![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 33 to 57 of 117. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 9:13:38
In reply to An alternate proposal that I see as Win Win Win, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 9:07:32
Admin or other posters could even notify people privately about posts that are not direct attacks on others and suggest ways to amend them. That way those who feel humiliated at on board pbc's would be able to save face by amending their posts, and the original would still be there so that your goal of having actions be visible and teaching others what is and isn't ok on babble would still be met.
Posted by Nadezda on November 24, 2009, at 10:43:41
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
For me, the later erasure of a post that I'd read would raise confusion in my mind about whether I had read it-- or read it right. When I read something to which I have a strong emotional reaction, I may later question whether the person really said one or another thing that I remember as distressing. Referring to the original post assures that I can restore my sense of what I read-- and thus check my reaction ( to correct, change or confirm it).
I find this distinctly supportive of my sense of continuity and my ability to depend on either my perceptions, or on the record of what was written. This is the huge advantage, to me, of the non-editing protocol.
On the other hand, people can speak impulsively and then regret that they've posted their immediate reaction. So there's value in letting them revise, and giving them a chance to come to a more considered response.
These values are obviously in conflict and I suppose it's a question of which is more important. Or how to meet both needs of the community-- for a stable reality and a chance to be their best self, and to be protected from each other's--and their own-- momentary outbursts.
For me, 24 hours seems to much, mostly because it creates the time for many people to read the post, who aren't yet intimately connected to the conflict, but who may be drawn into the swirl of emotions--but who don't post. So the post could remain unanswered, even though many have read and reacted to it. This seems unhelpful, as it creates a confusion and contradictory experiences among potential responders-or even non-posting readers--about what was and wasn't said.
Maybe half an hour isn't long enough-- maybe an hour or even two would be more fair. However, I do think the cut-off should be well before twenty-four hours. That just gives too much opportunity for people, especially lurkers, to read the posts.
So I guess I think there could be some way of accommodating both needs, with revision within a deadline and/or response.
I'm not personally worried about bullying or gaslighting-- imo, anyone who's doing that could be identified and actions could be taken to protect everyone. And I also find myself believing that most, if not all, posters here really are struggling with many issues and, when hurtful things are said, people often don't do it with a bad heart, even if they're upset at the moment.
I also see that we don't really have any current deputies, and that this might permit babble to be self-sustaining, ie to function more smoothly with minimal moderation. So, perhaps it's a modus vivendi. Since people have said it would help them feel more safe, more in control, and less vulnerable to being banned, it again might prevent pbcs and blocks-- which, of course, have always been the greatest source of conflict here.
On one hand, this shouldn't be decided based on how one or two people personally feel about the process. A change of this magnitude requires consultation-- of the kind that was missing in the prior insertion of the twitter and facebook links. So bringing in the community-- whatever its potential for creating more uproar, which I think is substantial-- might be worth it in the long run.
On the other hand, if there is a lot of disagreement about how to proceed, it could cause further ruptures. Making important changes without letting people at least know in advance to prepare, or to challenge the direction we're taking, seems unwise. So maybe if you decide to make the change, you could present it for discussion and reflection while presenting it as something you do intend to do, as opposed to a mere suggestion.
One other important thing-- I do strongly stress that if you do make a change, it would be best to explain in greater detail than you have a habit of doing, why you're doing it, and the effects you hope to achieve. Perhaps a session on the chat one evening for interested parties to talk with you in person would be productive-- and would give people the sense that you're acting in their and babble's best interest, not arbitrarily imposing rules from above. It may seem impossible to meet the objections and satisfy everyone-- or most people-- and I can see how it might seem useless to try. So I'm not really sure how to proceed, except that I do think a more detailed explanation of some sort is really necessary.
Nadezda
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 12:54:32
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 24, 2009, at 10:43:41
My suggestion does the same thing, while preserving the ability to test reality.
If the objections are the PBC's, it would do the job just as well. Perhaps even better.
Why the investment in having the original post disappear entirely? One thing that always set Babble apart from its competition is that threads don't get disappeared and posts don't change. For some people that's good, some people that's bad. But why take away the one place where people who find it a good thing can be in peace, at least on that point?
The posts won't be on the main board, people can still avoid a PBC, and it can even be used by those concerned about privacy and google. And it's not crazymaking. Whether people who post something, regret it, and change it after others have seen it are trying to be crazymaking or not, it is still crazymaking. Or maybe I am the crazy one for feeling that way.
What harm can it do to leave a link to the original?
I don't actually think much of a place where an administrator presents things as a fait accompli. It's not all that different from doing it before announcing it, but with the added disadvantage of frustration in having a chance to speak but no chance to be heard and have things change.
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 14:29:35
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 24, 2009, at 10:43:41
And while I had hoped to be back as deputy long before now (although I have no idea how Dr. Bob feels about that at this point), I don't think a small number of active deputies makes this a good time to make it easier for there to be sources of hurt.
