single problem leads to the sort of Homeowners Association mentality that I can never bring myself to live with.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 12:52:35
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 11:25:50
> > I read it as three consecutive replies to a single post, not a single thread.
That's what I had meant.. Did Dr Bob take his suggestion from mine? I don't even know what I wrote anymore, and am not in the headspace this morning to find it and figure it out.
Sorry if I indirectly caused a 3 reply limit to a single thread rule..
I should not post while brain-dead
Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:10:31
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:23:48
Dr. Bob,
I need you to explain this in more depth. You can see there have been questions, and I have similar ones.I am with All done in that I like to do individual responses to those that have helped me on my thread. Is this allowed if I do it all at once? It would mean at times, five or more posts from me on the thread sequentially, although they would be in response to different posts.
Also, about three threads...is that consecutive threads on the same board? Or three threads total? Is that per day or some other limit?
And how do you propose to monitor this without deputies? Or have new deputies been accepted/appointed?
Thanks in advance for your response.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:14:49
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Toph, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:41:51
> I think there are very bad consequences to making a general rule. If Dr. Bob is trying to solve a situation that frequently pops up, that applies to many posters, and that he has long wanted to address, that's fine.
>
> In that case, I think he would definitely include my posts as problem posts, and I should just leave.I have to admit, Dinah, I don't see your posting as excessive, but then perhaps it's because you usually have a lot of good things to say. And I don't know that I've seen you post a number of things in a row very often. Just my impression based on I'm sure faulty memory...:)
>
> If Dr. Bob is implementing a general rule to solve a specific problem, I don't think that's a very wise thing to do at all. Usually in all situations there is an existing law that can be used. Making new laws to solve a single problem leads to the sort of Homeowners Association mentality that I can never bring myself to live with.Yes, I agree with you completely on this. I once taught a course for a prof. that liked to make a new rule everytime something specific went wrong even once. It felt like it was a fascist regime. Or our US tax code. It's not the solution. General rules and good judgement is. That's why we have a moderator.
gg
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 14:28:42
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:10:31
Oh, I probably use more than my share of server space and cause archives sooner than they would be without my posting. :)
And I often think of addendums to what I've just said, or need to clarify something that I think may be taken wrong or both. And during my meltdowns I post a lot of sequential posts. It would frankly be dangerous for me to get a PBC or block at that particular time.
I don't think I can stop doing it any more than Lou thinks he can stop his style of posting. I certainly am not going to bank my health on it.
So I'm going to have to get myself blocked now when I still have some control over it and when it won't cause me any damage.
I do understand Dr. Bob's position. And I even see where it might be a kindness to me to keep me from posting. But I also know that some kindnesses hurt too much to bear. And I try very hard to stay in the civility guidelines. If I know I can't do it, I'd rather get it over with.
Like Dr. Bob says, Babble can't be for everyone.
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.