![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 47 to 71 of 138. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 8:07:13
In reply to Re: Lou's views-C, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:44:28
> Friends,
> Another reason that I see that others here would want requts for determination restricted is that there is something about the number 3 involved. I fail to understand the reasoning, if any, behind the number 3.
> I am requesting that those that are advocating a "three" rule, to explain their reasoning concerning that and perhaps answer the following:
> A. Why not 4?
> B. Why not 5?
> C. Why not 10?
> D. Why not 2?
> E. Why not 0?
> Lou
Symmetry. It is a nice number to complement the 3 consecutive post rule. The rationale for choosing the number 3 in the consecutive post rule has been discussed previously and is supported by data regarding posting habits.
- Scott
Posted by partlycloudy on October 29, 2004, at 8:48:16
In reply to Lou's views, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
I feel hurt that someone would propose a board of moderators without any input from other members of this site.
Isn't this Dr. Bob's decision?
Posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 9:36:45
In reply to Re: Lou's views-C, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:44:28
3 Is The Magic Number
3 Little Pigs
3 Blind Mice
3 Trinity
3 strikes
3 outs
3 physical forces
3 metaphysical elements
3 past present future
3 stooges
3 Hindu Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva
3 stable tripod
3 phyical dimensions
3 Chinese produces all things
3 trimesters of pregnancy
3 wishes
3 consecutive posts
3 Babylonian Ea, Anu, and Enil
3 heads Kirfel
3 heads Gamorrah
3 heads Reptilicus
3 bears Goldilocks
3 quarks
3 atomic particles
3 sports announcers
3 ABC
3 middle C
3 Row, row, row your boad
3 times a bridesmaid, never a bride
3 third time's a charm
3 morning, noon, and night
3 ages of man
3 Tick-Tack-Toe
3 XXX
3 in a row
3 face cards
3 quarterback, halfback and fullback
3 minute egg
3 front, side, and back yards
3 points field goal
3 ring circus
3 triple play
3 first middle last names
3 SOS three dots, three dashes, and three dots
3 divisions of government
3 beg, borrow, or steal
3 blood, sweat, and tears
3 hop, skip, and jump
3 hook, line, and sinker
3 ready, willing, and able
3 men, women, and children
3 Tom, Dick, and Harry
3 ready, willing, and able
3 signed, sealed, delivered
3 tall, dark, and handsome
3 cool, calm, and collected
3 me, myself, and I
3 voices of speech
3 wishes
3 Snap, Crackle, and Pop
3 in-1 oil
3 sun, earth, moon
3 ATP
3 NE, DA, 5-HT
3 Kingdoms of life
3 ready, set, go
3 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
3 love, honor, and obey
3 hours: minutes: seconds
3 degrees Kelvin background radiation
3 traffic light: green, yellow, red
3 levels of the brain
3 big three auto manufacturers
3 life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
3 beginning, middle, end
3 Faith and Hope and Charity
3 heart and the brain and the body
3 physical dimensions
3 birth, life, death
3 Rumpelstiltskin, Rumpelstiltskin, Rumpelstiltskin
3 hat-trick
3 triple crown
3 cheers
3 Peter denied Christ three times
3 Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
3 Hail Marys
3 Jesus, Mary and Joseph
3 Three Wise Men
3 Third Secret of Fatima
3 Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades
3 Heaven, Hell, Earth
3 Three Musketeers
3 Three Amigos
3 see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
3 Three Men in a Boat
3 three witches in Macbeth
3 The Three Tenors
3 Three Dog Night
3 Earth, Wind, and Fire
3 Peter, Paul, and Mary
3 Animal, Vegetable and Mineral
3 Left, Right and Centre
3 Mind, Body, Soul
3 Small, Medium and Large
3 Rings
3 good, better, best
3 protein, fat, carbohydrate
3 desire, arousal, orgasm
3 Three's Company
3 day weekends
3 positive, negative, neutral
3 male, female, neuter
3 proton, neutron, electron
3 up, down, sideways
3 membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus
3 pi orbitals
3 shell, white, yolk
3 holes in a bowling ball
3 black, white, gray
3 father, mother, child
3 God, Man, Devil
3 days of Resurrection
3 three Graces
3 more examples
3 Bipolar I, Bipolar II, Cyclothymia
3 three coins in a fountain
3 menage a trois
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 29, 2004, at 11:37:58
In reply to Another reason for the number 3, posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 9:36:45
3 Refuges - Buddha, Dharma, Sangha
3 alarm chili
3 toed sloth
3 Faces of Eve
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 29, 2004, at 11:53:40
In reply to Lou's views, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
> A. It takes time for Dr. Hsiung to reply to the requests.