I can't imagine that people would think harder rather than less about posting something unkind if they know they can disappear it if they do it fast enough. When people are angry they do tend to act in ways they wouldn't otherwise. Myself included. But surely more often if it wasn't as visible and public as it is now. People rarely break the law in full view of newspaper reporters.
Many babblers tell me of Babblemail civility violations that wouldn't have happened on board. In fact, I think it might be a larger problem than we acknowledge. But if they could be made on board and quickly amended, would people be as reluctant to do it?
I don't think lack of admin support is an argument for this.
But I seem to be the only one who cares about this, so... whatever.
I did like my compromise though...
Posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 15:23:20
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 14:29:35
Where I post, posts can be edited up to 40 mins after posting.
It says on the post if it has been edited, but the old post don't show. Just the new post.
You have up to 30 mins to delete a post. I think it just dissapears.
There is email notification of posts which includes the text of the post. So if you do delete/edit on an existing thread, your original post will still be in others email who have posted to that thread.At first, I admit, I was kind of fussed to see edits etc.
But then I became accustomed to them and trusted why they edited. I generally have only used the edit function for when I have accidentally sent a post B4 I'd thot it thru or finished correcting it.
Also, this site is a mental health site, and has many w/dissociative issues, so the edit, delete function is much appreciated.Oddly, civillity does not seem to be an issue on this site. At least not on the boards I frequent. People self regulate. If they feel they have overstepped, they apologize. Or the thread just kinda falls lower on the list, and eventually is deleted.
I think people on that site DO tend to be very careful of triggering and hurtful words. And as a result, post carefully, and are also very careful about what they post etc. So there is less 'depth' in some ways I suppose.
There is a board where posters can post just to each other, and maybe they are more open there, I think they are, but I don't go to that area.They have a chat function as well, but its pretty primitive, but I think some posters have connected there as well, to exchange emails etc.
I have no idea what the dynamic is at babble that seem to cause bullying behaviors etc. I think they must have been mostly off board, cuz I dunno bout that much.
People , when they get closer to each other WILL clash sometimes. My oldT allus said that we often (usu inadvertently) hurt those that are closest to us, cuz the trust is there, and so is then, the oppotunity for there to be hurt. We wouldn't likely hurt much if we didn't care.
BUT, usu people who care bout each other will attempt to make amends once they are calmer (if they CAN, they can't if blocked...).
So I dunno.
Just putting in my 2 cents worth from what another site does is all.
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 16:51:17
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 15:23:20
It's possible I'm paranoid.
But I also think it's shocking that a site administrator would suggest that someone can be uncivil as long as they pretend they never were. I think the very idea is shocking.
I also have been here long enough to see Babble not as a small group of posters who all like each other and want the best for each other. People find Babble by Google, not by referral. Or they did at any rate. At times, it has been far less than a Utopian society. Maybe Babble has changed into a small intimate group where that sort of thing would never be an issue. But if it has, why would anyone need to retcon their remarks?
I'm not imagining this use of editing from among a host of totally innocuous uses. It's how Dr. Bob presented it to us on this go around. As a way for people to avoid the consequences of being uncivil. I find that shocking. If no one on earth ever used the function, I still find it shocking.
He calls it something else. Retracting their remarks? Again, retracting to me does not require pretending they were never made. He should call it what it is.
And I NEVER liked the idea of disappearing posts or changing them. Never ever ever. Because it would make me insane. Maybe that's because I am insane.
Posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 17:03:00
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 16:51:17
Dinah sweat pea, you are not insane :)
I was just saying how it is on another site in order to show a different perspective.
Sadly, I no longer consider myself a babbler, but just wanted to be helpful if possible.
Bob will do what Bob will do. What he does no longer has any impact on me.(mostly not anyways, I still feel badly for his impact on others however...)
I don't feel he will change.
I only pop in to check on what few babblers from my era are left.
Please take care Dinah.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 15:23:20
> It is nothing at all like an apology. It is pretending after the fact that something didn't happen. It is trying to distort everyone's sense of reality into believing that what they see is not actually what they see.
>
> I proposed that the original post be available by a link. That would be closer to a formal retraction of words that can't be taken back. It's a way for administration to avoid acting on incivility, like an apology, and like urging others to convince people to apologize. But it would not mess with people's reality. The reality of what actually happened. *Again, this is particularly important because you introduce the measure as a way to deal with incivility.* I think a good many of us are familiar with spouses or parents or others who act one way in private and another in public. People who harm us then deny that it ever happened. People who try to tell us that whatever we think happened didn't really happen.> You seem to see this as a face saving alternative to an apology to those who do not wish to make the concession of apologizing.
>
> I'm ok with that. I'm ok with considering a retraction as a statement that someone realizes they oughtn't to have posted something.
>
> I'm certainly ok with people editing technical issues in their post. Putting in their real name, correcting medication names, grammar or spelling errors, or clarifying something that seems difficult to understand on re-reading.> Admin or other posters could even notify people privately about posts that are not direct attacks on others and suggest ways to amend them. That way those who feel humiliated at on board pbc's would be able to save face by amending their posts
>
> Dinah> Referring to the original post assures that I can restore my sense of what I read-- and thus check my reaction ( to correct, change or confirm it).
