![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 39 to 63 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:34:24
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 11:25:50
Now there's a good idea, Laurie. Mid-meltdown I could ask someone to post a reply to me. Any old reply.
But I still think I'm going to be blocked for life anyway, so what's the point of using technicalities to get around it.
Dr. Bob could just block me now and save us both time and trouble. :(
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:41:51
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Toph on September 27, 2004, at 11:33:44
I think there are very bad consequences to making a general rule. If Dr. Bob is trying to solve a situation that frequently pops up, that applies to many posters, and that he has long wanted to address, that's fine.
In that case, I think he would definitely include my posts as problem posts, and I should just leave.
If Dr. Bob is implementing a general rule to solve a specific problem, I don't think that's a very wise thing to do at all. Usually in all situations there is an existing law that can be used. Making new laws to solve a single problem leads to the sort of Homeowners Association mentality that I can never bring myself to live with.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 12:52:35
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by All Done on September 27, 2004, at 11:25:50
> > I read it as three consecutive replies to a single post, not a single thread.
That's what I had meant.. Did Dr Bob take his suggestion from mine? I don't even know what I wrote anymore, and am not in the headspace this morning to find it and figure it out.
Sorry if I indirectly caused a 3 reply limit to a single thread rule..
I should not post while brain-dead
Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:10:31
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:23:48
Dr. Bob,
I need you to explain this in more depth. You can see there have been questions, and I have similar ones.I am with All done in that I like to do individual responses to those that have helped me on my thread. Is this allowed if I do it all at once? It would mean at times, five or more posts from me on the thread sequentially, although they would be in response to different posts.
Also, about three threads...is that consecutive threads on the same board? Or three threads total? Is that per day or some other limit?
And how do you propose to monitor this without deputies? Or have new deputies been accepted/appointed?
Thanks in advance for your response.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:14:49
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Toph, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:41:51
> I think there are very bad consequences to making a general rule. If Dr. Bob is trying to solve a situation that frequently pops up, that applies to many posters, and that he has long wanted to address, that's fine.
>
> In that case, I think he would definitely include my posts as problem posts, and I should just leave.I have to admit, Dinah, I don't see your posting as excessive, but then perhaps it's because you usually have a lot of good things to say. And I don't know that I've seen you post a number of things in a row very often. Just my impression based on I'm sure faulty memory...:)
>
> If Dr. Bob is implementing a general rule to solve a specific problem, I don't think that's a very wise thing to do at all. Usually in all situations there is an existing law that can be used. Making new laws to solve a single problem leads to the sort of Homeowners Association mentality that I can never bring myself to live with.Yes, I agree with you completely on this. I once taught a course for a prof. that liked to make a new rule everytime something specific went wrong even once. It felt like it was a fascist regime. Or our US tax code. It's not the solution. General rules and good judgement is. That's why we have a moderator.
gg
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 14:28:42
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:10:31
Oh, I probably use more than my share of server space and cause archives sooner than they would be without my posting. :)
And I often think of addendums to what I've just said, or need to clarify something that I think may be taken wrong or both. And during my meltdowns I post a lot of sequential posts. It would frankly be dangerous for me to get a PBC or block at that particular time.
I don't think I can stop doing it any more than Lou thinks he can stop his style of posting. I certainly am not going to bank my health on it.
So I'm going to have to get myself blocked now when I still have some control over it and when it won't cause me any damage.
I do understand Dr. Bob's position. And I even see where it might be a kindness to me to keep me from posting. But I also know that some kindnesses hurt too much to bear. And I try very hard to stay in the civility guidelines. If I know I can't do it, I'd rather get it over with.
Like Dr. Bob says, Babble can't be for everyone.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 14:45:50
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 14:28:42
Dinah,
If I understand what I've read so far, this issue came up before and no rule was made? If I have that right, why do you think it's different now? If you don't mind saying. You can also babblemail or email me. :)gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 15:19:28
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 14:28:42
I can see that this can work against people whose innocently post several times. Do they not have equal rights?There are people that forget the whole thought, post, then remember something else and post again.
There are people that say something, post, read it and decide it needs clarifying, post, etc.
Of course there are also the harassers, but should others be penalized because of them??
Do they not have the same rights to express themselves?
Posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 15:46:37
In reply to Re: 3 consecutive posts - discrimination? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 15:19:28
Three posts does sound limiting. However, I reviewed several boards here, and found a relatively few instances where 4 or more consecutive posts were submitted. Perhaps someone else could double check.
To try to take an equal cross section of each board, I looked at the most recently archived page.
Instances of 4 or more consecutive posts:
1 Psycho-Babble
1 Psycho-Babble Alternative
1 Psycho-Social Babble
3 Psycho-Babble Psychology
3 Psycho-Babble Faith
0 Psycho-Babble 2000
1 Psycho-Babble Relationships
0 Psycho-Babble BooksOnly one person submitted 5 or more consecutive posts.
Only one poster submitted 4 or more consecutive posts on 2 or more occasions.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 15:56:18
In reply to Re: 3 consecutive posts, posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 15:46:37
Well, it may not be on the most recently archived boards, but I've done it on many an occasion. And the occasions when I'm most likely to do it are the same occasions when I am most fragile and least likely to be able to take admin sanction well.
