![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 8:20:59
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 5:18:47
I think you might have been reading too much lately. Or perhaps I think you might have been entranced with some new ideas and are trying to apply them enthusiastically all over.
Not all conflict here on Admin comes from fight or flight or feared objects. :) And even if it does, I'm not sure pointing that out always addresses the problem.
Actually, even though *you* are being asked to make determinations, I suspect that concerns about *you*, what you may do, and your time are secondary to other considerations. Not of course that we aren't all interested in what you do and your time constraints. Or at least that's my guess, since the same response pattern emerged from the requests for clarification which weren't addressed to you. But I could be wrong.
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 8:54:35
In reply to Why do Lou Pilder's posts upset so many people?, posted by SLS on October 26, 2004, at 18:19:04
I've given this a great deal of thought. As you may know, I have long been a friend of Lou's, but I also understand some of the reaction.
I think the problem comes from the fact that people in general rarely ask for determination from posts they find laudable, acceptable, or even merely not objectionable. Therefore the fact that a request for determination or review is being made is an implication, objectively, that the requestor does not find the post laudable, acceptable, or even not objectionable. As someone who takes criticism very poorly, I can certainly understand that that can hurt. Even if I know objectively that my post didn't violate guidelines, even if I know that Dr. Bob won't act on the request, even if I know that many posts are presented for determination and that it's really nothing personal, having a post implicitly criticized publicly can hurt. Boy, do I know that. I've had my posts misinterpreted on occasion, and even not misinterpreted on occasion, and held up to criticism. And even though it's never been a direct violation of the civility guidelines, it still hurts and shames me. No one likes to be hurt or shamed.
Yet Lou has done nothing wrong under the civility guidelines. Admin was put here for this sort of thing, to keep it from the other boards. I have asked Dr. Bob to review posts that I found hurtful on occasion. And on occasion he has declined to find them in violation of the civility guidelines and I've argued the point. So I've done exactly the same thing. As I get more experience with the board, I often choose to email my concerns, rather than post them, but I do post them on occasion, and that is certainly acceptable under the civility guidelines and stated purpose of this board.
I have thought and thought and I can think of no way at all to help this situation.
If I had my druthers, I'd hope that everyone could acknowledge that Lou has a greater need than most of us for precision in posts, and a greater eye for detail and implied messages. And that we could just let Dr. Bob respond to the messages, realize they aren't particularly personal, and leave the dialog to Dr. Bob and Lou. Yet if it were my message, if my post was the subject of a determination request, particularly in my case for areas that would hurt me extra hard like anti-semitism or unkindness or if I were feeling particularly vulnerable, I think that would be very difficult for me.
It saddens me greatly. I think Lou is missing out on some great people and some great support on Babble. I would wish for him what I've found here. I would wish for him that he would keep the lines of communication with posters I know to be pretty terrific open, understanding that although sometimes someone can mean well and feel disposed kindly toward someone, their words can still sting a bit. And that part of friendship is trusting that the other person meant no harm, or maybe meant some good. Lou, this is one of those times. I hope nothing I said had any sting to you, but if it did, I hope that you can keep our overall relationship in your mind, realize that I mean only the best for you, and keep the lines of communication open. Anything I've said has as much caring and concern for you behind it as it has caring and concern for other posters.
And the board is missing out on something special too. I value Lou's wisdom and quiet humor, and wish that he felt free to share it with others.
As I said, I see no way to help anything here. Perhaps if Lou started posting messages of support on other boards, the other posters could have more of a chance to see the terrific things in Lou that I see. Perhaps posters could try to leave the dialog between Dr. Bob and Lou, although again I realize how difficult that can be. Or perhaps we could all ask Dr. Bob for a review of posts that we find laudable, acceptable, or totally unobjectionable. That way when a request for a review comes up, we wouldnt' feel it was an implicit criticism. We could conduct our own desensitization. If Dr. Bob has no objections, of course. :) It wouldn't be that much extra trouble, Dr. Bob. If you read Admin first, the post should pop up as already having been read on your review of the rest of the boards, so you wouldn't have any extra work.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 10:34:46
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on October 27, 2004, at 7:45:38
> I feel that it wasn't fair or right of Lou to treat NikkiT the way he did!
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 10:35:07
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, with all due respect..., posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 8:20:59
> I think you might have been reading too much lately. Or perhaps I think you might have been entranced with some new ideas and are trying to apply them enthusiastically all over.
