![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 293 to 317 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 8:20:03
In reply to Re: civility » zeugma, posted by Estella on May 6, 2006, at 22:40:55
> > damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer.
>
> > Civility is a dangerous concept. All the more so because it denies so strenuously that it can be.
>
> Though you can be blocked if Bob perceives you to be sarcastic...
>
> Be careful z.
>
>
thanks Ethis board is an experiment
a work in progress
think of those long-term trials of antidepressants against placebo which David Healy says "were not without some cost in lives"
that doesn't mean we should blame a placebo for being what it is one can hardly say sugar in those doses is fatal. the problem is elsewhere
it remains to be established that this board is as profitable in keeping people alive as amitriptyline or lithium, these drugs are not for everyone either. dilemmas of psychiatry
-z
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 10:32:01
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Dr. Bob on May 5, 2006, at 0:01:44
Just on a point of clarity, given that I embedded what I hoped would be seen as a funny comment within my last message, I wish to restate what I already did. I see my humour could have been felt as being something else, so....
I don't think I will ever understand the rules here, and I don't think Bob will ever understand why that is. No point wasting effort on those goals, then.
Effort is the part of the thread to which I returned. Effort.
Dr. Bob, I want trigger flags. I want some kind of a commitment to reconsider the blocking scheme, to make it part of a program of enhanced guidance here. How may I help?
And, if there are other volunteers, let us now speak up.
You may contact me privately, if you wish, Dr. Bob. But I'd like to receive a reply.
Lar
Posted by madeline on May 7, 2006, at 11:10:40
In reply to Re: effort » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 10:32:01
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 11:34:35
In reply to Re: effort » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 10:32:01
More succinctly, I don't learn well by osmosis. I am hoping to learn by doing. If I can help you with any task, Bob, I'll do my best.
Lar
Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 11:51:20
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 11:34:35
my very simple piece of advice would be to remove the political board until such time as the simple posting of facts, positive or negative, is accepted.
And failing that, no politics board. Saying a Politics board must be limited to 'positive' facts does more than create a teeter without a totter, it becomes frighteningly reminescent of an Orwellian dystopia.
Which, as an American, is of particular concern to me at the moment.
-z
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 12:42:26
In reply to Re: effort » Larry Hoover, posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 11:51:20
> And failing that, no politics board. Saying a Politics board must be limited to 'positive' facts does more than create a teeter without a totter, it becomes frighteningly reminescent of an Orwellian dystopia.
Indeed. The politics board is not one.
Totter control. Orwellian. No doubt.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 12:43:19
In reply to Re: effort, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 11:34:35
More succinctly yet, how may I help?
Lar
Posted by alesta on May 8, 2006, at 13:02:24
In reply to Re: effort » zeugma, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 12:42:26
> > And failing that, no politics board. Saying a Politics board must be limited to 'positive' facts does more than create a teeter without a totter, it becomes frighteningly reminescent of an Orwellian dystopia.
shoo...i said basically the same thing myself long ago when there was merely talk of a politics board...much good did it do, though. guess that's why i gave up investing in administrative concerns...
i agree zee!
:)
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2006, at 10:26:43
In reply to Re: effort » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 7, 2006, at 10:32:01
> Dr. Bob, I want trigger flags. I want some kind of a commitment to reconsider the blocking scheme, to make it part of a program of enhanced guidance here. How may I help?
Thanks for asking. You can always help by supporting others. :-)
I don't think we ever decided what triggers should be flagged, it would also be progress if we could move toward some consensus regarding that...
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 12:42:02
In reply to Re: helping, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2006, at 10:26:43
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620391.html
I can't think of anything to add to the list.
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 13:24:38
In reply to Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 12:42:02
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620391.html
>
> I can't think of anything to add to the list.
>
> ggLooks like it to me.
Then there was the issue about what constituted a triggerable version of those sorts. How to phrase the difference between hypothetical and evocative language. Realistic portrayal?
To talk about e.g. self-harm as a behaviour in general is different than discussing an instance thereof.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 22:34:40
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic? » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 13:24:38
> Then there was the issue about what constituted a triggerable version of those sorts. How to phrase the difference between hypothetical and evocative language. Realistic portrayal?
