![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 16:04:38
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you make a determination as to if the following can go unadmonished.
The poster refers to someone making requests for admonishment to the administration. Since I am making requests to the administration,I feel that the post is referring to me or it at least could refer to me.
But I am requesting that you make a determination as if the post can remaine unadmonished and it is my understanding that the administrative board is the place to request the administration to make a determination on posts that could be deemed to violate the civility code here.
The poster writes that my requests could be disruptive to communication.
I feel accused and put down when I read that. It is not my intention to disrupt communication here, but to further communication. And a determination by the administaration as to the acceptability of a statement or not has the potential to further communication because it gives more light to the situation.
In the United States, we can write or go on-line to the Attorny General and ask if something is acceptable or not. People write to find out if what has been done to them is allowable. This is what I am accustmed to in finding out acceptability to what is written to me here. It is the administration that makes the determination, not me, and that is why I am asking for you to make a determination. You are the "Attorny General" of the forum and I feel that I am being accused by the poster of doing something wrong and I do not belive that I am doing anything wrong by asking you to make an administrative determination.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395236.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 16:46:11
In reply to Lou's request for a determination-vrn, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 16:04:38
Dr. Hsiung,
In the previous post, the poster writes [...repeated requests to administration for admonishment of another poster, sometims for one post...]
I feel accused when I read that. I feel that the statement by the poster has the potential for someone to think that I am making a request to you repeatedly {for the same determination of the same statement}. I feel that the statement by the poster has the potential to be misleading, for my requests to you for a determination are for individual statements to be determined by you to either be acceptable for the forum or not. There may be more than one statement in the post in question that I am asking you to make a determination about. The same poster may have made more than one post that I am asking you to make a determination about.
I feel that the post has not made that clear and has the potential to make me and others feel that I am doing something wrong. I do not belive that asking you to make a determination for all the posts that have the potential to accuse or put down to be wrong. The {repeated} requests are requests for different aspects of the same post, or more than one post by the same poster- not asking for a determination repeatedly for the same statement.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395236.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2004, at 8:34:29
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you make a determination as to the acceptability of the following post.
In the post, the poster writes that because I am asking you for a determination to be made on acceptability standards her for posts, that that causes that poster to feel unsupported, etc.
I am asking you to address that by stateing that the administrative forum is the board to allow posters to request for you to make a determination and that that function is being used by others in the past for the same type of request for determination and that no unsupportivness is intended by you for having this administrative board for requests for determination about civility, etc. Also, if the poster posts more than one post that another wants a determination made by you, that the poster requesting the determination is not prohibited from requesting that you make a determination about all of those posts . If only one of multiple posts by one poster to another poster was allowed to be submitted for review, then one could post a barrage of unsupportive posts to another with some type of immunity if that was the case. I am asking that all the posts by a poster that have the potential to have something determined by you to be allowed to be submitted for review.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395622
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2004, at 9:05:47
In reply to Lou's request for a determination-vrnC, posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2004, at 8:34:29
Dr. Hsiung,
Another aspect of the post in question that I am asking you to make a determination about is that the poster writes that he feels less like posting because the poster's post was submitted to you for a determination request. I am requesting that this be addressed by you with some sort of explanation that the administartive board is a function of the community so that others can have a determination made concerniing acceptibilty of some content of a post so that evryone could have the opportunity to feel like posing. I belive that a determination is a good thing for a community for it gives more understanding as to acceptability of content and could have the effect of ficiltating more posting by the results of the determination. Without a determination, we have to use some sort of guessing, which IMO could cause people to not post.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395622.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2004, at 9:43:05
In reply to Lou's request for a determination-vrnC2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2004, at 9:05:47
Dr.Hsiung,
In this post in question, there is writing about a game on another board where people could sabatoge a game by hitting the return key repeatedly or flooding. The poster then uses an elipses with the words, [posting repeitive text].
In my understanding, that use of the gramatical structure could mean that the words, [posting repetitive text] is put there by the poster and not what was actually written. It is my understanding that flooding is different from posting anything, and that posting in even 16 posts is not flooding.
If this post is in any way about my style of posting, and I think that what is written could have the potential for others to think that because the post is a reply to another post that could be followed back to other posts that have the potential for others to think that this is involving my style of posting, then I feel accused and put down after reading the post, for I do not believe that I am stopping anyone from going on with their posting by posting myself in response to others, requests for administrative determinations, requests for clarification of something that is important to me or just to post jokes on the social board, or have dialog with others about remembering music or to responding to posts on the faith board.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395622
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:13:26
In reply to Lou's request for a determination-vrn, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 16:04:38
> I am requesting that you make a determination as if the post can remaine unadmonished and it is my understanding that the administrative board is the place to request the administration to make a determination on posts that could be deemed to violate the civility code here.
Sorry, but I see Verne's point. Could you please rephrase the above without words like "admonish" and "violate"? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2004, at 10:46:30
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:13:26
Dr. Hsiung,
One way that the statement in question could be re-written by me as without the words in question could be as follows:
[...I am requesting that you make a determination about as to if the post falls within {acceptable civility guidlines} and it is my understanding that the administrative board is the place for that type of request.]
Lou Pilder
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 14:55:05
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:13:26
This please rephrase seems to me to not quite agree with your previous answer:
I'm sorry you feel accused and put down, but (1) that's inevitable to some extent in administrative discussions
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 16:15:05
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2004, at 10:46:30
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 16:17:37
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 14:55:05
> This please rephrase seems to me to not quite agree with your previous answer:
>
> > I'm sorry you feel accused and put down, but (1) that's inevitable to some extent in administrative discussionsTo some extent it's inevitable, but it can be to a lesser extent if worded sensitively...
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on September 27, 2004, at 22:57:17
In reply to Re: inevitability, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 16:17:37
it might be really cool if everyone took a little break and came back to this manana. it's getting to the "holy cr*p" stage.
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.