That could be...
But don't you think there's been both fight and flight?
> Actually, even though *you* are being asked to make determinations, I suspect that concerns about *you*, what you may do, and your time are secondary to other considerations.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make myself the feared object, either. :-) What I meant was, maybe people are concerned that they'll end up being blocked? Or that their issues won't be addressed?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 11:34:15
In reply to Re: might have been reading too much, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 10:35:07
There has certainly been fight, as well as flight, as well as concentrated efforts at civil discourse and problem solving.
I just don't see that that's the central issue involved. There do seem to be a few times when that's the central issue. When something unexpected happens on the board (often related to a newcomer) and there's an instinctual response to circle the wagons or to flee conflict or to protect those perceived as more vulnerable and under threat. All related to fight or flight behaviors in a species that relies on herds or tribes.
But isn't fight or flight mainly a short term phenomenon? An instant decision based on survival instincts?
Under long term stressors mightn't other less instinctual factors be at play? Of course, there are also long term instincts that come from the affiliative nature of mankind. Enforcement of group standards, for example. Which can get a bit tricky in complex situations. For example, tolerance is a valued group norm at Babble, as is support of those who are perceived to be vulnerable. Laudable group standards to be sure. But sometimes it's hard to uphold those standards without also violating them. :) It's kind of difficult to express intolerance of what is perceived as lack of tolerance, or to express lack of support to those who are perceived as not being supportive. That's why I really like your added suggestion in your standard PBC language to express the "why" of how we are reacting. Understanding why makes the balancing act easier.
I think upholding group standards is probably a heck of a lot easier when the group has less laudable standards than Babble, if that makes any sense.
And of course, no one likes to see a friend hurt or insulted. Probably also part of our affiliative nature. I know I consider it a personal insult if someone feels free to insult a friend to my face. And I feel compelled to try to help a friend who appears to be under attack. Geesh, those are the toughest times for me. When two of my friends aren't getting along.
So while fight/flight is an instinctual response, it is a response shared by affiliative and nonaffiliative species alike. I think you aren't giving enough weight to the unique instincts of a tribal/herd species.
And I wasn't saying that I thought you were the feared object. I was saying that thinking that fear that you would PBC or wouldn't have time to address other concerns doesn't fit with the history here, which suggests rather fear of perceived public criticism by a fellow poster, not by you. But heaven only knows, reactions by posters to even your very clear applying of the civility rules that no one could possibly mistake as subjective demonstrate how little people like to be criticized. It might be a good idea to put something in the standard PBC wording about that, come to think of it. Don't the most acrimonious relationships with Babble come from PBC's or blocks that probably invoke feelings of being publicly shamed, put in the stocks, or other primeval fears of a member of an affiliative species?
At any rate, very long discourse aside, what I was trying to say was that your comments might be more productively directed to more sensitive enforcement of group norms rather than fight/flight. And that addressing the root cause of any flareup on the board might be more productive than commenting on the behavior. At least you could do it in addition? Or suggest alternate ways of dealing with the root causes rather than just pointing out how we *are* dealing with it? We know how we *are* dealing with it. :)
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 27, 2004, at 14:03:39
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 5:18:47
"Since I'm the one being requested to make determinations, is it a concern that with more scrutiny I'll make more negative determinations?"
I don'tthink thats the problem at all. I can only speak for myself here, but it is starting to feel like harrassment. And from the ton of supportive emails i have had from people, I am not alone in this feeling.
I want to be able to post my feelings about thing without them being PARAPHRASED and their meaning changed. I think, above everything else, its the paraphrasing that upsets me most. To take a sentence, remove some parts, change a few words subtly, and BANG, you have a WHOLE new meaning.
As an example, I write a post to Noa, which contains the sentance "sometimes I have the feeling that I hate you, but its not a true feeling" it can be copied and bought over here to say that [I hate you] which you have to agree is not what I said.. If someone had not read the original post, they could easily end up believing that I told Noa I hated her.
Small example, but you get the point I hope.
I simply can't have every single word I say questioned. Its as simple as that. If the post stayed where ever I posted it, and you gave me a PBC then I'm happy with that. But, I don't want someone who is NOT a moderator in any shape or form, to start copying and pasting my words in a form of tittle tattle. I left school 13 years ago, and thought I had left telling tales to the teacher in the playground.