> Lou's answere to that:
> Appoint an assitant moderator for each board. I would like to see the following:> Moderator for the faith board..........myself
> Modeator for the administration board..Larry Hoover
> LouI'm both honoured and concerned, Lou. Honoured that I am considered, but concerned about the implications. I don't think board-specific moderation is the best choice, as rules of conduct are not board-specific. Differences in interpretation, application, or timeliness of action could lead to the perception of unfairness, even bias.
And, in as much as there are unsettled issues with respect to posts to e.g. the faith board, an individual posting about those unsettled matters would not be a good choice to moderate them.
Lar
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 12:44:43
In reply to Now THAT sounds like a reasonable rule of 3 » Mark H., posted by Dinah on October 29, 2004, at 2:42:57
> And is the reason I thought Dr. Bob should ask for brainstorming *before* coming to a decision.
>
> A hearty well done from this poster, Mark.Thank you, Dinah. I hope Dr. Bob agrees.
Best wishes to all,
Mark H.
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 12:47:42
In reply to Another reason for the number 3, posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 9:36:45
Dear Scott,
You are incredibly smart and very funny! Thank you for injecting some humor into this difficult process. (You too, Emmy.)
Mark H.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 29, 2004, at 12:55:32
In reply to Lou's views, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
> Friends,
> There is an on going attempt here to limit the number of requests to Dr. Hsiung for determination for acceptability as to the guidlines of the forum.We must ask ourselves why this limit needs to be determined.
As I understand it, and from what I have read,
There is one person
one single person
who is currently requesting determinations from Dr Bob on posts' acceptability.Why on earth do a new set of rules need to be adopted because of a single individual's behaviour? These rules will affect the entire group at Babble, but there is just one individual whose repetetive requests are provoking the rules to be created in the first place.
I am completely and sincerely baffled. Can someone help to explain this in simple terms to me?
I am trying very hard not to offend anyone. I am frustrated at not being able to understand the necessity of all of this.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 29, 2004, at 14:25:14
In reply to Another reason for the number 3, posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 9:36:45
wow, you must have had a lot of time on your hands....
you forgot 3 minutes to midnight.
Please tell me there was an easy way to do that...
pretty pretty pretty please.
Jai
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 14:31:29
In reply to Re: Another reason for the number 3, posted by Jai Narayan on October 29, 2004, at 14:25:14
how about, "The Third Man Theme"?
Lou
Posted by mair on October 29, 2004, at 18:07:21
In reply to Re: Limit of 3 Requests per Month, posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 0:41:45
Can I assume, Mark, that there's no limit to the number of requests that can be made to Dr. Bob directly by email? Thus the rule shouldn't foreclose anyone from seeking a clarification; just place limits on the numbers of published requests.
mair
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 19:18:28
In reply to Re: Limit of 3 Requests per Month » Mark H., posted by mair on October 29, 2004, at 18:07:21
That's what I'm suggesting, Mair. However, Dr. Bob has recently expressed a preference that "it's better for this to be out in the open."
Mark H.
> Can I assume, Mark, that there's no limit to the number of requests that can be made to Dr. Bob directly by email? Thus the rule shouldn't foreclose anyone from seeking a clarification; just place limits on the numbers of published requests.
>
> mair
Posted by Noa on October 29, 2004, at 22:00:42
In reply to Re: Lou's views-C, posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 8:07:13
I am not wed to the number 3 at all. But I would like to see a daily limit.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2004, at 22:13:00
In reply to Lou's views, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
Lou,
I am honored that you would suggest me as a moderator. I absolutely agree that Dr. Bob needs some assistance here. To be honest, I'm not sure how the moderator selection process works, as a couple other posters had volunteered at one point, and I never heard what became of that. At any rate, I do not have the time or the desire to serve that role here. I think it takes a special sort of strength and wisdom to make those decisions fairly and still post. Dinah did it beautifully, IMO. I'm afraid I don't have the confidence in my own abilities. Besides, I think I am too enmeshed into psychology and therapy to be a fair and unbiased (good gravy, I sound like Fox News!)judge of psych. posts.And the time...there's always the time issue.
