![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 291. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:09:07
In reply to But I'd really rather not (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:04:36
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:13:19
In reply to Please? Really. Please? (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:09:07
Posted by daisym on September 27, 2004, at 20:33:37
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 18:54:21
This is a pretty major rule change. I think you owe it to people to tell them in some way before you bust in and block them. Some of our posters would be mortified to break a rule, and I think they might be upset that they weren't informed. Most of us don't read admin unless directed by someone else to.
Daisy
Posted by crazymaisie on September 27, 2004, at 22:06:31
In reply to Dr. Bob. You're causing me harm. Please block me. (nm), posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:13:19
Dinah,
don't go away. we'd miss you too much. i hope you get your work done, though
maisie
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:05:42
In reply to Thanks for the solidarity. :) » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 17:37:15
If I don't join you I might be the sole remaining virgin. Isn't it bad enough I don't like to cuss?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 27, 2004, at 23:07:56
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, Dr. Bob, posted by daisym on September 27, 2004, at 20:33:37
> This is a pretty major rule change. I think you owe it to people to tell them in some way before you bust in and block them. Some of our posters would be mortified to break a rule, and I think they might be upset that they weren't informed. Most of us don't read admin unless directed by someone else to.
>
> DaisyI'm with Daisy on this one. Also, you are already talking about exceptions specifically and allowing for exceptions on a what sounds like a case by case or unusual circumstances basis. I'm confused, and I am in a doctoral program, so I assume I am of at least average intellect.
Please summarize this rule in it's entirety and post it so that all can follow it without getting spanked. I know that you know that behavior theory encourages if not demands that the person whose behavior is to be changed needs to know the expectations. Acting and then punishing is not a particularly effective way of changing behavior.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:08:29
In reply to 48 week block would be even better, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 19:02:17
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 18:54:21
>> I reviewed several boards here, and found a relatively few instances where 4 or more consecutive posts were submitted.
>This does *not* have to do with whether I like people. Please, everyone, try not to take it personally.
BUT - let's apply some logic here (at least my version of logic)
If it really happens very few times then the rule would be applied rarely. But you say it is not personal. Lou happens to use this posting style. You say that the rule will be applied fairly (theory), but Lou is the only one that the new rule (practice).
In fact, you have already listed at least two exceptions to the rule - the replies to multiple posters (Susan's case) and the meltdown case (Dinah's case). What happened to 'rules is rules' and no exceptions??
And you say don't take it personal? It seems to me that this rule is designed for one person.
This ONLY came up because of Lou's
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:25:41
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
The last sentence was to have been deleted.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:26:39
In reply to Re: ^^^^Addendum to above Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:25:41
Posted by saw on September 28, 2004, at 4:03:06
In reply to Re: Above was only supposed to be two posts (nm), posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:26:39
isolated to the Admin board. If a limit has to be placed, why not restrict it to the Admin board only? The other boards are behaving themselves and are not causing undue distress!
Reconsider? Please?
Posted by partlycloudy on September 28, 2004, at 4:52:39
In reply to Dr Bob, the problem seems to be, posted by saw on September 28, 2004, at 4:03:06
If someone is making repeated posts to the same person in a thread, can the person not ask, "please don't post further about this subject to me," or even, "can we take this discussion offline?" and discuss it via Babblemail?
I think if someone is asking for a "ruling" about a post, it would be more appropriate to email the moderator if it doesn't seem to be coming to a fruitful conclusion.
...as if we needed any more 2 cents added...
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 8:07:11
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
> > I reviewed several boards here, and found a relatively few instances where 4 or more consecutive posts were submitted.
> If it really happens very few times then the rule would be applied rarely.
This is a good thing, right?
> But you say it is not personal. Lou happens to use this posting style. You say that the rule will be applied fairly (theory), but Lou is the only one that the new rule (practice).
How many people here have commited murder?
> In fact, you have already listed at least two exceptions to the rule - the replies to multiple posters (Susan's case) and the meltdown case (Dinah's case). What happened to 'rules is rules' and no exceptions??
Perhaps we should let things settle down a bit without forcing the moderator to take further actions that would only create more upset? Flexibility here would seem prudent.
> And you say don't take it personal? It seems to me that this rule is designed for one person.
I think it was designed for any person. Any person could have posted 100 consecutive posts. The proscription of murder was designed for any person, not one person.
> This ONLY came up because of Lou's
This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive. I am sure there are many people who did not find Lou's behavior thusfar to be disruptive. It is not about him. It is about a potential for abuse. I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.
I didn't go so far as to develop a plan to address the lack of checks and balances in the posting policy regarding numbers of posts. However, I think Dr. Bob's solution is reasonable, effective, and easily implemented. Some threshold had to be chosen. 3 posts seems to work based upon the infrequency of 4 or more posts having thusfar been submitted.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 8:25:34
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 10:54:10
> What if one of my dear friends needs an archive again after you refuse to delete subject headings?
>
> What if I have many brilliant and insightful things to say all at once and want to give lots and lots of help?
>
> What if I need lots and lots of help?
>
> What if I mess up the Amazon link three times?
>
> What if I forget to count?
>
> I don't like this new rule!!! I think it descriminates against my posting style!I can't imagine that Dr. Bob would sanction anyone, in those circumstances. I had the distinct impression that the posting limit would apply in the context of pressure/harassment. Not one of your examples above would be unsupportive, except forgetting to count, if you were challenging a post made by another. Debate is fine. Harassment isn't. Limit three consecutive *unanswered* attempts. That's how I read this, anyway. If I'm wrong, I sure hope Bob clarifies.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 8:49:51
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.
I really think it is meant to clarify the pressure/harassment concept in the civility guidelines.
We really need Bob to make more meaningful and contextual comments about the applicability of any new rule. We're arguing about implications that he could have entirely precluded by more explicit descriptions of his intent.
Way back when, I got into it with a guy named maxx or something. He repeatedly suggested there were scientific references for a particular claim, and I asked him to provide them. He'd say they're all over the place. I'd say show me one. It was in the form of a dialogue. I got PBC'd for harassment (I also go blocked in the ensuing discussion, but after I checked the archives, I can see I started with a PBC with respect to the repeated questioning). I don't think I did anything wrong then, and I don't now.
The way Bob has worded his suggested new rule, I still don't see if I'm allowed to interact that way in a dialogue or not. I only renewed my request for information because he renewed his assertion there was ample information available. I did exceed three total requests, but I did not ever make three consecutive requests without any topical reply from the other party. I wanted to consider his evidence, not just his conclusions about the evidence. Those are very different things.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 8:55:18
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 23:23:14
> This ONLY came up because of Lou's
This time. I've got a substantial block hanging over my head on the issue.
Lar
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.