>
> I find this distinctly supportive of my sense of continuity and my ability to depend on either my perceptions, or on the record of what was written. This is the huge advantage, to me, of the non-editing protocol.
>
> On the other hand, people can speak impulsively and then regret that they've posted their immediate reaction. So there's value in letting them revise, and giving them a chance to come to a more considered response.
>
> These values are obviously in conflict and I suppose it's a question of which is more important. Or how to meet both needs of the community-- for a stable reality and a chance to be their best self, and to be protected from each other's--and their own-- momentary outbursts.
>
> I'm not personally worried about bullying or gaslighting-- imo, anyone who's doing that could be identified and actions could be taken to protect everyone. And I also find myself believing that most, if not all, posters here really are struggling with many issues and, when hurtful things are said, people often don't do it with a bad heart, even if they're upset at the moment.
>
> I also see that we don't really have any current deputies, and that this might permit babble to be self-sustaining, ie to function more smoothly with minimal moderation. So, perhaps it's a modus vivendi. Since people have said it would help them feel more safe, more in control, and less vulnerable to being banned, it again might prevent pbcs and blocks-- which, of course, have always been the greatest source of conflict here.
>
> Nadezda> At first, I admit, I was kind of fussed to see edits etc.
> But then I became accustomed to them and trusted why they edited. I generally have only used the edit function for when I have accidentally sent a post B4 I'd thot it thru or finished correcting it.
> Also, this site is a mental health site, and has many w/dissociative issues, so the edit, delete function is much appreciated.
>
> muffledDinah, thanks for explaining more. I think I see now, one concern is that people might deny what they originally posted. My intent isn't of course to facilitate denial, but I see how that could happen. And how it would be crazy-making. And how keeping the original text available would protect against that.
Since this is a support group, I do think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for revising. But as a backup, deputies and I could access the copy of the original saved by the server (it would be available to us, but not to everyone) and see if false information was posted about it, which would be considered uncivil. (At the same time, it would also be considered uncivil for other posters to post anything that could lead the original poster to feel accused or put down.)
I think that would be a reasonable way to rebalance how the needs of this community are met. Babble might be more self-sustaining, and if necessary, administrative actions could still be taken.
--
> For me, 24 hours seems to much, mostly because it creates the time for many people to read the post, who aren't yet intimately connected to the conflict, but who may be drawn into the swirl of emotions--but who don't post. So the post could remain unanswered, even though many have read and reacted to it. This seems unhelpful, as it creates a confusion and contradictory experiences among potential responders-or even non-posting readers--about what was and wasn't said.
>
> NadezdaThat's true, those who didn't see the original would have an experience different from those who did. To some extent, those who didn't would need to try to accept not knowing something. OTOH, the more people who did see it, the easier it should be to find out, so maybe there's the possibility of *less* confusion, too?
--
> bringing in the community-- whatever its potential for creating more uproar, which I think is substantial-- might be worth it in the long run.
I agree, and that's why I started this discussion.
> One other important thing-- I do strongly stress that if you do make a change, it would be best to explain in greater detail than you have a habit of doing, why you're doing it, and the effects you hope to achieve. Perhaps a session on the chat one evening for interested parties to talk with you in person would be productive-- and would give people the sense that you're acting in their and babble's best interest, not arbitrarily imposing rules from above.
>
> NadezdaI agree, and I'm trying to explain now. I'd be open to a chat, too, but people would have to be available at that particular time, and it wouldn't automatically be recorded like this thread.
I hope you all had a good Thanksgiving. Sorry about not replying sooner. I'm thankful for your trust and patience,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 8:15:44
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
It's not just outright denial, Dr. Bob. It's the tacit denial of editing a post. Editing a post *is* denial. It's not retraction. Retraction is what they do in newspapers. But they don't go collect all the original newspapers and replace them. They can't. Words can't be unsaid.
If you haven't read the original fine. But if you had, and then the particulars of the post are changed - even if it's not a question of incivility - "reality" has changed. And if some people have read it, and others haven't, then different people have different realities. I thought Babble was the place where everything was transparent, and everyone's reality was as much the same as site rules could make it? Public PBC's and blocks, never removing a post, etc. If you wish to change that, maybe you could start with one of the other elements of transparency, like public PBC's that likely actually cause more distress than this.
It's not an issue in technical corrections. But it is an issue in anything else, especially civility, but anything else really. Once anyone has read the post, editing it tampers with the reader's sense of reality.
At another site, which does allow editing, I end up saving posts every time I read them, because I never know if they'll change afterward.
Maybe it's me. I have OCD, which has been known as the doubting disease. And I was raised in a home where reality was at issue. But surely many of us were raised in homes (or married into homes) where reality was an issue.
Having the original available is fine for deputies, but I don't think it's fair for only deputies to have the ability to see that.
