![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 70 to 94 of 138. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Mark H. on October 31, 2004, at 12:46:57
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 10:40:47
> No, wouldn't Mark H.'s suggestion have allowed an unending stream of 3 per month from one poster?
>
> BobDear Dr. Bob,
No, my suggestion is that each poster be allowed to make three public requests for determination per month (period). Not three requests per post or concern, but three total.
This means that if there were more than three problematic posts per month that needed to be held up for public scrutiny and administrative review, then more than one poster would need to participate, but each poster could only publicly request a determination three times in any given month.
I apologize if I didn't make that clear before.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mark H.
My previous post follows:Dr. Bob,
I support a limit of 3 "requests for determination" per month. This would give each poster up to 36 opportunities a year to point out publicly those posts of others which caused them concern.
Having a three request per month limit would encourage all posters to carefully consider which posts they hold up for public scrutiny.
In practice (based on experience so far), the vast majority of members of this community would likely never use up their allotment; however, I think that a three request per month limit would be a fair compromise to the current lack of limits.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark H.
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 31, 2004, at 18:23:57
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on October 30, 2004, at 10:17:41
I shan't be ignored Sir! I still like this plan.
> 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 Toph on October 31, 2004, at 23:32:58
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
> So here's an idea, what if we adopt another 3-post rule? In this case, a limit of 3 objections per poster -- to posts I consider OK -- per other poster.
>
> BobI've been on vacation, but I'd like to add my 2$(can't find a cent sign). I like the 3-objection rule, but that's mainly because I think it would never effect me. If it did, I think I would try to devise a way around it. There was a posting style that led to the implimentation of the 3-post rule. Subsequently, a new style evolved using multiple objections. What is to prevent with the new restriction an individual from developing a new way of multiple posting that is within the rules? Instead of increasing rules which limit conduct there should also be a emphasis on rights which guarantee freedoms. Habitual or agregious violators of the spirit of a supportive community should, as others have suggested, be individually handled supportively by the administrator.
-Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2004, at 1:58:48
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? ...hey you.... Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on October 31, 2004, at 18:23:57
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2004, at 2:22:51
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 31, 2004, at 23:32:58
> > wouldn't Mark H.'s suggestion have allowed an unending stream of 3 per month from one poster?
>
> No, my suggestion is that each poster be allowed to make three public requests for determination per month (period).
>
> Mark H.But couldn't that be 3 this month, 3 next month, 3 the month after that, etc., an unending stream, from one poster?
--
> What is to prevent with the new restriction an individual from developing a new way of multiple posting that is within the rules?
Nothing...
> Instead of increasing rules which limit conduct there should also be a emphasis on rights which guarantee freedoms.
One man's limitation is another man's freedom...
> Habitual or agregious violators of the spirit of a supportive community should, as others have suggested, be individually handled supportively by the administrator.
>
> -TophSo the rule should be not to violate the spirit of the community?
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 1, 2004, at 8:29:14
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 31, 2004, at 23:32:58
> > So here's an idea, what if we adopt another 3-post rule? In this case, a limit of 3 objections per poster -- to posts I consider OK -- per other poster.
> >
> > Bob
>
> I've been on vacation, but I'd like to add my 2$(can't find a cent sign).If you're using Windows, make sure your Numlock key is on, hold down the Alt key, and using only the number keypad on the right, key the sequence 0162 and release the Alt key. You will get a ¢ where your cursor was set.
For this and other magic, go to all programs/accessories/system tools/character map. Highlight a symbol, and the keystroke sequence shows on the bottom right.
Lar
Posted by Toph on November 1, 2004, at 10:00:04
In reply to Re: sort of off-topic » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on November 1, 2004, at 8:29:14
Some say we only use 10% of our brain, obviously they have never checked yours out, Larry. I don't know about others here, but if I see a Larry Hoover post, I'm going to check it out right away.
-Toph
Posted by SLS on November 1, 2004, at 10:39:03
In reply to Re: off-topic » Larry Hoover, posted by Toph on November 1, 2004, at 10:00:04
> Some say we only use 10% of our brain, obviously they have never checked yours out, Larry. I don't know about others here, but if I see a Larry Hoover post, I'm going to check it out right away.
