![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 83 to 107 of 275. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 18:10:30
In reply to Oh, and..., posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:30:44
> I think intent should be considered a lot more than Dr. Bob thinks it should. Sometimes intent is clear in that someone doesn't intend to break the civility rules and is trying to comply, and I think every chance ought to be given to that person to comply. Even if it takes a few tries. And even if Dr. Bob needs to assign someone to help the person comply because he doesn't have time.
So long as effort is being expended, indeed. Trying counts.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 18:27:08
In reply to Re: Offensive statements, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 17:19:28
Was Estella's block based on an interpretation of Christianity?
Indirectly, via "religion"?
Lar
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 18:39:57
In reply to Re: B.T.W, posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:13:57
> But at any rate, since he's already aware of the tension, I don't think the argument that administrative actions are uncivil under the civility standards will influence him overly much.Well, the post wasn't directed to Dr.Bob.
I was referring to the posts inferring how what Estella said could have been phrased better.
My point wasn't that it could not have been said differently or that I disagree with the spirit of the civility guidelines (I definitely don't disagree) simply that I didn't see it as any different than Estella having said what she thinks could make things better.
I think just about any statement that Bob chooses to sanction could be scrutinized to justify his actions, but as SDB said, I also feel it becomes pretty far removed from reality.
And, *all* posts should be so scrutinized if it's going to happen.In this case, as you also said, I think the intent to follow the guidelines should be given more consideration,
Posted by Deneb on June 1, 2006, at 19:30:26
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 18:34:13
I just read what lead to Estella's block and I think I'm going to have to agree that Dr. Bob may have a prejudice against certain topics.
I have to understand the rules better.
Is it civil to say, "I believe the world would be a better place without fast food?"
Would that be offending the people who like fast food?
Deneb*
Posted by Deneb on June 1, 2006, at 19:44:12
In reply to Re: Estella's block for 4 weeks, posted by Deneb on June 1, 2006, at 19:30:26
I hope I was being civil. I was only using an example. I don't have anything against fast food.
Deneb*
Posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 22:05:51
In reply to Re: I-statements » Gabbi~G, posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:22:21
> This was my point. That the standards did not appear to my eyes to be evenly applied, and that it was therefore unfair to Estella to block her for statements that to me seem more or less equivilant to unsanctioned statements, since she could reasonably assume that such statements were ok based on past practice.
I agree. And I agree with Larry's point that not dealing with it in a timely manner does not undo any hurt feelings or misunderstandings related to the block. Actually, timeliness of decisions and actions has been one of my frustrations in working on the admin team. In my case, it seems to bring out apathy in me versus helping me develop patience. sigh
>
> Not that the standards should be changed so much as the Politics board should be closely scrutinized for equality in sanctions.I'm on the same page with this, although I acknowledge that this is not necessarily a widely held belief.
>
> Someone, I believe Zazenduck, mentioned that deputies were afraid to act on Politics board. In my case, I'm reluctant to act because I know fewer sanctions are administered by Dr. Bob than would be administered by me, and I don't think the reverse should ever be true.I absolutely agree, and frankly, I avoid trying to be a deputy on the Politics board. I don't feel I understand the rules well enough if I base my interpretation and understanding on Bob's actions or non-actions.
I realize that this might look as if Dinah and I are in lock-step, perhaps because of our deputy roles. But I think we just happen to share similar beliefs on these issues.
Respectfully,
gg
Posted by curtm on June 1, 2006, at 22:13:28
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 22:05:51
Dear Dr. Bob
Thanks for pissing me off and fkng with my head. That is how I feel. That is how you made me feel. And that is not uncivil because that is real!
Posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 22:36:08
In reply to Inconsitency » gardenergirl, posted by curtm on June 1, 2006, at 22:13:28
I'm not sure I understand why that was directed to me.
gg
Posted by Jakeman on June 2, 2006, at 1:11:51
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 18:34:13
Just wondering. Are you willing to reconsider this block or not. Yes or no. Otherwise this debate could go on forever.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 2, 2006, at 2:51:12
In reply to Re: Estella's block for 4 weeks, posted by Deneb on June 1, 2006, at 19:30:26
Christianity bit and seeing if its is still offensive. I know I will get warned for this, or even blocked.. But I think this is something that is missing from this "discussion".
It has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and everything to do with someone saying they thought the world would be a better place is something alot of people care about didn't exist.
