![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by concerned on December 11, 2000, at 13:58:54
The recommendation is a reaction to a constantly expanding service, and to the rejection of numerous individuals who some readers might appreciate but whose participation somehow does not meet the standards of the site. The recommendation is not a reaction to particular post, individual or interaction.
The point is that "civility" is an ambiguous assertion, and calling people uncivilized, based on one individual's or group's ambiguous definition might not serve the purpose of defining the boundaries in effect here.
It is apparent, from a review of about two years worth of posts, that there have constantly been individuals who introduce subjects and dialogue styles that are sooner or later prohibited here. The majority style here is a product of repeated prohibitions, and not a product of what would otherwise develop as a cross section of internet users openly relating their various experiences in their own unique styles.
Layers of portal software have been effective at other sites in part because they serve to establish the unique boundaries in effect at that particular site. They protect the site, they protect the preferred users of the site and they protect, in some ways, those excluded from the site. The current headings on these pages tend to imply that whatever is not accepted here is not supportive or educational. By saying "If you don't agree to X,Y and Z, do not enter," net users who would otherwise feel invited to the site as a result of a link, a search-engine connection or information found on shared equipment are forewarned unique rules and information available at the site which they might find offensive.
Posted by Noa on December 11, 2000, at 16:59:33
In reply to labeling, posted by concerned on December 11, 2000, at 13:58:54
What subjects did you find in your analysis to be excluded?
What dialogue styles?
My impression (I haven't reviewed as you have) is that dialogue styles is more of an issue than subjects is. Still, there are many dialogue styles represented on these boards that are not rejected. It seems to me only those that are directly hostile to other posters. What did you surmise from the review of archives?
Posted by ksvt on December 12, 2000, at 12:52:11
In reply to labeling, posted by concerned on December 11, 2000, at 13:58:54
>
> "The point is that "civility" is an ambiguous assertion, and calling people uncivilized, based on one individual's or group's ambiguous definition might not serve the purpose of defining the boundaries in effect here."
>
In the first place, you've used a poor choice of words. "Civil" in the way most of us use it means mannerly or polite. It's opposite is "uncivil" not "uncivilized" which means wild or perhaps barbarous. When people are blocked for lack of civility, no one is branding them uncivilized.I have been as critical as anyone lately about an inconsistent application of a standard for civility, in reaction to what I perceived to be a hasty trigger finger on the part of Dr. Bob. However, we are talking more on the lines of the classic quote about pornography ("I know it when I see it") than we are the difficulties of a standard for discerning the intent of the Florida voter. It's how people say things and not what they say unless what they say is clearly insulting to a targeted person. I usually isn't that difficult to tell when someone has crossed the line from being creative or imaginative or having a unique sense of humor to being hurtful or deliberately confrontational in a way designed to provoke people. I agree with Noa that the warnings are there and that anyone who comes on should assume that they have to be careful about what they say. I expect that most people who find this board scope it out for a bit anyway to get a feel for how it works before posting. I seriously doubt being blocked came as a shock to anyone to whom it's happened. Chagrined? maybe, but not shocked. I'd prefer not to imagine a situation where you have to more explicitly warn people from the start that the kind of posts that have been blocked here are not okay. Wouldn't you rather assume the better intentions of participants?
As Cam pointed out, many of the people who regularly visit this site have mental health issues, and can be easily hurt. That this board is monitored ensures to a degree anyway that it's a "safe" place to be. ksvt
> It is apparent, from a review of about two years worth of posts, that there have constantly been individuals who introduce subjects and dialogue styles that are sooner or later prohibited here. The majority style here is a product of repeated prohibitions, and not a product of what would otherwise develop as a cross section of internet users openly relating their various experiences in their own unique styles.
>
> Layers of portal software have been effective at other sites in part because they serve to establish the unique boundaries in effect at that particular site. They protect the site, they protect the preferred users of the site and they protect, in some ways, those excluded from the site. The current headings on these pages tend to imply that whatever is not accepted here is not supportive or educational. By saying "If you don't agree to X,Y and Z, do not enter," net users who would otherwise feel invited to the site as a result of a link, a search-engine connection or information found on shared equipment are forewarned unique rules and information available at the site which they might find offensive.
Posted by tdaneen on December 12, 2000, at 14:20:56
In reply to Re: labeling, posted by ksvt on December 12, 2000, at 12:52:11
Perhaps the question that hasn't been asked yet "Conserned."
Gee. You wouldn't happen to know someone who designs and markets this particular web based software, would you??!?!?
Posted by concerned on December 12, 2000, at 19:07:35
In reply to Re: labeling, posted by tdaneen on December 12, 2000, at 14:20:56
> Perhaps the question that hasn't been asked yet "Conserned."
> Gee. You wouldn't happen to know someone who designs and markets this particular web based software, would you??!?!?The software is simple enough. Medscape uses a similar function, where one must register before entering the site. It is essentially a version of the same software in use for implementing registration here. Some BBS softwares, or scripts, come ready made with options for registration at selected places during the users access process, either before entering the site, or before posting. Many sites require "adult" certification before entering. Others simply require a guest to click on an "I agree" box before entering, which is the closest to what I suggest.
The difficult part, for me, is introducing the idea. If nobody agrees that some people are hurt by the standards in place here, there might be little I can say to persuade anyone that the implicit language of the header on the pages in their current configuration does not comprise an adequate agreement concerning community standards.