What is the issue of having the original linkable? Why would anyone object to that?
If someone regrets what they posted, they could indicate that regret by withdrawing or changing what they said. Isn't that sufficient? Why is it so bad to have what they actually said still available? It seems a reasonable compromise to me.
Thank you for trying to understand. But maybe you could go a bit further and try to understand more fully.
Could you please explain to me
1) Why having the original available by link would be so awful.
2) Why it would improve on board relations to have people saying something then tacitly denying it after it's had a chance to be seen. Wouldn't that just make other posters more angry at the use of board rules to be uncivil on top of the incivility itself? Can you imagine in some of the exchanges where people already perceive that people are treading close to the line, if editing subsequently took place? Is my memory just longer than yours? I just totally don't understand in any way why this would increase board harmony. Could you give a few examples?
I'm guessing this isn't really open to debate or compromise, and all I'm doing is upsetting myself more. I've prepared a folder on my computer for all the saving I'm going to have to do. And I've even thought of a few fun games I could play. But I don't think it's ultimately in the board's best interests. As for me personally, all I can say is you can consider it the "therapist job stability and retirement provision" rule.
Posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 9:43:09
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
> Since this is a support group, I do think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for revising. But as a backup, deputies and I could access the copy of the original saved by the server (it would be available to us, but not to everyone) and see if false information was posted about it, which would be considered uncivil. (At the same time, it would also be considered uncivil for other posters to post anything that could lead the original poster to feel accused or put down.)
You yourself have said that we shouldn't feel too safe here. That was one of the "advantages" of the Twitter and Facebook options - to remind us.
So if I'm to understand you, no one would receive any admin action no matter what they posted as long as they revised it within twentyfour hours no matter how many people read the post.
Would it be frozen for editing if someone replied? It would then at least be a game of chicken, since posters would always run the risk of having the first person to read it reply.
If I understand correctly again, denying you wrote something would be uncivil. But since pointing out that someone said something would also be uncivil, that wouldn't really be an issue. No one would have to deny it.
If I quote the original post in my reply, including the incivility so that people would know what I was replying to, would that be uncivil?
How could a poster civilly point out that the original said something very different. Or offer to make the original available by email. It's not private communications. It was posted on the internet.
> That's true, those who didn't see the original would have an experience different from those who did. To some extent, those who didn't would need to try to accept not knowing something. OTOH, the more people who did see it, the easier it should be to find out, so maybe there's the possibility of *less* confusion, too?
So you're saying that there would be less confusion if more people knew the original reality. Yet you are also in favor of disappearing the original reality and replacing it with multiple realities? You think it would be good for babble's stability to have the haves and the have nots of information?
> I agree, and I'm trying to explain now. I'd be open to a chat, too, but people would have to be available at that particular time, and it wouldn't automatically be recorded like this thread.
Does this mean that this is a done deal, something you have already decided to do, and nothing we say will influence you to change course, or at least to compromise?
There are other problems that have cropped up elsewhere with editing, but there's no point even discussing them if this is something you are going to do, and we can like it or lump it.
Why do I feel like this is "next time"?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2009, at 0:23:38
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 9:43:09
> It's not just outright denial, Dr. Bob. It's the tacit denial of editing a post. Editing a post *is* denial.
>
> If you haven't read the original fine. But if you had, and then the particulars of the post are changed - even if it's not a question of incivility - "reality" has changed. And if some people have read it, and others haven't, then different people have different realities. I thought Babble was the place where everything was transparent, and everyone's reality was as much the same as site rules could make it?
>
> 1) Why having the original available by link would be so awful.
>
> 2) I just totally don't understand in any way why this would increase board harmony. Could you give a few examples?
>
> I'm guessing this isn't really open to debate or compromise, and all I'm doing is upsetting myself more.> So if I'm to understand you, no one would receive any admin action no matter what they posted as long as they revised it within twentyfour hours no matter how many people read the post.
>
> Would it be frozen for editing if someone replied? It would then at least be a game of chicken, since posters would always run the risk of having the first person to read it reply.
>
> If I understand correctly again, denying you wrote something would be uncivil. But since pointing out that someone said something would also be uncivil, that wouldn't really be an issue. No one would have to deny it.
>
> If I quote the original post in my reply, including the incivility so that people would know what I was replying to, would that be uncivil?
>
> How could a poster civilly point out that the original said something very different. Or offer to make the original available by email.
>
> Does this mean that this is a done deal, something you have already decided to do, and nothing we say will influence you to change course, or at least to compromise?I don't see revising as denying. Revise: 1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript>. Deny: 1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>.
I think we're both in favor of allowing revisions and only differ on deleting the original. The advantage of deleting the original is that it might avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings. The example I gave before was changing:
> You're offensive!
to:
> I feel offended!
The latter is an I-statement, so hopefully it would avoid bad feelings if the other poster hasn't seen the original and lessen them if they have.
