![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 79. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
Dr. Bob has asked me to announce a couple of changes in policy. He'll update the FAQ when he gets a chance.
Dr. Bob has decided that posts in violation of the spirit of the civility guidelines are not in keeping with the goals of the site. In the future, Dr. Bob and the deputies will be able to ask posters to follow the spirit of the civility guidelines and these requests will have equal weight to a Please Be Civil. So those posts that are technically civil, but that are perhaps not respectful or sensitive, will no longer be allowed. Dr. Bob recognizes that "tough love" or "provocation" can be supportive. But he also believes that not all types of support are appropriate on Babble.
We all realize that judging intent is more difficult than judging words alone. We might ask for a rephrase. And we are certainly willing to admit that we might read intent incorrectly, and will do our best to be very careful. It's a developing policy, and we ask that you all be patient and work with us.
As always, if you think a post is in violation of these guidelines, please contact the administration directly using the notification button. Please do not attempt to point it out on board. That is also in violation of board policy.
Incivility towards deputies has in the past been treated differently than incivility towards posters who aren't deputies. This policy will be changed. No new rules are needed, because it's been a matter of enforcement, rather than rules. But in the future, incivility towards deputies, individually or as a group, will fall under the usual civility standards.
Dr. Bob and the deputies hope that these clarifications of existing Babble rules will help create a more supportive environment. I hope everyone will cooperate in this. Believe me, we're no more anxious to give blocks than you are to receive them. So we are definitely willing to work with people on this. If you receive a Please Follow the Spirit of the Guidelines, please don't take it as a reprimand so much as guidance on what is allowable under site guidelines.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. I and the other deputies will answer them as best we can.
Please keep in mind the civility guidelines when asking questions.
This is a policy change, not a rule change. However, we are not planning to apply it in retrospect, so please don't send us posts that are made before this post. From this point on, this will be the policy.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Phillipa on July 31, 2008, at 0:22:33
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
Dinah will be gone all day tomorrow and home very late will it still be okay to give support and welcome people and reply the same as before no counting except no more than three posts in a row? Thanks Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 0:43:08
In reply to Re: Announcement of Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by Phillipa on July 31, 2008, at 0:22:33
There is no change in that at all, Phillipa.
There actually is no rule change at all, just a change in policy on enforcement.
Posted by Hygieia's Bowl on July 31, 2008, at 9:26:54
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
> Dr. Bob has asked me to announce a couple of changes in policy. He'll update the FAQ when he gets a chance.
>
> Dr. Bob has decided that posts in violation of the spirit of the civility guidelines are not in keeping with the goals of the site. In the future, Dr. Bob and the deputies will be able to ask posters to follow the spirit of the civility guidelines and these requests will have equal weight to a Please Be Civil. So those posts that are technically civil, but that are perhaps not respectful or sensitive, will no longer be allowed. Dr. Bob recognizes that "tough love" or "provocation" can be supportive. But he also believes that not all types of support are appropriate on Babble.
>
I think I *get that*.... in speaking of a particular specific, uh, issue, I would think a sensitivity or respect violation could be found as assessed by some. In light of the following by Dr. Bob:http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/812426.html
Are we still able to discuss a behavior issue that as a participant here we feel falls under problems with the site? or is that silenced for public discussion?
Posted by Toph on July 31, 2008, at 9:54:41
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
> Dr. Bob has decided that posts in violation of the spirit of the civility guidelines are not in keeping with the goals of the site. In the future, Dr. Bob and the deputies will be able to ask posters to follow the spirit of the civility guidelines and these requests will have equal weight to a Please Be Civil.
>Will the administrators be responding to a member who has hit the *Notify administrators* button about this issue or will the deputies be cruising the various boards looking for these new infractions? (or both)?
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 9:55:10
In reply to Re: Announcement of Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by Hygieia's Bowl on July 31, 2008, at 9:26:54
I think the discussion can get to a level where it is uncivil to the poster being discussed. The golden rule might be a good guideline here. If you put yourself in the place of the poster involved, would you have a fair basis for feeling accused or put down?
Context is also important. Sometimes the description of the poster or posters is pretty thinly veiled.
Moreover, sometimes Administration *has* ruled that something is not uncivil and is acceptable under board guidelines. When that has happened, the topic has already been addressed. After that, I think it's important to remember the rule about pressuring a poster.