I could suggest specific examples where exclusion has been a catalyst for harm, and how a failure to establish clear standards in a particular setting contributed to a perception of wrongful exclusion. But to introduce specific examples would invite argument over the merit and relevancy of the example. Discussion back and forth could invoke strong feelings, and I do not feel "safe" expressing or encouraging expression of strong feelings in this environment. Likewise, I could further debate the semantics of "civility" and what it means here and elsewhere, but again, to do so only encourages debate, with unpredictable consequences.
I doubt that I am the most sensitive, thin-skinned person on the Internet, but I have noticed that the ambiguous, subjective standards in place here can sometimes be surpisingly hurtful. If I, being at times a rather thick skinned traveler, am sensitive to this hurt, I feel it is fair of me to suggest that the standards might prove even more hurtful to others.
People accustomed to what they perceive as a normal standard here may not be in the best place to understand how the standard can be surprising to people who are accustomed to different standards elsewhere. The standard here is obviously a more restrictive standard than, for example, the one in place at the MSN "Slate" board. A simple process of assertively agreeing, in advance, to the standards in place here will help prepare people for the potentially difficult psychological process of negotiating the unique and subjective standard.In a simple process of clicking through a portal page, one would not agree simply to a general standard of support, education or civility, which is wide open for interpretation. Instead users could be asked to assertively agree, from the outset, to a contract to abide by a specific interpretation of support and education unique to this site.
Some forewarning about the sensitivity of diverse participants here, who are often suffering in unusual ways, and about the potentially inflammatory nature of controversy here could help prevent disruption. A byproduct might be that, rather than the moderator reacting after the fact to explain the subjectivity of his decisions, he would be challenged to better define his criteria at the outset. He might not need to feel so heard hearted about excluding some people, or deleting some posts. He could include appropriate fine print that might protect him against litigation, such as "I agree not to post copyrighted material here," or "I agree not to reproduce material from here elsewhere without expressed consent," or "I agree that posts deemed disruptive by the moderator might be deleted."
I am suggesting that, rather than inviting everyone to the party and then telling them the party is not for everybody, the site could include more specific language and processes in the invitation that will help more people understand the expectations of participation here.
Rather than minimizing the merit of the diverse values of those who will inevitably be rejected here, I encourage an effort to maximize recognition of the unique values in place here.
Posted by Snowie on December 12, 2000, at 22:21:19
In reply to Re: labeling, posted by concerned on December 12, 2000, at 19:07:35
C,
I think I understand what you're getting at, and tend to agree with some of it. Many BBSs have plain language rules for posting at their Boards, which leave little room for misunderstanding. Here's a link to the "Terms and Conditions" of another BBS, which is self-explanatory.
http://www.algy.com/anxiety/disc/faq.html
Snowie
> The software is simple enough. Medscape uses a similar function, where one must register before entering the site. It is essentially a version of the same software in use for implementing registration here. Some BBS softwares, or scripts, come ready made with options for registration at selected places during the users access process, either before entering the site, or before posting. Many sites require "adult" certification before entering. Others simply require a guest to click on an "I agree" box before entering, which is the closest to what I suggest.
>
> The difficult part, for me, is introducing the idea. If nobody agrees that some people are hurt by the standards in place here, there might be little I can say to persuade anyone that the implicit language of the header on the pages in their current configuration does not comprise an adequate agreement concerning community standards.
>
> I could suggest specific examples where exclusion has been a catalyst for harm, and how a failure to establish clear standards in a particular setting contributed to a perception of wrongful exclusion. But to introduce specific examples would invite argument over the merit and relevancy of the example. Discussion back and forth could invoke strong feelings, and I do not feel "safe" expressing or encouraging expression of strong feelings in this environment. Likewise, I could further debate the semantics of "civility" and what it means here and elsewhere, but again, to do so only encourages debate, with unpredictable consequences.
>
> I doubt that I am the most sensitive, thin-skinned person on the Internet, but I have noticed that the ambiguous, subjective standards in place here can sometimes be surpisingly hurtful. If I, being at times a rather thick skinned traveler, am sensitive to this hurt, I feel it is fair of me to suggest that the standards might prove even more hurtful to others.
>
> People accustomed to what they perceive as a normal standard here may not be in the best place to understand how the standard can be surprising to people who are accustomed to different standards elsewhere. The standard here is obviously a more restrictive standard than, for example, the one in place at the MSN "Slate" board. A simple process of assertively agreeing, in advance, to the standards in place here will help prepare people for the potentially difficult psychological process of negotiating the unique and subjective standard.
>
> In a simple process of clicking through a portal page, one would not agree simply to a general standard of support, education or civility, which is wide open for interpretation. Instead users could be asked to assertively agree, from the outset, to a contract to abide by a specific interpretation of support and education unique to this site.
>
> Some forewarning about the sensitivity of diverse participants here, who are often suffering in unusual ways, and about the potentially inflammatory nature of controversy here could help prevent disruption. A byproduct might be that, rather than the moderator reacting after the fact to explain the subjectivity of his decisions, he would be challenged to better define his criteria at the outset. He might not need to feel so heard hearted about excluding some people, or deleting some posts. He could include appropriate fine print that might protect him against litigation, such as "I agree not to post copyrighted material here," or "I agree not to reproduce material from here elsewhere without expressed consent," or "I agree that posts deemed disruptive by the moderator might be deleted."
>
> I am suggesting that, rather than inviting everyone to the party and then telling them the party is not for everybody, the site could include more specific language and processes in the invitation that will help more people understand the expectations of participation here.
>
> Rather than minimizing the merit of the diverse values of those who will inevitably be rejected here, I encourage an effort to maximize recognition of the unique values in place here.
This is the end of the 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.