My philosophy already is to accept apologies, including retractions. And as you said yourself, revising could be a face saving alternative to an explicit apology and an implicit acknowledgement that what was originally posted oughtn't to have been. But the poster might not necessarily have the full 24 hours (or however long) to revise because (1) their post might be replied to and (2) administrative action might be taken sooner.
Yes, a post would be "frozen" if someone replied. Repeating something uncivil by quoting it already is considered uncivil. A poster could civilly point out that the original was very different by saying:
> The original was very different.
or even:
> The original was very different, and I felt very offended!
If someone revised something, I don't think I'd consider it sensitive to their feelings to post an offer to make the original available.
Yes, deleting the original could change someone's reality: their reality one time might be the original post and their reality a later time might be the corrected or improved post. In effect, they would be asked to accept that change.
Yes, those who did and didn't see the original would have different realities. But people here already have different realities because of private communications.
Is it just that a reader might have to deal with a changed reality, or is it also that the poster should be taken to task if their original post was uncivil?
I think it's clear that this is open to debate, and limiting revisions to a certain time period and making denials actionable are already changes in course.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 2:10:36
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2009, at 0:23:38
First of all, are your RSS feeds just links? Or do they contain the body of the post? Once they're sent, is the original post sent?
> I don't see revising as denying. Revise: 1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript>. Deny: 1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>.
That's what the confirm this post step is for. You might revise a manuscript before publishing it. After it's published, even if you revise a later edition, the original is available to anyone who cares to look. After you publish, you print corrections or revisions that are additions to the manuscript. Is this not so?
One suggestion I've heard is to hold posts that can be revised in limbo, so that they can be revised before they are posted. Sort of like confirm, but with a longer cooling off period. That would be a good use for having a setting to be able to edit. To send the posts to a waiting period where they can later be edited before posting.
> I think we're both in favor of allowing revisions and only differ on deleting the original.
To be clear, I still have objections to you as administrator proposing revisions as a way to disappear incivility. I'd have been far less offended about this whole matter if you hadn't introduced it as a civility matter.
Moreover, trying to minimize damage and make the best of the inevitable is not actually agreement. It is compromise.
> The advantage of deleting the original is that it might avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings.
It might possibly avoid bad feelings if the other poster (and no one who knows the other poster) hasn't seen the original. Although honestly Dr. Bob, if you saw a post from someone who maybe didn't care for you overmuch in general, and that post sounded angry and offended, and you'd seen it had been edited, wouldn't it be just as likely that you would think that what had been edited out was pretty bad? Worse even than what might have actually been there? Well, you might not care, but I'd be incensed and certainly not have the reaction you propose. I'd wonder precisely what had been revised.
If I did see the post, I'd forgive incivility way sooner than I'd forgive disappearing incivility. And I'd think differently about posters who would do that, and I'd hate to feel differently about the posters.
> The example I gave before was changing:
>
> > You're offensive!
>
> to:
>
> > I feel offended!
>
> The latter is an I-statement, so hopefully it would avoid bad feelings if the other poster hasn't seen the original and lessen them if they have.You gave an example that could be conceivably considered poor wording.
Would it be different if it was changing
"F*ck you, Dr. Bob."
to
"Bless you, Dr. Bob."
Would you feel a lessening of bad feelings if you saw it changed that way? Or maybe don't use you. Do you think posters would feel a lessening of bad feelings?
On the positive side, I suppose, it would give people a chance to vent towards you without leaving others afraid of getting a faceful of cat.
> My philosophy already is to accept apologies, including retractions. And as you said yourself, revising could be a face saving alternative to an explicit apology and an implicit acknowledgement that what was originally posted oughtn't to have been. But the poster might not necessarily have the full 24 hours (or however long) to revise because (1) their post might be replied to and (2) administrative action might be taken sooner.
If I see a post written to me that is uncivil, I'll reply to it. I hope anyone who cares about my sanity will do the same for posts written about me. Edited posts are blank slates, in a way, to be interpreted in all manner of ways. Believe me, I can imagine much worse than is likely to be true. Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'm guessing I'm not.
> Yes, a post would be "frozen" if someone replied. Repeating something uncivil by quoting it already is considered uncivil. A poster could civilly point out that the original was very different by saying:
>
> > The original was very different.
>
> or even:
>
> > The original was very different, and I felt very offended!Thank you. I'll remember that.
> If someone revised something, I don't think I'd consider it sensitive to their feelings to post an offer to make the original available.Well, no real need for it to be on board.
> Yes, deleting the original could change someone's reality: their reality one time might be the original post and their reality a later time might be the corrected or improved post. In effect, they would be asked to accept that change.
I need one reality. The reality is that a post was posted and an edit made. The reality is both posts.
It's not even just incivility, Dr. Bob. I actually pay attention to what people write. If somebody writes something and later it's gone or changed, it would be crazymaking. The internet is a place where it's all too easy to lose your sense of reality. But at least at Babble posts don't go changing. What's there is there.
> Yes, those who did and didn't see the original would have different realities. But people here already have different realities because of private communications.