Like Deneb said "I think the world would be a better place without fast food".. (which I do disagree with, as without, I would have missed many meals *L*)
But, we could then say "I think the world would be a better place without Americans"
or, "I think the world would be a better place without Buddhism"
"I think the world would be a better place without people from New Zealand"
"I think the world would be a better place without mentally ill people"
"I think the world would be a better place without Jews"
"I think the world would be a better place without Estella"
So, you see where I am going. I, personally, don't believe it awfully civil to say you think the world would be a better place without *anything*.
Sorry, but I agree that how ever hard Estella was trying, it was not a civil statement.
Posted by Jakeman on June 2, 2006, at 3:09:27
In reply to I don't have anything against fast food btw, posted by Deneb on June 1, 2006, at 19:44:12
> I hope I was being civil. I was only using an example. I don't have anything against fast food.
>
> Deneb*WELL Deneb I like McDonalds french fries with some hot sause. Many people consider them the worst corporate purveyor of unhealthy food. I expect a block. I'll take a bullit for french fries.
Warm regards, Jake
Posted by Tabitha on June 2, 2006, at 5:06:18
In reply to B.T.W, posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 15:07:17
> The implication here that someone's statement is flawed and it would be better all around if things were phrased using specific techniques, is a judgement.
Right, but I don't think Dr Bob or anyone is saying that nobody can make any judgements of any kind, ever. Just that it's not always going to be considered civil on this board to state some of those judgements.
>
> And it's no different than Estella's.
I don't hear Dr Bob saying the world would be better without all those other message boards that don't have civility rules. I hear him saying that this one message board has those rules, and speech is limited here, and because of that, it may not be for everyone. To me those are very different flavors of statements.
Posted by Tabitha on June 2, 2006, at 5:37:14
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 14:25:24
> What sickens me about this is the seeming lack of humanity.
>
> It was so clear that Estella was trying to follow Bob's rules, I could feel the gears working.. "okay...bob doesn't want thinks to be judged negatively, but says I should focus on what I like.. maybe this will be okay"
>
> She'd been so open about the hurt she'd felt from previous blocks.
>
> It reminds me of a little kid trying to avoid a smack from an abusive parent.
>
It's sad if it feels that way to her (or anyone). But we're not little kids trapped with an abusive parent here. We're grownups who can choose to post on this particular message board or not.
Posted by henrietta on June 2, 2006, at 7:48:01
In reply to How about changing the, posted by NikkiT2 on June 2, 2006, at 2:51:12
I have a question about rules. Is anything permissible when using hypotheticals? In my opinion, there ought to be some boundaries, here.
I was recently blocked for quoting a remark made by a conservative political commentator, a remark I made clear I found offensive if not outrageous. Though this is not strictly analagous, I was blocked for repeating an offensive statement, even though I, too, was offended by the statement.I could sort of understand the logic of the block, though, and understand the unsavory precedent I could have set. (Though I don't imagine I was the first to commit this offense, so I don't imagine it was precedent-setting..)
Hypotheticals containing what might be construed as personal attacks should, in my opinion, be similarly censured in order to prevent abuse of this form of discourse.
Just a thought.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 8:15:44
In reply to Re: Inconsitency » curtm, posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 22:36:08
> I'm not sure I understand why that was directed to me.
>
> ggI think you witnessed posting while drunk.
I'm sorry. Curt will be?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 8:30:14
In reply to How about changing the, posted by NikkiT2 on June 2, 2006, at 2:51:12
> or, "I think the world would be a better place without Buddhism"
> So, you see where I am going. I, personally, don't believe it awfully civil to say you think the world would be a better place without *anything*.
>
> Sorry, but I agree that how ever hard Estella was trying, it was not a civil statement.
Good job, Nikki!You've done a much better job of bringing the issue out, than I did with the butter tarts analogy. I just picked from the wrong groups of images.
I'm going to want to think about this, because we need to find a way to make this concept generalizable or describable, or all this navel-gazing will again be for nought. Because if we can't lay out some guideline principles, with examples to teach from, then we've failed. If the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught.
A rule must be simple enough to learn that it will protecte you when you don't yet understand the nuances of the rule. In other words, if you follow the rule literally, you cannot fall afoul of one of its idiosyncracies. That's what brings me anger here. Here we have an intelligent sensitive being, trying extremely hard to accomodate a rule that she cannot discern, in this instance. Her efforts were profoundly civil, but she was blocked anyway. Notwithstanding the civility rule, her efforts should have protected her.
I stand by my earlier decision though. What Estella said is not equivalent to e.g. the buddhism or jew comparators.
She was speaking at a different level entirely. It could only be uncivil if it was misunderstood.