But thank you for thinking of me.
gg
Posted by karaS on October 30, 2004, at 1:01:15
In reply to reasons for the number 3...more more more » SLS, posted by TofuEmmy on October 29, 2004, at 11:37:58
> 3 Refuges - Buddha, Dharma, Sangha
> 3 alarm chili
> 3 toed sloth
> 3 Faces of Eve
Very clever!
Posted by alexandra_k on October 30, 2004, at 4:43:47
In reply to Re: reasons for the number 3...more more more » TofuEmmy, posted by karaS on October 30, 2004, at 1:01:15
Once again, I say my opinion without properly understanding the situation or the intention of the rule. It is pretty clear to me now and I have to say I agree 100%.
To think of it as 'setting limits' rather than 'making a rule' helps. It is not like most people will ever break such a 'rule' or 'limit' as a matter of course accidentally. And of course you always warn and explain before you ban. So I say good idea. Enough is enough.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
In reply to Re: Lou's views » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2004, at 22:13:00
> The number of posts what what I meant was arbitrary.
Ah, I see. I liked Scott's response. :-)
> If you pick 2 I'll be tempted to do 3
> If you pick 3 I'll be tempted to do 4
> If you pick 4 I'll be tempted to do 5...
>
> I am contrary (sigh).It can be a challenge to deal with contrary behavior (sigh).
> The trouble with rules is that there are always 'common sense' exceptions
>
> alexandra_kThat's no trouble, exceptions can be made.
--
> Could you please explain this concept about false positives etc?
> It's starting to sound like the instant replay rule in the NFL. If you request and are wrong..you lose a time out. :-O
>
> ggThat's the idea.
--
> I don't like the 3 strikes and you're out forever rule of A complaining about B. I think this would be detrimental to the board as the behavior of B might remain problematic for years.
>
> - ScottIf the behavior of B were in fact problematic, those wouldn't be "strikes"...
--
> another alternative to this is to have the determinations e-mailed to you instead of posted on the board.
>
> P.s. I have lurked for years,(since 2000) and haven't registered until now, but felt this important. Thanks for listening.
>
> willow.h.Thanks for unlurking. Emailing me has been and will continue to be fine, the question is whether, and if so how, to limit posted requests.
--
> > > I can see an end-run around the rule. Once you've got your allotted three complaints from poster A you can *carefully* continue what you were doing and just keep on bugging poster A.
>
> > No, that would be the rule working. If what you're doing is OK, you *should* be able to continue without being complained about...
>
> Ah, but purposefully doing it, knowing it bothers someone is bad manners.
>
> AuntieMelI applaud good manners, but:
1. The larger the group, the more likely *someone* is to be bothered.
2. People could also claim something bothered them just to stir things up.
--
> if 100 Babblers are active in any given month, my suggestion of a three requests per month limit per person still allows up to 300 "requests for determination" each month
>
> I think that collectively this should be sufficient to cover whatever difficulties arise with individual posters.
>
> Mark H.My concern isn't difficulties being missed, but posters being bothered by these requests. 3 per month would mean a particular poster could be the subject of an unending stream of requests every 10 days?
--
> These rules will affect the entire group at Babble, but there is just one individual whose repetetive requests are provoking the rules to be created in the first place.
>
> partlycloudyIf just one individual litters, does that mean a rule against littering shouldn't be created?
--
> I'm not sure how the moderator selection process works, as a couple other posters had volunteered at one point, and I never heard what became of that.
My idea was to get input from present and former deputy administrators, to give volunteers some guidelines, and to ask them to respond to some example situations to make sure they understood the guidelines, could use the administration system, and could phrase responses appropriately.
But I've been swamped, so unfortunately this hasn't moved forward...
> At any rate, I do not have the time or the desire to serve that role here... I'm afraid I don't have the confidence in my own abilities.
>
> ggTime and desire, OK, but don't let confidence be an issue! :-)
Bob
Posted by SLS on October 30, 2004, at 7:17:40
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
Hi Doctor.