It might be ok to continue to try to convince administration to change the rule. But again, context is important. Those requests to change the rule should be made as neutrally as possible, and with hypotheticals not linked to a particular poster. At that point too, as much as I hate to say this, your complaint is with Dr. Bob and the deputies, not the poster exhibiting the behavior.
I think, again, that you can take it as guidance rather than a reprimand. At some point we may say that something has gone too far, and is no longer in keeping with the spirit of the civility guidelines. We're not expecting everyone to know where this point is. We're expecting people to realize that if we ask them to stop, it's time to move the discussion to notifications or emails to Dr. Bob or the deputies, because we believe further on board discussion could lead posters to feel accused or put down.
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 10:05:42
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by Toph on July 31, 2008, at 9:54:41
I would say that in general, we rely on poster reports. Dr. Bob has been clear that he wishes posters to assume a more active role in reporting incivility. This is true of all the rules. We can't, and don't, read all posts. If people are upset about unequal treatment, part of that is that there is unequal reporting.
However, if something comes to our attention by our own reading of the boards, we can act on it.
The goal of the new policy is not to make administration into the thought police, and not to make Babble more restrictive than it already is. I'm not really in favor of stamping out all expressions of anger. It is possible to be angry and respectful and civil. The goal of the new policy is to allow us to address problems that we do not now feel we have the authority to address.
It also wasn't intended to push Administration into the sort of squabbles that flare up between two people and are quickly addressed by the participants. If posters can work it out between themselves, we'd like them to do so. Dr. Bob wishes the board to become as independent of Administration involvement as possible, and believes that posters can work things out among themselves many times. This policy change is for when the posters are clearly not working things out on their own.
So we'd actually prefer that if people feel offended at something another poster says, that they civilly reach a rapprochement rather than ask us to intervene.
We've all seen, I'm sure, ideal examples of this both on the Administration board and on the Medication Board lately. This is the preferred method of problem resolution. I can try to point some out, although perhaps the posters involved might not be appreciative.
Perhaps it would help if Administration thanks posters who do this, so that we acknowledge role modeling?
Posted by Tabitha on July 31, 2008, at 12:20:07
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
I'm not sure I grasp this. Now, all posts must be "respectful" and "sensitive"? Whereas, previously, all posts just had to be "not explicitly insulting". My goodness, I don't envy the admins or the posters the task of trying to follow this new guideline.
I'm not sure how this jives with also letting posters work out their squabbles.
Does anyone understand this?
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 12:44:11
In reply to Re: Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Tabitha on July 31, 2008, at 12:20:07
The reason it sounds a bit contradictory is that there is a bit of the dialectic in it.
Dr. Bob's goal is to have Babble police itself. For posters to handle conflict themselves, in a civil manner. He'd like us to move towards that. The less administrative action, the better.
But this doesn't always happen. In the past, we've parsed posts that sounded uncivil to see if the words are actually in violation of the civility guidelines. In some cases they weren't. This just allows deputies to use a bit more judgment.
It's not really as bit a change as it may sound. Dr. Bob would have probably just started enforcing it. I've never thought it was right to move the line without telling people first. I think it's far more fair to explain up front.
We're not going to go around searching for posts that aren't respectful or sensitive. We hope that others realize that sometimes posters are a bit irritable or testy, and we realize that as well. We'd like posters to work that out themselves whenever possible. But we would like posters to honor administrative requests, should we feel that there is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Posted by adelaide curtis on July 31, 2008, at 14:28:36
In reply to Re: Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Tabitha on July 31, 2008, at 12:20:07
I understand this as another way of saying that "babble is no longer an area for truth or growth". babble is a place to come if you need your back patted (not that there is anything wring with that).
you can not speak about feelings or real issues here.
babble is on its last legs and is trying to push out the remaining few oppositions. Soon they will have their little club to themselves, soon.
that is how I understood the new development!
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 14:38:29
In reply to Re: Announcement of Policy Changes » Tabitha, posted by adelaide curtis on July 31, 2008, at 14:28:36
> babble is on its last legs and is trying to push out the remaining few oppositions. Soon they will have their little club to themselves, soon.
> that is how I understood the new development!If you wish to ask us about what this means, feel free to do so. But please don't jump to conclusions about motivations.
It would be perfectly fine to express the same sentiment, without jumping to conclusions. For example...
"I worry that this new rule will stifle the free exchange of ideas on Babble."
This was actually enacted in response to what many posters have been asking for, and I have been resisting. There has been a perception that posts are sometimes technically civil but against the spirit of the civility regulations. They objected to our being limited by the words of the guidelines. I liked being limited by the words of the guidelines. So it is not true to my motivations to state that I wanted this at all, much less for the purposes you suggest.