Nikki
Posted by AuntieMel on October 27, 2004, at 14:48:57
In reply to Re: Why do Lou Pilder's posts upset so many people? » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 8:54:35
Granted the requests for determination upset some people that read them. But, fact be known, if one of my posts were held up for determination there is a dang good chance I'd never see it.
The wording of the request doesn't give a clue about what post might be under discussion. I, for one, don't usually even look at them unless other people answered them.
I agree with you that this is a need Lou has, and we should all try for understanding. The understanding of that is what helps me *not* look at them.
Note to Lou: If for some reason you want me to look, please say so in the subject line.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 18:23:27
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on October 27, 2004, at 14:03:39
> But isn't fight or flight mainly a short term phenomenon? An instant decision based on survival instincts?
Usually, but stressful situations can also be longer-term or episodic...
> PBC's or blocks ... probably invoke feelings of being publicly shamed, put in the stocks, or other primeval fears of a member of an affiliative species
Right, and that fear may have been triggered?
> your comments might be more productively directed to more sensitive enforcement of group norms rather than fight/flight.
More sensitive in what way? I thought those norms may have been insufficient...
> addressing the root cause of any flareup on the board might be more productive than commenting on the behavior.
I guess doing both might be best...
> Or suggest alternate ways of dealing with the root causes rather than just pointing out how we *are* dealing with it? We know how we *are* dealing with it. :)
>
> DinahPeople may know what they're doing, but not what I consider problematic about it. And you can lead a horse to alternate ways, but...
--
> I can only speak for myself here, but it is starting to feel like harrassment.
I know, that's kind of the idea behind the proposed new rule:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407882.html
OTOH:
> I want to be able to post my feelings about thing without them being PARAPHRASED and their meaning changed. I think, above everything else, its the paraphrasing that upsets me most. To take a sentence, remove some parts, change a few words subtly, and BANG, you have a WHOLE new meaning.
>
> As an example, I write a post to Noa, which contains the sentance "sometimes I have the feeling that I hate you, but its not a true feeling" it can be copied and bought over here to say that [I hate you] which you have to agree is not what I said..
>
> NikkiRight, but you could just repost what you originally said and link to it and it would be clear to everyone, wouldn't it?
Bob
Posted by Noa on October 27, 2004, at 19:00:55
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 18:23:27
>Right, but you could just repost what you originally said and link to it and it would be clear to everyone, wouldn't it?
Bob
Yes, but this takes time, especially if there are people who continually object to many posts. It would feel really lousy to me to have to defend my posts all the time just because someone quoted them out of context. It would bog us all down in the business of evaluating posts all the time, rather than engaging in dialog.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 19:33:36
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by Noa on October 27, 2004, at 19:00:55
> >you could just repost what you originally said and link to it and it would be clear to everyone, wouldn't it?
>
> Yes, but this takes time, especially if there are people who continually object to many posts.That's a good point. So it would be better to limit how many objections there are?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 19:42:08
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 18:23:27
I don't think you grasped what I was trying to convey, and I tried so very hard, too. :(
But I don't have any confidence in my ability to explain any better, so I retire from the lists.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 20:54:42
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 19:42:08
> I don't think you grasped what I was trying to convey, and I tried so very hard, too. :(
>
> But I don't have any confidence in my ability to explain any better, so I retire from the lists.Well, I can be dense sometimes. Give it another try?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2004, at 21:33:30
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 20:54:42
I've had my share of impotence today.
Posted by Mark H. on October 28, 2004, at 20:26:00
In reply to Why do Lou Pilder's posts upset so many people?, posted by SLS on October 26, 2004, at 18:19:04
Dr. Bob writes:
“I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, but if that's not possible, you can, as a last resort, ask another poster not to post to you anymore.”
Here are the posters Lou has asked not to post to him during October 2004:
partlycloudy
fayeroe
Mair
NikkiT2
Fi
Toph
rayww
Dinah
Scott
pegasus
undercat
Mark H.Are there any others I missed?
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 14:14:19
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 5:18:47
Dear Dr. Bob,
I have been giving a lot of thought to your reply. While some group process may be at work here, I am discouraged by the language of the article you chose to cite as a possible example.
First and foremost, I certainly do not “hate or fear” Lou Pilder, and I would be surprised to learn if anyone in our community actually does.