I understand completely if this is something that Admin and posters want to do. But, sadly, it's not a rule I can live with.
Posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 16:17:39
In reply to Re: 3 consecutive posts » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 15:56:18
> I understand completely if this is something that Admin and posters want to do. But, sadly, it's not a rule I can live with.
:-(
Sorry.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 16:54:33
In reply to Re: 3 consecutive posts, posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 15:46:37
I'm not sure if I ever did, but if not the only thing that stopped me was luck - someone else slipping something in while I was typing.
So, now I have to stop, wait, and refresh until someone adds something to the thread? And I can't add something, no matter how valuable, until there is another post? What about reaching out to someone whose last post indicated they were in trouble?
This would put a pretty big cramp in my style.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 17:29:06
In reply to Re: 3 consecutive posts » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 15:56:18
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 17:30:09
In reply to Re: 3 consecutive posts » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 15:56:18
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 17:32:24
In reply to Re: 3 consecutive posts » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 15:56:18
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 17:34:07
In reply to Re: 3 consecutive posts » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 15:56:18
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 17:37:15
In reply to Wow, cool, they're making steps! (nm) » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 17:34:07
But I hate to see you get blocked over my issue. And it really *is* best for me. Can you see me, hysterical and posting in reply to my own posts, as I often do, getting a PBC? Wow. The enormity of that.
It's better to do it while the iron is cool.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2004, at 18:50:44
In reply to Thanks for the solidarity. :) » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 17:37:15
Friends,
I have read the posts about the rule. My suggestion for this is: First, consider having a daily quota of posts to use however you like. Let us say, 25?
A. Allow unlimited posts on the slow times, like weekends.
B. Allow posters to bank unused posts that they do not use if , let's say, they do not post at all for a day.
C. Allow posters to swap posts from others. Let's say that Dinah needs extra posts in one of her threads. She could ask me for my posts and I could transferr them to her bank of posts
D. Take posts away from posters that post not in accordance with the boards policys.
E. Give extra posts to posters that post very supportive posts.
F. other good ideas.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 18:54:21
In reply to Re: I'm with Dinah! » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 16:54:33
> Sometimes Social is a place where people play around and make multiple posts at once.
>
> Or sometimes during my meltdowns I feel the need to clarify my posts many many times.
>
> There is already a harassment clause that can be used in posts directed to another poster.
>
> DinahAs with all rules, I think exceptions would probably make sense from time to time.
Harassment is another issue. IMO, this is about how best to share the boards.
----
> What if I post something and I get multiple replies? I like to respond to everyone individually
>
> Laurie> I reviewed several boards here, and found a relatively few instances where 4 or more consecutive posts were submitted.
>
> 1 Psycho-Babble
> 1 Psycho-Babble Alternative
> 1 Psycho-Social Babble
> 3 Psycho-Babble Psychology
> 3 Psycho-Babble Faith
> 0 Psycho-Babble 2000
> 1 Psycho-Babble Relationships
> 0 Psycho-Babble Books
>
> - ScottI think responding to different posts individually would need to be an exception. Scott, thanks for the data, was that what was happening in those instances?
----
> I read it as three consecutive replies to a single post, not a single thread. I wonder about three new posts on three different boards asking about three different topics?
>
> I didn't think Dr. Bob disliked posters posting like that.
>
> Dinah> how will people know about it ... ?
>
> LaurieI did say "consecutive follow-ups to a post", but I meant "consecutive follow-ups in the same thread". And consecutive new threads on the same board. With exceptions as above...
I'd have to tell people when it comes up, the way I already do with other rules.
This does *not* have to do with whether I like people. Please, everyone, try not to take it personally.
----
> Perhaps you are teaching us here, *watch what you wish for.*
>
> Toph> So, now I have to stop, wait, and refresh until someone adds something to the thread?
>
> This would put a pretty big cramp in my style.
>
> AuntieMelWell, to be fair, it would need to apply to everyone... Yes, after 3 consecutive posts, you'd need to wait. Some people may feel cramped by this rule, but other people may feel cramped now by other posters. The idea is to try to find a compromise that minimizes overall crampedness...
Let's give it a try? I know change can be hard, but I think we'll be able to get this to work.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 18:56:42
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 18:54:21
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:02:17
In reply to Will you PLEASE PBC me so I can go for a block? (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 18:56:42
I can't post at all under those conditions.
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:05
In reply to 48 week block would be even better, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:02:17
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:32
In reply to Please don' t make me actually be uncivil (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:05
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:04:06
In reply to That would make me feel even worse (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:03:32
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:04:36
In reply to I can do this all night (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:04:06
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.