Posted by Toph on July 31, 2008, at 15:07:36
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Toph, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 10:05:42
> It also wasn't intended to push Administration into the sort of squabbles that flare up between two people and are quickly addressed by the participants. If posters can work it out between themselves, we'd like them to do so. Dr. Bob wishes the board to become as independent of Administration involvement as possible, and believes that posters can work things out among themselves many times. This policy change is for when the posters are clearly not working things out on their own.
>
> So we'd actually prefer that if people feel offended at something another poster says, that they civilly reach a rapprochement rather than ask us to intervene.
>
> We've all seen, I'm sure, ideal examples of this both on the Administration board and on the Medication Board lately. This is the preferred method of problem resolution. I can try to point some out, although perhaps the posters involved might not be appreciative.
>So, am I correct that something uncivil may be posted and seen by an administrator but if no one presses the Notify button there may be no intervention?
And under the new policy, a poster may post something that another poster finds objectionable, but if the two come to some amicable conclusion or if the offended party accepts the apology of the offeding party there may also be no intervention by the administration?
What if during the last scenario above a third party presses the Notify button, will the admintrators have to react to the third party notification or will they wait to see if the problem interaction resolves itself?
Posted by Justherself54 on July 31, 2008, at 15:15:34
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Dinah, posted by Toph on July 31, 2008, at 15:07:36
Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 15:19:41
In reply to Please post in the spirit of site guidelines » adelaide curtis, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 14:38:29
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:27:42
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Dinah, posted by Toph on July 31, 2008, at 15:07:36
> So, am I correct that something uncivil may be posted and seen by an administrator but if no one presses the Notify button there may be no intervention?
With or without the new rule, I'd say that might depend on several things, including degree of incivility. But I'd say that if we think it might be worked out between posters, we'd prefer it to be and Dr. Bob would prefer that we wait to see if it is. Also, deputies are also posters, so we can report something ourselves, as posters.
> And under the new policy, a poster may post something that another poster finds objectionable, but if the two come to some amicable conclusion or if the offended party accepts the apology of the offeding party there may also be no intervention by the administration?
I would say that is true. And preferable.
> What if during the last scenario above a third party presses the Notify button, will the admintrators have to react to the third party notification or will they wait to see if the problem interaction resolves itself?One advantage of the slower response time that comes from having three deputies rather than one is that time to resolve often comes about naturally. In cases of frank and unquestionable incivility there is of course no question. But in cases of borderline incivility, I think we would probably prefer to wait to see if posters can resolve it themselves. Or to wait to see if the recipient of the post complains. This is what Dr. Bob prefers, although I personally see a few drawbacks. This doesn't mean that third parties shouldn't report. Of course they should. But I guess we're still working on figuring out when to act immediately and when to wait a bit. Some things we think might turn out badly end up turning out very well. But not always. We're trying to balance all of Dr. Bob's objectives.
Those are all very good questions, and I'm sorry I don't have clearer answers. I hope at least I have been able to explain some of the thinking that goes into our choices.
I'm never sure whether my preferred transparency or Dr. Bob's blank slate are more helpful on the Administrative board.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:31:24
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Toph, posted by Justherself54 on July 31, 2008, at 15:15:34
> Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
Yes, I think it would. But there is some interpretation required in detecting sarcasm. It's possible that there are times when the deputies' interpretation may differ from the interpretation of one or more posters. And if we're not certain, we may ask for clarification or a restatement.
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 15:39:15
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Justherself54, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:31:24
> > Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
>
> Yes, I think it would. But there is some interpretation required in detecting sarcasm. It's possible that there are times when the deputies' interpretation may differ from the interpretation of one or more posters. And if we're not certain, we may ask for clarification or a restatement.
>
I would also add being condescending, arrogant and rude.I know that administration is fully aware that many people here have had replies that made us extremely uncomfortable because we knew that a poster was intending for their post to be interpeted in a negative tone.
I would pray that you are able to detect all of the above when the fur starts flying.
Pat
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:44:29
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
to answer in the particular.
The desire for Dr. Bob to wait to see if posters resolve something dates way back to when I felt forced to resign, and was resolved when Dr. Bob acknowledged we were posters as well as deputies and could report things ourselves. It's still a work in progress, and we're still trying to figure out exactly what he'd do in this situation or that.
This is also a work in progress. We'll check our understanding of it against Dr. Bob's and adjust accordingly.