I like Lou Pilder. When he is posting from his heart, I see an outpouring of intelligence, humor, a wealth of life experiences, and a capacity for caring and support. There are times that I ache with longing for Lou to recognize how many friends he has here, including most of us whom he has asked not to post to him in the last month. Being Lou’s friend doesn’t mean that we will always support his behavior or point of view, and disagreeing with his behavior or point of view does not mean that we “hate or fear” him.
Second, I think it is safe to say that *no one* wants their posts to be singled out and held up for public scrutiny and administrative review by *anyone.* This is the part I think you (and Lou) don’t fully appreciate. The damage is done by the implication of the “request for determination” itself, regardless of whether you subsequently decide the complaint was unfounded or not. This is the source of much of the unnecessary conflict we experience in this on-line community.
That is why I am suggesting you impose a three per month per person limit on “requests for determination.”
Sincerely,
Mark H.
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 15:18:57
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 14:14:19
I just re-read this thread and realized how much I owe my own thinking on this matter to the ideas expressed by other posters, especially Dinah. Although I wasn't thinking of Dinah's words when I wrote my response to Dr. Bob this morning, I notice now how much my post is a summary of hers, and if I've succeeded in making my point at all, I owe it to her.
Thank you, Dinah, for your articulate insight and compassion for all involved in this difficult process.
I know you know I appreciate all that you do, but I don't say it often enough.
With love and respect,
Mark H.
Posted by Shar on October 29, 2004, at 22:52:14
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on October 27, 2004, at 14:03:39
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 4:37:26
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 14:14:19
> I certainly do not “hate or fear” Lou Pilder, and I would be surprised to learn if anyone in our community actually does.
I didn't mean to imply that everyone, or anyone in particular, did, but I do think feelings like that are present in the group. But I may be wrong.
> *no one* wants their posts to be singled out and held up for public scrutiny and administrative review by *anyone.* This is the part I think you ... don’t fully appreciate.
It's possible, maybe I don't...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 30, 2004, at 7:23:55
In reply to Re: My indebtedness to others, especially Dinah, posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 15:18:57
Posted by Dinah on October 30, 2004, at 12:13:23
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 4:37:26
> > *no one* wants their posts to be singled out and held up for public scrutiny and administrative review by *anyone.* This is the part I think you ... don’t fully appreciate.
>
> It's possible, maybe I don't...
>
> BobI don't even know why I'm bothering asking, because I have grown to realize that my input on the admin board is a complete and total waste of my time. But do you mean:
a) I hadn't really fully appreciated that aspect, but now it is brought to my attention I'll give it consideration.
or
b) I don't really see why people are so bothered by this, but I respect the fact that they are.
or
c) I don't really see why people are so bothered by this, I'm tired of it becoming a repeated focus of this board, and I am planning to institute rules that will clamp down on complaints about it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 10:29:11
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 30, 2004, at 12:13:23
> > > *no one* wants their posts to be singled out and held up for public scrutiny and administrative review by *anyone.* This is the part I think you ... don’t fully appreciate.
> >
> > It's possible, maybe I don't...Meaning, I may not fully appreciate everyone's feelings, but I'll try to respect them and to do what I can to improve the situation.
How's that? Thanks for your input, and sorry to be frustrating to deal with,
Bob
Posted by karaS on October 31, 2004, at 15:01:46
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 10:29:11
> > > > *no one* wants their posts to be singled out and held up for public scrutiny and administrative review by *anyone.* This is the part I think you ... don’t fully appreciate.
> > >
> > > It's possible, maybe I don't...
>
> Meaning, I may not fully appreciate everyone's feelings, but I'll try to respect them and to do what I can to improve the situation.
>
> How's that? Thanks for your input, and sorry to be frustrating to deal with,
>
> Bob
Dr. Bob,This situation reminds me of the unfairness sometimes of our judicial system with regard to its effect on victims of crimes. The system bends over backwards to assure the rights of the accused with the result that the rights of the victims often get trampled on.
Please let's not lose sight of those here whose feelings have been trampled on in order to assure the rights of the accuser! What happened to NikkiT2 should never have to happen to anyone else on a board whose primary function is that of support. If this situation is not remedied soon I fear that we will continue to lose posters en masse.