>
> To talk about e.g. self-harm as a behaviour in general is different than discussing an instance thereof.I agree. I tend to be triggered by the highly evocative and more descriptive posts versus a post about the behavior as a concept. That does seem like a difficult line to draw. I suppose one way might be to alert others to any kind of description of an act or event versus talking about the idea in general. Providing any details at all starts one down the path of "seeing" it themselves, perhaps.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2006, at 3:56:09
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 22:34:40
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 11, 2006, at 9:14:50
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 22:34:40
> I suppose one way might be to alert others to any kind of description of an act or event versus talking about the idea in general. Providing any details at all starts one down the path of "seeing" it themselves, perhaps.
>
> ggWhich is why I reached the conclusion that a mandatory consideration thereof would be most effective as a warning process. And I know others quaked at the thought of mandatory anything, so.....but who better, than the author?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 11, 2006, at 11:42:19
In reply to Re: thanks for getting back to that (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2006, at 3:56:09
Dr. Bob, I want you to know that I stand behind your intent 100%. What separates us is not ill will. It is, I surmise, a separateness of comprehension, at its root level. Of all the things I've ever tried to understand, outside of my own existence, this construct you have called civility has occupied me more than any other thing, ever. And it's not because civility itself is incomprehensible to me. It occupies me because of the differentness itself, this separateness of comprehension. If only we could, if only I could, find a common understanding, all the rest would simply fall into place. And we could each attend to other things.
The inherent imbalance in power between us only complicates things. When posters draw attention to your power, I do hope that you appreciate the symbolic and pragmatic inequality that permeates all discourse. When people pose questions to you, replying with a question is perhaps the very worst thing you could do. Your guidance, your leadership, are inseparable from the power you wield. Clarity is what eludes me. I would not question your exercise of power, if I understood it.
Unintended consequences are neither irrelevant, nor unavoidable. However, if they were avoided, they would no longer have relevance. Placing sole responsibility on the poster is not a good exercise of leadership. There is a pattern in these unintended consequences, and changes in management also influence incidence of these consequences. An unintended consequence of your management structure is that it all falls on you.
I am sorry that I made that so very clear, Dr. Bob. I regret treating you as if you were not a person, like myself. I regret treating you as if you were nothing more than a caricature, just another Internet personna. The impending Babblefest gathering in Toronto showed me that I had two versions of you in my mind and heart. One was an illusion, a cardboard cutout to fire verbal darts towards, a blow up doll to figuratively punch. I spoke here to that illusory version. I expect to meet the real one, soon. I'm sorry that I ever forgot that they are one and the same. I'm sorry, Dr. Bob.
Humbly,
Lar
Posted by MidnightBlue on May 11, 2006, at 13:38:14
In reply to Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 12:42:02
Okay I have a dumb idea. I think part of the problem is that people don't realize what they are writing is a trigger. Or they are posting so quickly they don't think about it.
Would it be possible to write a computer program that would search for trigger words, then instead of automatically marking the message with a flag, ask the writer if what they are writing could be a trigger?
In other words, if I write something about suicide and I don't think (or don't care) that someone might be hurt by what I say, before it is posted, the computer would ask me if I have written something that might trigger someone else. I could still mark "no" and it would be posted, but that message might carry an invisible "flag" that Dr. Bob or the deputies could see that would suggest they might want to check it out. I could also choose to flag a message myself if I thought/knew it might be triggering.
This is what I see as one step "below" an automatic flagging system, and one step above letting the person choose to flag their own message. It builds in a step to help you think.
No, this wouldn't catch everything, but it might be a step in the right direction.
MidnightBlue
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 11, 2006, at 13:52:30
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by MidnightBlue on May 11, 2006, at 13:38:14
> Okay I have a dumb idea.
This is anything but a dumb idea.
> Would it be possible to write a computer program that would search for trigger words, then instead of automatically marking the message with a flag, ask the writer if what they are writing could be a trigger?
I think this might be a wonderful solution to the conundrum we face.
It encourages self-guidance.
I have no idea about how hard it would be to write the code, though.
Lar
Posted by zazenduck on May 11, 2006, at 18:06:19
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 21:45:30
Anorexia triggers? methods, numbers weights bmi ?
that's standard on lots of eating disorder boards.
it's not a personal issue to me but i know it's a big deal for some people
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 6:58:18
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by zazenduck on May 11, 2006, at 18:06:19
> Anorexia triggers? methods, numbers weights bmi ?
>
> that's standard on lots of eating disorder boards.
>
> it's not a personal issue to me but i know it's a big deal for some peopleWhy do we not consider minor changes in the guidelines, to accomodate special considerations, but which apply only to that specific board? For example, permission to speak in politic language on the politics board, or special trigger consideration on e.g. an eating disorders board? Why do they have to be the same rules, if the topic is already different enough to split off as a separate entity? Just flag the special information, whatever it might be, at the top of each board.