I didn't want to scare anyone with thoughts that we're going to do some sort of draconian crackdown because that isn't true. We're trying to be respectful and sensitive to the needs and concerns of the posters. We are posters ourselves, after all.
And I absolutely do not want to imply in any way that this is directed at any poster or group of posters. It absolutely is not. It is just a small change in policy.
After I've said so many times that deputies have to stick to the letter of the law, it didn't feel right to make a change in this without trying to explain it first.
After we've allowed an awful lot of incivility against deputies, it wouldn't feel right to start applying the civility rules without explaining first.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:53:49
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 15:39:15
> I know that administration is fully aware that many people here have had replies that made us extremely uncomfortable because we knew that a poster was intending for their post to be interpeted in a negative tone.
>
> I would pray that you are able to detect all of the above when the fur starts flying.
>
> PatIt might lead a poster to feel accused or put down to think that others interpret their motive to be to post in a negative tone. While you did not name any poster in particular, I'm going to ask you to please follow the spirit of the site guidelines.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by adelaide curtis on July 31, 2008, at 16:40:13
In reply to Please post in the spirit of site guidelines » adelaide curtis, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 14:38:29
I am allowed to "jump to conclusions" -you just do not want me to post them , here. :0)
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 16:46:33
In reply to Re: Please post in the spirit of site guidelines » Deputy Dinah, posted by adelaide curtis on July 31, 2008, at 16:40:13
Quite correct. Thank you.
Posted by Midnightblue on July 31, 2008, at 17:47:40
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
I think the thing that concerns me most, are the new guidelines for support. It sounds like if you can't agree with someone, then you shouldn't post to them at all.
There are times when a poster is suicidal, not taking medicine correctly, not eating properly, not thinking clearly, and some small measure of "tough love" is needed.
I'm not sure it is in the posters best interest to agree with them that mega doses of something (just because it feels good) is a good idea or confirm they don't need to call their doctor or go to the hospital when they are suicidal.
If I'm heading the wrong way down a one way street, I hope someone will stop me and not just nod and say, "nice to see you, so sorry you are having a bad day."
I already feel like I can't talk about my faith or give my political beliefs. Most of the time on Babble, I feel like I'm only giving about 25% of who I am. I think that is Babble's loss.
MidnightBlue
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 18:05:36
In reply to Re: Announcement of Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by Midnightblue on July 31, 2008, at 17:47:40
It certainly would be Babble's loss.
Midnight, we would never ask that people support a person to do anything that wasn't good for them. In saying that tough love wasn't appropriate for Babble, I didn't anything that would ordinarily be posted by you or by most Babblers familiar with Babble civility rules. I was talking about the fact that people who post something against the civility guidelines often point out that they are doing so in a form of tough love, and that is supportive. Dr. Bob acknowledges that there are times when support is intended, but that the form of support would not be appropriate for this site. I was acknowledging that someone doesn't have to have bad intent to be uncivil per site guidelines.
I'm having difficulty in expressing this properly, and I hope you continue to ask until you feel comfortable.
I don't think that any way you post now would be a problem in the future. Being supportive does not mean being in agreement with. It's possible to disagree in a civil way.
We're talking about fairly limited behaviors here.
Perhaps Dr. Bob has the right of it after all, and it's better not to say anything, just to do.
Religion and politics are tricky subjects to discuss on Babble. It's hard to talk about those topics while being respectful to those of different views. Some sites just disallow the discussion altogether. Dr. Bob allows it but with pretty strict guidelines.
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:04:30
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Justherself54, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:31:24
> > Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
>
> Yes, I think it would. But there is some interpretation required in detecting sarcasm. It's possible that there are times when the deputies' interpretation may differ from the interpretation of one or more posters. And if we're not certain, we may ask for clarification or a restatement.more and more confused about how we define the pattern that is being followed in some posts.
>
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:15:39
In reply to This is all a bit difficult, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:44:29
> to answer in the particular.
>
> The desire for Dr. Bob to wait to see if posters resolve something dates way back to when I felt forced to resign, and was resolved when Dr. Bob acknowledged we were posters as well as deputies and could report things ourselves. It's still a work in progress, and we're still trying to figure out exactly what he'd do in this situation or thatDo you think that there is the possibility that the posters will be using babblemail and it will then erupt on the board and cause more upset among the other posters?
This sounds very iffy.
I don't suppose that Bob would come on the board and add his two cents to this discussion?
>
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.