They may have incomplete realities, but that's not the same as having different realities. If you need me to explain further I can.
> Is it just that a reader might have to deal with a changed reality, or is it also that the poster should be taken to task if their original post was uncivil?
It's a lot of things, Dr. Bob. On some levels I feel very offended, on other levels I find it groundwork for insanity. I don't consider taking posters to task as an issue at all, since I am not opposed to your allowing people to use this feature to avoid administrative action. What is an issue is that posting uncivil things, along the lines of attacks, not poor wording, reveals something about a poster. So does manning up and apologizing, or expressing regret. And so does pretending that it never happened and changing a post. It's not a question of PBC's. It's a question of character, and of understanding what to expect from each other. Yes, I suppose I do think it is better for all Babblers to have a shared reality - to the extent that it is possible given the different perceptions, characteristic ways of viewing the world, and life experiences we all of us bring to any table.
But even more important to me is the issue of reality. And that's not even a question of civility. If I read something, then go back and it says something different, it would be crazymaking for me. Even if it had nothing to do with incivility but was an integral part of the topic at hand. I often read a post then go away and eat breakfast or something while I think about it, then come back to reply. How crazymaking would it be for there to be a different post when I came back to reply? I'd routinely wonder if I was going crazy. Reality would be a moving target. You want people to accept that, but why? Why, when the alternative is so easy? Just take the original post off the main board, but make it linkable.
Also, Dr. Bob, the things that made Babble the very mature and interesting place that it is aren't unrelated to its structure. Babble is a better place, IMO, for encouraging people to think before they post. We sometimes take leaps of faith on, say, Psychology. And sometimes we hit that confirm button and are filled with sudden fear as well as tentative hope. Babble would be a far poorer place without some of the vulnerability that arises from the nature of how Babble has been. At least the annoyance of having people coyly retract their question after it is answered would not be an issue since it would be frozen once someone responded. I'd have to start quoting the post I'm responding to far more than I do now, if I respond in any depth. I'd hate to have the original change while I'm crafting an answer. I'd again feel like I was insane.People with OCD touch things to make check reality. Right now, the post is there to touch at any time. If the posts start changing...
> I think it's clear that this is open to debate, and limiting revisions to a certain time period and making denials actionable are already changes in course.
>
> BobMy suggestion was actually to allow revisions to be made at any time, so that people who fear they have posted something personal they don't want turning up on google search could amend their post. And that the original not be googleable. Perhaps some limit on older posts might have to be made so that Babble wasn't gutted.
But Dr. Bob, as far as I know, people have been more upset about personal information being googleable than they are about being able to edit posts in a very tiny window of opportunity. My proposal would help more people, not less. And the original posts would still be there, but not be googleable. You could link them right next to the "Edited" notation. Again, why is that a problem?
I've also made suggestions about long blocks, which I also think is a larger issue than being able to edit posts in a short time frame.
So, allowing edits to be made indefinitely and keeping the original post by link would address a number of concerns and maybe help make people feel safe again. How many people does disappearing the original post in that very small time frame help? Why the investment in disappearing the original post from an administrator who made preserving what actually happens a major cornerstone of this site?
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 2:32:57
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 2:10:36
I retract the word coyly from the above. Retract, not disappear.
That's an interpretation of fact that I oughtn't have included.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 7:13:50
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 2:32:57
Posted by Nadezda on November 29, 2009, at 14:59:45
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 2:10:36
I do think that there's a possibility that we're punishing people too severely if we keep the posts unrevisable. I do get the feeling as I think about it, that part of the reason it is appealing to do so is that we don't want people to avoid so called responsibility for what they've written.
This is being argued largely in terms of preserving a stable reality. But the motivations for wanting posts to remain visible seem to be to be more complex than the simple one of not changing reality. This is because the consequences of keeping the post visible are multiple, not single. And to single one facet of this and to call it 'preserving reality' is overly rhetorical, and makes the preservation seem like an obvious good.
But is it preserving reality? or it is fixing the impulse and preventing reflection and thoughtfulness from having their due? Doesn't it profoundly limit the poster's process of reflecting on a response and realizing that it doesn't adequately, or well, represent her views-as well as having the free chance to rethink and reword feelings-- which is lost if the person is now in the position of having to focus on an apology for some wrong-doing?
There are always rules about written texts that are different from those of speech-- precisely because speech is impermanent and one doesn't have a record to refer to. So it's not subject to rules about revision and rewriting-- and having editors and review before things are published. And this process insures that permanent words are acceptable and well-composed.
One aspect of the internet is that it makes possible impulsive communications of personal or other information that were only previously possible in letters or other more long-term documents. And this may call for different rules from those governing speech or published texts-- intermediate rules. Yes speech can't be recalled--but it disappears forever; and a text once published is to some degree in the public domain--but it has had the benefit of much review by both author and editors.
Here, we do have the option of revising-- and after all, these are not gone-over or reviewed texts--yet they become as fixed as those that have been combed through in books-- In effect, they're as free flowing as speech, of which there is no record, and as fixed as published texts, for which there is revision and review.