Lar
Posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 8:43:46
In reply to Re: guidelines » zazenduck, posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 6:58:18
> > Anorexia triggers? methods, numbers weights bmi ?
> >
> > that's standard on lots of eating disorder boards.
> >
> > it's not a personal issue to me but i know it's a big deal for some people
>
> Why do we not consider minor changes in the guidelines, to accomodate special considerations, but which apply only to that specific board? For example, permission to speak in politic language on the politics board, or special trigger consideration on e.g. an eating disorders board? Why do they have to be the same rules, if the topic is already different enough to split off as a separate entity? Just flag the special information, whatever it might be, at the top of each board.
>
> LarBecause people with eating disorders post on all the boards? Would you want a special board for people who are triggered by SI or abuse with mandatory triggers only on that board?
I try to TRIGGER any post that could possibly upset someone but I think another subjective rule will only lead to more blocks for people who are doing the best they can. If it makes you feel better maybe it's worth that risk. I mean that sincerely.
Maybe you can lobby Bob for change in person in Toronto :)Like Vatican II for Babble.
I think I'm through posting on Admin. Good Luck
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 9:13:58
In reply to Re: guidelines » Larry Hoover, posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 8:43:46
> > Why do we not consider minor changes in the guidelines, to accomodate special considerations, but which apply only to that specific board? For example, permission to speak in politic language on the politics board, or special trigger consideration on e.g. an eating disorders board? Why do they have to be the same rules, if the topic is already different enough to split off as a separate entity? Just flag the special information, whatever it might be, at the top of each board.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Because people with eating disorders post on all the boards? Would you want a special board for people who are triggered by SI or abuse with mandatory triggers only on that board?I obviously hadn't thought that through. Thanks for finishing what I started.
I still think the politics board, for example, could be liberalized a tad, without adversely influencing the issue of civility there, or elsewhere at babble.
> I try to TRIGGER any post that could possibly upset someone but I think another subjective rule will only lead to more blocks for people who are doing the best they can. If it makes you feel better maybe it's worth that risk. I mean that sincerely.
I do think any solution needs to follow the KISS rule.
> Maybe you can lobby Bob for change in person in Toronto :)
I'm thinking social, not political, interaction in Toronto.
> Like Vatican II for Babble.
>
> I think I'm through posting on Admin. Good LuckThanks.
Lar
Posted by Estella on May 12, 2006, at 11:24:29
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 9:13:58
er... what happens if someone breaks a rule?
should they be blocked?
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 12:45:48
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by Estella on May 12, 2006, at 11:24:29
> er... what happens if someone breaks a rule?
>
> should they be blocked?Certainly not as a matter of course. I was blocked for using passive voice in an I statement. Give me a f*cking break. Something like "(something somebody said) was felt as an insult", vs. "I felt insulted by what somebody said". In either case, I am reporting my feeling, and relating it to prior statement(s). As one who has done a significant amount of academic writing, adopting the passive voice isn't uncommon for me. It just depends on my mood. But, surely the intended meaning is clear, nonetheless. And the passive voice is itself de-escalating in tone.
It is as if you were asked to administer a criminal code where the only available penalty is amputation. One would hope the consequences would be doled out quite sparingly. Moreover, if escalating penalties are also mandatory......
I would be looking very hard for mens rea, a guilty mind, and animus nocendi, a mind to harm, both, before I handed down *any* sentences under the existing blocking system. Unfortunately, one has to learn of the idiosyncracies here by other methods than by simply reading the FAQ. E.g. Bob's imagined "could". Perhaps a glossary might be a feature of the FAQ, in future? Words as they are defined here?
Lar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animus_nocendi
Posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 3:50:47
In reply to Re: guidelines » Estella, posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 12:45:48
hmm...
law does make use of an interesting theory of mind...
apparantly philosophers don't tend to do so well on juries...
they are always bugging the judge for definitions of terms such as
'intent' etc etc...and the judge says 'go with your intuition'
and well...
depends on your theory of mind...
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2006, at 7:57:00
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by MidnightBlue on May 11, 2006, at 13:38:14
> Would it be possible to write a computer program that would search for trigger words, then instead of automatically marking the message with a flag, ask the writer if what they are writing could be a trigger?
That was suggested before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/622756.html
And could be done. What words would be searched for?
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.