> -TophIt's all those extra glial cells.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 1, 2004, at 10:40:03
In reply to Re: off-topic, posted by SLS on November 1, 2004, at 10:39:03
:-)
Posted by AuntieMel on November 1, 2004, at 11:04:50
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2004, at 2:22:51
Can we make a rule that there will be no more than three 3-post-rules??
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 1, 2004, at 11:35:48
In reply to Re: I have another 3 post rule » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on November 1, 2004, at 11:04:50
Sorry! There will be allowed 3 such rules. ;-)
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:10:45
In reply to Re: I have another 3 post rule » AuntieMel, posted by TofuEmmy on November 1, 2004, at 11:35:48
Here is what I am struggling with. This reminds me so much of a class I taught that literally had more rules than subjects to cover. The prof. used to create a rule every time there was a new problem behavior on the part of the students.
Hellloooo? Why not address the problem or concern with the individual? Not every new behavior that happens is going to generalize to the group. IMO, rules should be made when a problem behavior is seen in many posters, such as being uncivil. Otherwise, I believe an administrator would serve the community much more effectively by addressing individual behavior with the individual(s).
For example, I often interject silly comments into serious discussions, particularly on Admin. If this is a behavior that Dr. Bob and others dislike as being disruptive or perhaps disrespectful, I would appreciate Dr. Bob emailing me and telling me so rather than making a new rule.
No new rule saying only 3 funny posts per month, and the humor will be judged by Dr. Bob! (Shoot, I should never try to make up protest slogans...much too verbose.)
Anyone else thinking this?
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on November 1, 2004, at 13:45:33
In reply to Why do we need a rule for every little thing?, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:10:45
I like you injecting a bit of humor into serious discussions. It puts a bit of perspective on it.
I was trying to do the same thing. Did I miss?
Posted by All Done on November 1, 2004, at 13:47:33
In reply to Why do we need a rule for every little thing?, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:10:45
> Anyone else thinking this?
>
> ggUmm, yes.
And it seems to have the potential to hurt the poster or few posters that have the behavior for which the rule was created.
That doesn't feel very supportive to me. In fact, I would feel it's just the opposite. I would be hurt and embarrassed if I realized my behavior resulted in a new rule for the entire website.
Maybe the goal is to make the majority feel safe to post? Is that the same as being supportive?
Laurie
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 14:26:27
In reply to Re: Why do we need a rule for every little thing? » gardenergirl, posted by All Done on November 1, 2004, at 13:47:33
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 14:27:10
In reply to Re: Why do we need a rule for every little thing? » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on November 1, 2004, at 13:45:33
Just using myself as an example cause I knew it wouldn't "hurt".
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 15:39:29
In reply to Why do we need a rule for every little thing?, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:10:45
I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.
Thanks, GGhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/410094.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2004, at 17:32:31
In reply to Why do we need a rule for every little thing?, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:10:45
> Why not address the problem or concern with the individual? Not every new behavior that happens is going to generalize to the group. IMO, rules should be made when a problem behavior is seen in many posters, such as being uncivil.
If something happens once, it can happen again.
I think the main advantage of a rule is that it makes things more predictable. Posting the speed limit makes it easier for drivers and the police both. And for any deputies.
The civility rule is actually a good example. IMO, it's worked better since what's uncivil has been spelled out.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 18:08:29
In reply to Re: Why we need rules, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2004, at 17:32:31
Dr. Bob,
Thanks for your reply. I have some additional thoughts.> > Why not address the problem or concern with the individual? Not every new behavior that happens is going to generalize to the group. IMO, rules should be made when a problem behavior is seen in many posters, such as being uncivil.
>
> If something happens once, it can happen again.Yes, but...what is the liklihood? Again, I believe you are going to eventually end up with as many rules as there are posters with that kind of approach. Because we are all capable of some kind of new behavior that might require a rule.