Can we perhaps have a list of the posting limit protocols you are currently considering?
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 30, 2004, at 9:36:18
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
How about limiting each poster to 3 requests per day. If all three are about a single poster, and all three are considered civil, then the requesting poster is given a PBC.
Or...
How about limiting each poster to 3 requests per day, and one request about any given poster.
Still thinking.
I would like to see a limit on total volume, not just the number of times any one poster is brought into the public eye for scrutiny. You original proposal would still allow for a single poster to submit a great many requests per day. You also mentioned that you were swamped.
Maybe use your proposal + a 3 post per day limit?
Still thinking.
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on October 30, 2004, at 10:09:56
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 30, 2004, at 10:17:41
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
I really can't believe I'm weighing in on this. All self-control has gone out the window. I should just eat a donut. Crud.
Maybe I missed the resolution of the idea that it's more about a poster making repeated requests which are declined by Bob. Some people are just not cut out to be interpreters of Bob's rules. I’m one of them.
Say Dinah requests Bob reviews a slew of posts...great! I have a good feeling that she has valid reasons for this. I don't care how many posts we are talking about, or how many posters. She's got a good understanding of the process. Sometimes poo hits the fan around here, weird stuff happens, and this 3-limit rule might have to be broken even by Dinah.
It's more about inaccurate interpretations which lead to Bob to spending his time without cause, and embarrassing/worrying posters needlessly. IMHO.
So, if there MUST be a rule, I'm more interested one that says, you get 3 bad calls in a month....then you sit on the bench. If you submit a 4th, you get spanked.
emmy
Posted by SLS on October 30, 2004, at 10:59:43
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
Hmm.
I just went and checked out the last two posting periods. It seems that there really hasn't been more than 3 posts requesting dertermination per day by any one poster. One example of 4, but that's all. Someone should check me on this, though.Perhaps this should entire into your decision.
I'm still not sure how I feel about all of this. Emmy makes some good points.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on October 30, 2004, at 19:50:09
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
> The number of posts what what I meant was arbitrary.
>> Ah, I see. I liked Scott's response. :-)Yup, me too.
> If you pick 2 I'll be tempted to do 3
> If you pick 3 I'll be tempted to do 4
> If you pick 4 I'll be tempted to do 5...
> I am contrary (sigh).
>> It can be a challenge to deal with contrary behavior (sigh).Heh, heh, yeah I suppose. Perhaps I should have been clearer: I am contrary when confronted with rules that seem arbitrary. But Scott cleared that up nicely.
Anyway, I recanted.
Bring on the 'limits'
Posted by Dinah on October 30, 2004, at 21:11:56
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
> My concern isn't difficulties being missed, but posters being bothered by these requests. 3 per month would mean a particular poster could be the subject of an unending stream of requests every 10 days?
So, to be clear, your reason for making this rule is based on this concern. And your concern is not that one poster will complain about many others, but that many posters will complain about one. Since an unending stream of requests could only come from multiple posters, not one. And you want to protect a "particular" poster from being the "subject" of an "unending" stream of requests. Since under Mark's rule, each poster would only have three per month, you can't possibly be talking about one poster making the requests. That wouldn't make any sense.
So my reading of the intent of the new rule is to protect the few from the complaints of the many (once you have decided that the complaints of the many are unfounded) and not to stop multiple complaints from one poster about the posts of many other posters, as long as it didn't exceed three per poster recipient.
I think it would be honest of you to clarify your intent, Dr. Bob. I think many posters mistake it to be the other way around.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 10:40:47
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 30, 2004, at 21:11:56
> How about limiting each poster to 3 requests per day.
But what if there are more than 3 problematic posts one day?
> You also mentioned that you were swamped.
>
> - ScottRight, but I didn't mean by requests for determination...
> > My concern isn't difficulties being missed, but posters being bothered by these requests. 3 per month would mean a particular poster could be the subject of an unending stream of requests every 10 days?
>
> your concern is ... that many posters will complain about one. Since an unending stream of requests could only come from multiple posters, not one.
>
> DinahNo, wouldn't Mark H.'s suggestion have allowed an unending stream of 3 per month from one poster?
Bob
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.