So perhaps the best of all possible worlds is to take advantage of this potential for revision, within limits. Of course if many people have read, or someone has responded, a post becomes permanent. But why keep an unread, or unattended post permanent, without any chance for cool-headed reflection by the writer? Aren't we also truncating a potential learning experience of rethinking and revision of a response--and thereby becoming more aware of what one does or doesn't want to say, possibly learning how to write better first-draft replies? Shouldn't we also be protecting the rights of writers, ie contributors to the public space, as well as readers (who obviously have the option of fixing a post as soon as they've read it).
I simply don't think that making people take some imagined "responsibility" for impulsive words should be quite so stringent as to be limited to rereading the text before pushing the send button-- which as we know pressures the writer to make a split second decision. Punishing people by public humiliation, which seems to be involved in the notion of not allowing them to "save face" seems to me to be overly harsh for a forum which, as even you Dinah, have suggested, is populated by people who've suffered various forms of damaging hurt during their lives. Sometimes it's best to temper justice with mercy-- and it seems to me that this is one of those times.
Having a limbo, or suspend publication, position, while an interesting option, doesn't I think connect well to the internet's up-to-the-moment ethos of communication. It's much more to the point to allow some period of revision.
So while I have some reservations, it seems on the whole beneficial to have a period of using this option and seeing whether it produces a more helpful and supportive environment or not. And I note that anyone has the option of making a post they feel is uncivil or hurtful permanently visible, if they so choose.
Nadezda
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 15:39:18
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 29, 2009, at 14:59:45
I recognize that your priorities differ. That's fine.
But please don't call my concerns overly rhetorical. I've experienced this shifting reality elsewhere and I know what it does to a stable sense of reality, or at least mine.
I can work around this. I seem unable to leave Babble so I'll have to. It's Dr. Bob's site and he gets to choose the rules, the priorities, and the values of this site. If I wanted that right, I'd have to start my own site. However, this is one more instance of something that has always been a big difference and advantage to me about Babble, and something I mention frequently as a reason I prefer Babble to other sites, changing. Babble is important to me, and I have expressed my feelings about something important to me, even vital to me, about someplace important to me. Something I've always found important about Babble, way back to the beginning. I have since the beginning been in favor of inclusiveness and openness. While I never believed that Dr. Bob shared my values on the former, he always has seemed to share my values on the latter.
Clearly your priorities, and Dr. Bob's priorities are different. As you said, in the end Dr. Bob will choose his priorities. Dr. Bob understands that this is shifting reality, and that that can be crazymaking. He knows that it can be used by those who wish to be uncivil. He's chosen his priorities. He's chosen what he finds important. But please don't verbally dismiss my concerns as overly rhetorical.
In addition, yes, I do respect people who take responsibility for their actions rather than try to cover them up. I'm not trying to hide it. I don't think it's anything to hide.
But they are two separate concerns. Please respect that.
Posted by SLS on November 30, 2009, at 7:26:45
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 15:39:18
Right now, the idea of being able to *amend* posts doesn't sit well with me. I'm not sure why. I really dislike the idea of editing, as it takes away from the flow of a thread. People always have the opportunity to amend their posts by simply submitting a follow-up post.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2009, at 15:07:33
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by SLS on November 30, 2009, at 7:26:45
> Right now, the idea of being able to *amend* posts doesn't sit well with me. I'm not sure why. I really dislike the idea of editing, as it takes away from the flow of a thread.
Scott, thanks for contributing your point of view. You saw that just the last post in the thread would be amendable, and those part of the flow up to that point wouldn't be?
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on November 30, 2009, at 15:56:55
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2009, at 15:07:33
Now I have no idea what you are talking about, Dr. Bob. Did I miss a whole part of something?
>>You saw that just the last post in the thread would be amendable, and those part of the flow up to that point wouldn't be?
Can you explain some other way? I thought this was a discussion about pros/cons of editing in general, and more specifically about how long of a time period to wait, whether the original post could be available yet not on the main boards, etc? Where was it mentioned it would only apply to the last post in a thread? This would mean you have not only decided already to do this, but that you have decided the time period, too? Is that why there is such a thing as the "last" post? Otherwise....what *is* the *last* post in a thread? Can't I post another post to any thread, any time? How can that be defined?
As usual, I am unable to comprehend. I never, ever feel dumber or more bewildered in interactions with others, in cyberspace or IRL, than when I make the mistake of trying to discuss something on this Admin board. I should refrain, but seems I cannot.
:-(
Posted by 10derHeart on November 30, 2009, at 16:08:19
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derHeart on November 30, 2009, at 15:56:55
Posted by gardenergirl on November 30, 2009, at 16:27:09
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 2:10:36
I'd like to echo Dinah's statements about crazy-making. I grew up in a alcoholic household, and I'm particularly sensitive to "crazy-making".