> I think the main advantage of a rule is that it makes things more predictable. Posting the speed limit makes it easier for drivers and the police both. And for any deputies.
Yes, this is true. But how about a rule for how you must slow down when going up hill behind a semi? How quickly should you decelerate? I'm confused, please give me a rule.
>
> The civility rule is actually a good example. IMO, it's worked better since what's uncivil has been spelled out.I agree that the civility rule is good. But it addresses broad posters' behavior. I feel weighed down by manya specific rules for specific behaviors that are not likely to occur among the general Babble population.
I also believe that the more rules you have, specifically those that have quantifiable criteria, the more likely YOU are, Dr. Bob, to make errors in administration. Whatever happened to the KISS principle?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 9:26:43
In reply to Re: Why we need rules » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 18:08:29
gg,
You wrote,[...but how about a rule for how you must slow down when going up a hill behind a semi?...].
I appreciate your perspective in relation to the above.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 10:32:24
In reply to Re: Why we need rules » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 18:08:29
> > If something happens once, it can happen again.
>
> Yes, but...what is the liklihood?I don't know, but why not do what we can to minimize it?
> > I think the main advantage of a rule is that it makes things more predictable. Posting the speed limit makes it easier for drivers and the police both. And for any deputies.
>
> Yes, this is true. But how about a rule for how you must slow down when going up hill behind a semi? How quickly should you decelerate? I'm confused, please give me a rule.Sorry, what's the issue with going uphill behind a semi?
> I feel weighed down by manya specific rules for specific behaviors that are not likely to occur
If they're not likely to affect you, why should you feel weighed down?
> I also believe that the more rules you have, specifically those that have quantifiable criteria, the more likely YOU are, Dr. Bob, to make errors in administration. Whatever happened to the KISS principle?
That could be seen as another advantage of a rule, errors would be easier to identify and then to correct. Simple isn't necessarily best, the most simple would be no rules...
Bob
Posted by SLS on November 2, 2004, at 13:21:54
In reply to Re: Why we need rules » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 18:08:29
> Yes, this is true. But how about a rule for how you must slow down when going up hill behind a semi?
I think the general rule is to decelerate at a rate sufficient to avoid a call to your insurance company.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:50:11
In reply to Re: Why we need rules, posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 10:32:24
> > > If something happens once, it can happen again.
> >
> > Yes, but...what is the liklihood?
>
> I don't know, but why not do what we can to minimize it?I am thinking of the idea of diminshing returns here. Is the effort really necessary to have a significant effect on the liklihood of more and more posters behaving in a similar manner?
>
> > > I think the main advantage of a rule is that it makes things more predictable. Posting the speed limit makes it easier for drivers and the police both. And for any deputies.
> >
> > Yes, this is true. But how about a rule for how you must slow down when going up hill behind a semi? How quickly should you decelerate? I'm confused, please give me a rule.
>
> Sorry, what's the issue with going uphill behind a semi?It's a metafer. A metafer! Do I have to challenge you to a duel now? Or just throw spitballs at you? ;-) (And if you are still confused, see clip of Zell Miller on Hardball immediately post-his speech at the RNC)
>
> > I feel weighed down by many specific rules for specific behaviors that are not likely to occur
>
> If they're not likely to affect you, why should you feel weighed down?Because the atmosphere feels oppressive to me. Kind of like being in a heavy, muggy, dark environment, when it could be light and breezy and relaxed, and yet still civil. How's that for a non-helpful answer? Sorry, best I can do with my feelings about this.
>
> > I also believe that the more rules you have, specifically those that have quantifiable criteria, the more likely YOU are, Dr. Bob, to make errors in administration. Whatever happened to the KISS principle?
>
> That could be seen as another advantage of a rule, errors would be easier to identify and then to correct. Simple isn't necessarily best, the most simple would be no rules...KISS isn't saying make it the simplest possible. There needs to be general rules. But common sense and judgement of the moderator can serve the same purpose as creating a new rule for every last behavior, imo. Keeping it simple means not getting so detailed that you lose the general principles.
gg
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.