![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 9:18:59
It seems one of two things is happening here:
1. Dr. Bob is getting out of hand with his censorships.
2. Posters are more belligerent than they used to be.
Maybe it's both. Seems like a huge waste of Dr. Bob's time to have to defend every block he makes. But it also seems like there are inconsistencies with the blocking.
I suggest the civility rules be overhauled. A statement such as "post anything that others could take as accusatory" is just too general.
Is there a way to list very specific criteria and leave it at that? Then when folks are blocked, that # could be referenced and that would, hopefully, be the end of it.
The reason folks get angry is there is too much ambiguity and, as I stated, inconsistencies.
The tone of the board has changed - it's too bad.
- KK
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 12, 2002, at 10:34:18
In reply to Man, this is getting Krazy..., posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 9:18:59
KK;
When I saw your post a part of me stood up and applauded your courage. For what you said reminded me of what Abraham Lincoln said when he made his address at Gettysburg. He opened up his speech with :
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought fourth on this continant, a new nation, concieved in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
KK, it appears to me that a part of your spirit has been awakened and that it is Aberaham Lincoln that I hear now on this post.
And in the last part of his address on that battlefield where 50,000 men died for the preservation of the freedom of this country, he said,
"--we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation,under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
I applaud you, Krazy Kat.
Lou
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 11:07:38
In reply to Lou Applauds Krazy Kat » Krazy Kat, posted by Lou Pilder on March 12, 2002, at 10:34:18
Posted by Shar on March 12, 2002, at 14:29:12
In reply to Man, this is getting Krazy..., posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 9:18:59
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 15:13:45
In reply to Or maybe describe the Ideal Poster ? (nm) » Krazy Kat, posted by Shar on March 12, 2002, at 14:29:12
Yes, wouldn't that be a hoot. (Although perhaps useful as well.)
Posted by Greg on March 12, 2002, at 16:12:21
In reply to Re: Or maybe describe the Ideal Poster ? » Shar, posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 15:13:45
> Yes, wouldn't that be a hoot. (Although perhaps useful as well.)
KK,
You could put together a list of qualifications on a questionaire.
I'll go ahead and disqualify myself now... :)
Posted by johnX2 on March 13, 2002, at 3:24:11
In reply to Man, this is getting Krazy..., posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 9:18:59
I saw an interesting experiment in an investing newsgroup where people are unruly (those emotions are pretty manic-depressive when you are making and losing money by the second).They had 2 newgroups for a stock. One used a
moderated system. The other was not moderated.The moderated thread used a voting system to kick someone off for a while. However, that would not work here for many reasons (like people logging in
multiple times). At that web site you had to pay money to post (but not read) the news group, so no multiple votes. It worked out nice because people who were rell reputed could blow off some steam every now, as we are all human and will do, and then and not get booted (as the avid readers would never kick them off). If someone was admonished, generally the person took it well, as he/she new it was a group opinion and not one persons subjective viewpoint.On the unmoderated thread, it was say what you want, no banning, etc.
It worked out nice and I actually read both threads...heavily favoring the moderated one. The unmoderated thread was usually really annoying with people throwing slings, but you knew who the good posters were, so you just jump over the other retards.
Too bad something like that can't work here for
many reasons Dr. Bob explained to me.I don't know what more Dr. Bob can do, except
maybe get his own panel of judges to smooth out
the cencorship. Certainly his judgement will be
subjective, but that is just the way it is! It's
his web site.I don't read the other psychiatry news groups, they are appauling for the most part.
When i found this one I was shocked.
Latetly, my "mouth" has been becoming a bit robotic as I make a post. But i have the skills to
do that, so it doesn't bother me.Also, I feel one may carefully bypass the civility rules and pass off steam in ugly, passive aggressive ways, without getting banned.
Sorry, I think Dr. Bob get's too much flack.
"This is my opinion, for what it is worth. I am not a doctor."
-John
> It seems one of two things is happening here:
>
> 1. Dr. Bob is getting out of hand with his censorships.
>
> 2. Posters are more belligerent than they used to be.
>
> Maybe it's both. Seems like a huge waste of Dr. Bob's time to have to defend every block he makes. But it also seems like there are inconsistencies with the blocking.
>
> I suggest the civility rules be overhauled. A statement such as "post anything that others could take as accusatory" is just too general.
>
> Is there a way to list very specific criteria and leave it at that? Then when folks are blocked, that # could be referenced and that would, hopefully, be the end of it.
>
> The reason folks get angry is there is too much ambiguity and, as I stated, inconsistencies.