Kara
Posted by karaS on October 31, 2004, at 15:46:58
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 10:29:11
Dr. Bob,
I would like to add to my last post a proposed solution to this problem. (Please forgive me if this suggestion has been proposed before but I have not had the time or the fortitude to read all of the posts on this topic.) My idea is that you should be the only person who can post on the boards about a complaint in another person's post. If someone has a problem with something someone else said, then they can send you an e-mail about it personally. You would then judge the merits of the case and get back to the accuser about it personally. None of this would be posted on the board. If you find no merit in the accuser's argument, then you tell him or her so and the poster who has been accused of wrong doing would never have to read the painful accusations. If, on the otherhand, you find merit in the accusation, then you can take appropriate action. Either way, the accuser gets to be heard but the "victim" need not be hurt unnecessarily.
I'm not convinced that this is the best way to go - it's only a suggestion. I do worry that this would stifle a lot of posting unnecessarily. I just wanted to throw this out to you though.
Thanks for listening.
Kara
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 15:49:51
In reply to Re: Why are so many people upset » Dr. Bob, posted by karaS on October 31, 2004, at 15:01:46
KaraS,
You wrote,[...situation not remedied...loose posters...].
I agree with you that change can be benifitial in regards to improvment of situations concerning administration as you percieve.
There are many theorys about administration from the ancient Greeks, to the Romans to the Middle Ages of feudalism to what is called the Enlightenment period in Europe in the 1700s to Thomas Jeferson and to facism in the 1930s on.
I really take all of this seriously because the French took things like this seriously, the Colonist in America took it seriously and I do not think that the Bostion Tea Party was about tea.
I also would want reform here as to how the forum could be better administered.
I see the following as places to start.
A. One person as the sole administrator leaves times left without administration if that sole administrator is involved in other things that keeps him from the forum, so more administers needed.
B. There are different types of people here , and I am one of them, that do not like some aspects of the forum and could benifit by changes being made. I am always wanting improvment for communities whether they be internet or in the city where I live. I belive in working at the lowest possible level and voicing my concerns according to the administrations guidlines to effect change. The administration guidlines here are that the moderator welcomes requests for determination and the public aspect of it is acceptable to him.
But I have reviewed all of this and now consider that a new guidline be implemented on the forum to satisfy some people here. I suggest the following:
Article A.
That posters her put a symbol by their handle that could indicate that they do not want their posts to be submitted for a determination as to the acceptability or not in respect to the guidlines of the forum. An example could be:
[Mary~~~]
The 3 "nots" after the name would be an indicator to others that the poster does not want their posts submitted on the board , but could be submitted by email. Could you offer any suggestions, if any, for administrative change? I would like to discuss them with you if you have any.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by karaS on October 31, 2004, at 21:18:54
In reply to Lou's response to karaS » karaS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 15:49:51
> KaraS,
> You wrote,[...situation not remedied...loose posters...].
> I agree with you that change can be benifitial in regards to improvment of situations concerning administration as you percieve.
> There are many theorys about administration from the ancient Greeks, to the Romans to the Middle Ages of feudalism to what is called the Enlightenment period in Europe in the 1700s to Thomas Jeferson and to facism in the 1930s on.
> I really take all of this seriously because the French took things like this seriously, the Colonist in America took it seriously and I do not think that the Bostion Tea Party was about tea.
> I also would want reform here as to how the forum could be better administered.
> I see the following as places to start.
> A. One person as the sole administrator leaves times left without administration if that sole administrator is involved in other things that keeps him from the forum, so more administers needed.
> B. There are different types of people here , and I am one of them, that do not like some aspects of the forum and could benifit by changes being made. I am always wanting improvment for communities whether they be internet or in the city where I live. I belive in working at the lowest possible level and voicing my concerns according to the administrations guidlines to effect change. The administration guidlines here are that the moderator welcomes requests for determination and the public aspect of it is acceptable to him.
> But I have reviewed all of this and now consider that a new guidline be implemented on the forum to satisfy some people here. I suggest the following:
> Article A.
> That posters her put a symbol by their handle that could indicate that they do not want their posts to be submitted for a determination as to the acceptability or not in respect to the guidlines of the forum. An example could be:
> [Mary~~~]
> The 3 "nots" after the name would be an indicator to others that the poster does not want their posts submitted on the board , but could be submitted by email. Could you offer any suggestions, if any, for administrative change? I would like to discuss them with you if you have any.
> Best regards,
> Lou
Lou,I don't have any ideas other than the one I already proposed. Your idea of posters being able to designate that they do not wish to have their posts "submitted for a determination as to the acceptability or not in respect to the guidlines of the forum" sounds like a good one to me. I could easily support that! I would be interested in seeing how others feel about that compromise.
Best wishes,
Kara
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.