In addition, the idea of being able to replace a post by revising it, especially as a way to avoid incivility, reminds me of the defense mechanism of "undoing". Undoing is not usually viewed as a particularly adaptive defense mechanism. I don't think that it would be generally in the best interest to promote the use of more primitive mechanisms on a site that purports to be supportive of mental health.
And on a similar note, though different topic...I acknowledge that anyone could post anything from this site on social networking sites anytime they want, and always could. However, I don't think that actually inviting them to and facilitating the behavior leads itself to a feeling of safety here, something that matters to me.
gg
Posted by muffled on November 30, 2009, at 17:20:37
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by gardenergirl on November 30, 2009, at 16:27:09
"...I acknowledge that anyone could post anything from this site on social networking sites anytime they want, and always could. However, I don't think that actually inviting them to and facilitating the behavior leads itself to a feeling of safety here"
Posted by muffled on November 30, 2009, at 17:21:40
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derHeart on November 30, 2009, at 15:56:55
You got a big heart and you care.
Thats enuf for me.
Posted by 10derHeart on November 30, 2009, at 18:20:40
In reply to Never mind. It is because posts have replies. (nm) » 10derHeart, posted by 10derHeart on November 30, 2009, at 16:08:19
No, don't never mind. I still don't get it.
Any given post in a thread could or couldn't have replies, last, first middle...so I am still lost...
For the record, I have loved the aspect of Babble that includes *no* editing. I do not like editing posts, and certainly not unless I can see the original always, and if so, I see no point in the editing in the first place, surely not for civility purposes. Why not just post a new follow-up post of clarity, apology or explanation? Ever think if someone needs editing to "save face" that there are bigger things going on than the constraints of Babble's rules and policies? One can say, in a civil manner, that one declines to apologize or reword, if one feels so very strongly that way. I have already seen it done.
I frequent 2 other communities (not MH related) one allows editing, one does not. With the one that does, not once have I been able to follow the flow of the conversation where several posts said: "edited at such-and-such a time." I just shake my head and move on, and from comments in those threads, it appears a common thing for participants to do is to have to PM each other to clarify things anyway.... I just didn't see the advantage it is so completely confusing remembering one thing, then returning to see another, trying to guess what is missing, what is changed...I never could have responded to one of these posts as I had in mind one thing, then whole segments were gone, other parts used new words....{shakes head} And I don't have the time or inclination to go around saving all sorts of versions of posts to refer to later. Yes, IMO, it is all quite crazymaking.
For the one that does (BTW, with VERY relaxed civility rules - only outright cursing and threats are banned, all forms of name-calling, accusations, etc., are generally tolerated until a mod seems to tire of it and posts to say, "quit it, that enough, change the subject.") there are a lot of contentious, *long* threads. But those who try to stay above the fray, they just ask for explanations, apologies, and clarifications, and a lot of times do get them. All transparent and there for all to follow - the good, bad, ugly, screwed up, impulsive and all. It's not as safe or kind without Babble-type civility rules in place, BUT the not-disappearing posts I do like a lot.
I do also think it is not a so-called or imagined responsibility we all have for all of ours words, impulsive and otherwise. I take it seriously and am willing to suffer the consequences. All of us are likely going to mess that up from time to time. When we do, I see great value in walking through the discomfort of a PBC, self-chosen apology or retraction, or whatever we have to do to fix things. I know others do, but I cannot see it as a punishment. Posters can be thoughtful and contemplative before they hit the confirm button, or they can send their posts to a civility buddy.
I see asynchronous Babble posts like voice mails. I tend to do this with my therapist sometimes. I call and leave a message, maybe angry, confused, upset, tearful, or just plain weird. Then I want to explain, so I call back - numerous times if I feel the need. It's awkward, but I know he has heard the first words, and I can't un-say them. Maybe there are VM systems where you can edit first (probably) but I have not used them, and probably wouldn't. I can see some value but...I can also see that maybe something richer even comes out of having ALL the words available. Even if this were a friend or relative, I think I would feel the same. I have left some not-so-great VMs over the years for those people,too, and had to (or wanted to) explain myself later. I survived it without permanent damage, I think.
Dr. Bob just say right now if you have already decided this? I get the feeling as does Dinah, that this is a done deal. After the recent upset, I am so very disappointed if this is it - a brief discussion involving at the most, 6 people (2 of which do not regularly post here at the moment, well,almost 3 if you count me) way at the top of the board, and that's all the input you desire? Do you have prior evidence this is really, really wanted??
I guess I should thank you for even mentioning it at all.
Posted by SLS on December 1, 2009, at 5:35:29
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2009, at 15:07:33
> > Right now, the idea of being able to *amend* posts doesn't sit well with me. I'm not sure why. I really dislike the idea of editing, as it takes away from the flow of a thread.
>
> Scott, thanks for contributing your point of view. You saw that just the last post in the thread would be amendable, and those part of the flow up to that point wouldn't be?Oh. Sorry. I didn't see that.
Will think on that...
Thanks for everything.
- Scott
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.