>
> The tone of the board has changed - it's too bad.
>
> - KK
Posted by ST on March 13, 2002, at 6:36:05
In reply to Man, this is getting Krazy..., posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 9:18:59
nm
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 13, 2002, at 14:27:22
In reply to Re: Or maybe describe the Ideal Poster ? » Krazy Kat, posted by Greg on March 12, 2002, at 16:12:21
But my first criteria would be that your name must be "Greg". ;)
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 13, 2002, at 14:34:04
In reply to Re: Man, this is getting Krazy..., posted by johnX2 on March 13, 2002, at 3:24:11
johnx2:
I was actually defending Dr. B believe it or not. ;)
He's wasting an enormous amount of time defending his decisions, and, I agree, they are his decisions to make. However, if he could simplify the whole rule system, he might not get so many dissention posts.
This is still by far the best mental health board I have found as well. Many of the others, imho, are too touchy, feely.
There is a way to keep folks from double posting, as has been mentioned. If that were the case, maybe we could have a moderated and an unmoderated forum. Then the moderated forum could be even stricter w/o upsetting folks. I would imagine that a moderated one Is almost always a better way to communicate, as you stated, though probably not a better read. :)
- KK
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 13, 2002, at 21:08:23
In reply to Re: Man, this is getting Krazy... » johnX2, posted by Krazy Kat on March 13, 2002, at 14:34:04
> I suggest the civility rules be overhauled. A statement such as "post anything that others could take as accusatory" is just too general.
But it's a general concept...
> Is there a way to list very specific criteria and leave it at that? Then when folks are blocked, that # could be referenced and that would, hopefully, be the end of it.
>
> - KKIsn't that kind of what I do now, except not with numbers? "Specific" is in the eye of the beholder. It took me a long time before I gave in and tried to spell out civility at all...
--------
> At that web site you had to pay money to post (but not read) the news group, so no multiple votes.
Well, multiple votes only if you paid for them... :-)
> It worked out nice because people who were rell reputed could blow off some steam every now ... and then and not get booted (as the avid readers would never kick them off). If someone was admonished, generally the person took it well, as he/she new it was a group opinion and not one persons subjective viewpoint.
>
> -JohnHmm, maybe it would be an interesting experiment. It would mean less work for me, at least...
However, I'd have some concerns:
1. People might feel like those who were popular got to post whatever they wanted.
2. People who were admonished might in fact take it worse, like the whole group was against them instead of just a single subjective inconsistent individual.
3. And maybe the main reason, I'm afraid inviting people to vote against each other would make the atmosphere less supportive.
--------
> I was actually defending Dr. B believe it or not. ;)
I believe it, thanks! :-)
> He's wasting an enormous amount of time defending his decisions, and, I agree, they are his decisions to make. However, if he could simplify the whole rule system, he might not get so many dissention posts.
It does take time, but I don't think of it as wasted. If I can explain my decisions then they might be more likely to be accepted...
Also, it helps me clarify my own thinking. I try to think of it not as dissention, but as feedback. Which I think is good for everyone involved.
> maybe we could have a moderated and an unmoderated forum...
>
> - KKIt's easy to create an unmoderated forum, you know, just go to Yahoo and create one! I'll even link to it from here, so it can be the "official" unmoderated forum, how about that? :-)
Bob
Posted by Cam W. on March 14, 2002, at 0:53:49
In reply to Re: Man, this is getting Krazy..., posted by johnX2 on March 13, 2002, at 3:24:11
I'll bet that you could sell this idea to Fox. - Cam
;^)
>
> I saw an interesting experiment in an investing newsgroup where people are unruly (those emotions are pretty manic-depressive when you are making and losing money by the second).
>
> They had 2 newgroups for a stock. One used a
> moderated system. The other was not moderated.
>
> The moderated thread used a voting system to kick someone off for a while. However, that would not work here for many reasons (like people logging in
> multiple times). At that web site you had to pay money to post (but not read) the news group, so no multiple votes. It worked out nice because people who were rell reputed could blow off some steam every now, as we are all human and will do, and then and not get booted (as the avid readers would never kick them off). If someone was admonished, generally the person took it well, as he/she new it was a group opinion and not one persons subjective viewpoint.
>
> On the unmoderated thread, it was say what you want, no banning, etc.
>
> It worked out nice and I actually read both threads...heavily favoring the moderated one. The unmoderated thread was usually really annoying with people throwing slings, but you knew who the good posters were, so you just jump over the other retards.
>
> Too bad something like that can't work here for
> many reasons Dr. Bob explained to me.