I have been struggling all along to make my point, because I can't say it here. Do you all grasp that? My idea is uncivil in this realm, yet it is not uncivil at all.
The ruling is consistent with this realm. But that does not address the fact that good and kind people are being hurt by this. If that didn't happen, I'd happily live with the rule. You see? It's the very real damage being done that is the issue.
I see where the line is, but good people are getting harmed by where the line is.
What about the option of formally withdrawing a statement, because of this stalemate between the two equally passionately held views of human existence?
As it stands now, once uttered, it's off with your head......unless you can utter the magic phrases that make the offense go away.
You know? The solution I/she all the rest have been offered is nothing more than a ritual. Say it this way, and the block goes away......
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 8:32:19
In reply to Re: I-statements » Gabbi~G, posted by Tabitha on June 2, 2006, at 5:37:14
> It's sad if it feels that way to her (or anyone). But we're not little kids trapped with an abusive parent here. We're grownups who can choose to post on this particular message board or not.
I'm weeping as I type this, but Tabs, for some people, Babble is the first family they *ever* had. The stakes are not as you define them.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 2, 2006, at 8:59:18
In reply to Re: How about changing the » NikkiT2, posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 8:30:14
As far as I know, based on past practice, it is possible in the face of a Please Rephrase to apologize for any offense and withdraw the statement.
If that's what one wishes to do, it seems like a safe option.
Is this true, Dr. Bob?
It would also be safe, in a Please Rephrase situation, to run the proposed rephrase by a deputy or by Dr. Bob offboard and have the onboard version accompanied by that information. Dr. Bob may still consider it an unacceptable rephrase, but I doubt he'd block.
Atlhough, as I've stated before, if someone's clearly trying to rephrase, I think a second or third chance should be given. As we've seen on this thread, sometimes it's hard to convey and sometimes it's hard to understand the civility guidelines.
Posted by curtm on June 2, 2006, at 9:00:07
In reply to Re: Inconsitency » curtm, posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 22:36:08
That wasn't directed at you. Damn I accidently checked the box. I'm sorry dear. Please forgive.
Curt
Posted by curtm on June 2, 2006, at 9:15:48
In reply to Re: How about changing the » NikkiT2, posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 8:30:14
Which statement is more civil?
** I think I would be better off without everyone.
** I think everyone would be better off without me.
not drunk curtm
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 9:31:58
In reply to Gardenergirl- oops » gardenergirl, posted by curtm on June 2, 2006, at 9:00:07
> That wasn't directed at you. Damn I accidently checked the box. I'm sorry dear. Please forgive.
>
> CurtI'm sorry for saying what I did, curt, about PWD.
It's one of those unintended consequences.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 9:36:45
In reply to Re: I-statements » Tabitha, posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 8:32:19
The United Nations has approved certain principles, which may guide us here. About human rights, and the protection of individuals from bias arising from sexual orientation, age, gender, religion, and so on.
That may be a framework to consider. A declaration of individual rights, and reasonable limits on free speech.
The thing is, by using the overall and all-encompassing noun "religion", Estella did not violate the principles that are embodied in the human rights guidelines. She did not.
By not specifying, she did not break the rules.
No identifiable person was defined in her very carefully chosen language.
Lar
Posted by curtm on June 2, 2006, at 9:41:47
In reply to Re: Gardenergirl- oops » curtm, posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 9:31:58
Thank you Lar. I'm cool. You're cool. Everybody's cool.
It did catch me by surprise, but we knew I was PWD anyway so...
I still might have inadvertently checked the box if I wasn't, though. I hope gg gets my message soon. Dmnt.
However, sober I still feel the same about Bob right now. Would I have put it in print? I hope so.Have a good day Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 2, 2006, at 9:53:55
In reply to guiding principles, posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 9:36:45
I really don't want to argue the point anymore, not least because I don't wish to hurt Estella.
But I will say that Estella has many people here who care about her, and would be more than willing to review posts she's concerned about. Myself included. I may not always understand how Dr. Bob will read something, but I understood that one, and could have helped prevent a block.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 2, 2006, at 10:03:24
In reply to Re: guiding principles » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 2, 2006, at 9:53:55
> I really don't want to argue the point anymore, not least because I don't wish to hurt Estella.
>
> But I will say that Estella has many people here who care about her, and would be more than willing to review posts she's concerned about. Myself included. I may not always understand how Dr. Bob will read something, but I understood that one, and could have helped prevent a block.You know that you have precisely defined what is at issue? I call it Bobjectivity. Not to be insulting, or denigrating, or condescending. Just to give it a name. A word for it.
Lar
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.