>
> I don't know what more Dr. Bob can do, except
> maybe get his own panel of judges to smooth out
> the cencorship. Certainly his judgement will be
> subjective, but that is just the way it is! It's
> his web site.
>
> I don't read the other psychiatry news groups, they are appauling for the most part.
>
> When i found this one I was shocked.
>
> Latetly, my "mouth" has been becoming a bit robotic as I make a post. But i have the skills to
> do that, so it doesn't bother me.
>
> Also, I feel one may carefully bypass the civility rules and pass off steam in ugly, passive aggressive ways, without getting banned.
>
> Sorry, I think Dr. Bob get's too much flack.
>
> "This is my opinion, for what it is worth. I am not a doctor."
>
> -John
>
>
> > It seems one of two things is happening here:
> >
> > 1. Dr. Bob is getting out of hand with his censorships.
> >
> > 2. Posters are more belligerent than they used to be.
> >
> > Maybe it's both. Seems like a huge waste of Dr. Bob's time to have to defend every block he makes. But it also seems like there are inconsistencies with the blocking.
> >
> > I suggest the civility rules be overhauled. A statement such as "post anything that others could take as accusatory" is just too general.
> >
> > Is there a way to list very specific criteria and leave it at that? Then when folks are blocked, that # could be referenced and that would, hopefully, be the end of it.
> >
> > The reason folks get angry is there is too much ambiguity and, as I stated, inconsistencies.
> >
> > The tone of the board has changed - it's too bad.
> >
> > - KK
Posted by JohnX2 on March 14, 2002, at 2:36:48
In reply to Re: Man, this is always going to be Krazy..., posted by Dr. Bob on March 13, 2002, at 21:08:23
>
> It's easy to create an unmoderated forum, you know, just go to Yahoo and create one! I'll even link to it from here, so it can be the "official" unmoderated forum, how about that? :-)
>
> BobWhat if I wrote some computer software that automatically enforced the censorship rules? That way when somebody hits the "submit" button, it just kicks back the message if it is uncivil.
Maybe I can add in some artificial intelligence cognitive therapy to calm the person down as a bonus.
I can add spell check if people want.
Then you will not have to worry about anything being subjective and you can go out to the movies every now and then.
I must warn you I am not cheap labor. LOL.
-John
Posted by IsoM on March 14, 2002, at 2:49:22
In reply to Re: Man, this is always going to be Krazy... » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnX2 on March 14, 2002, at 2:36:48
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 14, 2002, at 9:33:48
In reply to Re: Man, this is always going to be Krazy..., posted by Dr. Bob on March 13, 2002, at 21:08:23
Wow, Dr. Bob, what a nice offer. I wondered if you would agree to such a thing.
So there we have it - if we have the inclination, we can do it ourselves, and gets all sorts of feelings hurt along the way. :) I have no doubt it will be an eye opener re: how much more a "civil" site is productive. But interesting test, anyway.
The question is - after this stint of energy goes away, which it always does - will I, or others, have the go ahead to keep it going?
- KK
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 14, 2002, at 9:38:23
In reply to Re: Man, this is always going to be Krazy... » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnX2 on March 14, 2002, at 2:36:48
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2002, at 20:22:23
In reply to Re: Man, this is always going to be Krazy... » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnX2 on March 14, 2002, at 2:36:48
> I must warn you I am not cheap labor.
Maybe we could charge admission?
Bob
Posted by IsoM on March 15, 2002, at 0:55:06
In reply to Re: not cheap labor, posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2002, at 20:22:23
Could we barter too or swap? How about one chicken entitles the payer to one week's worth of posting. For only responses to other's messages, then 2 eggs per response. I could barter seeds & plants, trouble could trade housecleaning, etc.
Posted by kid_A on March 15, 2002, at 13:17:58
In reply to Man, this is getting Krazy..., posted by Krazy Kat on March 12, 2002, at 9:18:59
If Krazy Kat is Abe Lincoln, I'm the William Henry Harrision of PSB.....just a thought.
Kid A pats himself on the back, or kicks himself in the ass, depending on your point of view.
Posted by trouble on March 16, 2002, at 5:03:43
In reply to kid_ A makes a statement in the third person..., posted by kid_A on March 15, 2002, at 13:17:58
>
> If Krazy Kat is Abe Lincoln, I'm the William Henry Harrision of PSB.....
>
> just a thought.
>Hey Ol' Tip Kid-A,
You mean you're going to give the longest inaugural speech in American history? It's about time!!
Get it? A long speech, about time?!! Well it is!
trouble
who needs to spend more time w/her cats right after she takes her meds.
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.