![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 19 to 43 of 138. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 20:40:57
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
why not a 2 post rule?
Why not a 3 post rule?
Why not a 4 post rule?
Why not a 5 post rule?The number of posts what what I meant was arbitrary.
If you pick 2 I'll be tempted to do 3
If you pick 3 I'll be tempted to do 4
If you pick 4 I'll be tempted to do 5...I am contrary (sigh).
The trouble with rules is that there are always 'common sense' exceptions (consider Kant's moral laws and the exceptions we want to make for contextual factors).
My concern is that by posting a 'rule' then if someone breaks it then someone else may well be tempted to require 'determination', and some people are more or less sensitive to how context can moderate rules.
While I appreciate that you probably think that the rule will prevent that becoming a problem, I am tempted to test context.
Why must we resort to rules rules and more rules?
That makes me very sad indeed.
I just trust my common sense best I can, and trust yours enough so that you realise I am doing that and so I trust I will not be blocked for breaking some arbitrary and obscure rule that you have to enforce regardless of context because it is there in the authorised version of the posting rules.Sigh. Perhaps I should avoid admin...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 20:47:33
In reply to clarification of 'arbitrary' » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 20:40:57
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 21:46:51
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 19:27:56
> > Are these to be 3 consecutive posts, or are they cumulative? If after 2 consecutive posts by A, you sanction B, does the clock start over for A relative to B?
>
> Consecutive posts is the other 3-post rule. This would be cumulative. If A complains twice and I sanction B once, then that would be 1 cumulative "false positive".I'm lost here. Could you please explain this concept about false positives etc?
And by the way, I am in the camp that we don't need a new rule for every new circumstance that comes up. It starts becoming way too complicated, and another word that likely could be pereceived as uncivil, so I won't use it.
My city has a law in the charters that essentially says you can't pass a law which offers protection against discrimination for gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and trans-sexuals. Now, first, I have a problem with that anyway. But a law that says you can't pass a law is redundant.
I feel like we're getting too many micro-rules here, and I think for a seasoned poster to get confused, just imagine how intimidating and confusing it could be for new posters!
gg
Just my $65...(trying to get used to charging psych. fees... ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 21:51:35
In reply to I was following until now...Now I'm lost » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 21:46:51
I agree with all except the $65. Common gg, your words are worth much more than that :-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2004, at 21:59:41
In reply to I was following until now...Now I'm lost » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 21:46:51
gg,
You wrote, [...imagine how intimidating...].
I am familiar with the "gay rights" law in your city and it has gone back and forth, if this is what you are referring to in your post as to in housing and workplace, etc..
I belive that your point is that, why does there have to be a law, one way or the other, concerniong discrimination in housing in the first place? Is this what you are trying to say in your post? And then that could be applied here in this case in question? If so, then I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 22:00:06
In reply to I was following until now...Now I'm lost » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 21:46:51
I'd like to try to reframe one of the issues at hand as I am understanding it...people's response to having their own or other posts submitted for administrative review...
I can certainly understand how it must feel to have your post submitted. And I admit I have wondered in the past if one of mine might receive the same scrutiny. I don't think that would feel good to me.
BUT...what if someone looks at the number of requests made over say a month period here on the board? And counts the number of times Bob has agreed and provided some kind of correction or sanction? I haven't done this myself, but one of the tools of CBT and cognitive restructuring is to look at the reality and the evidence. Anecdotally, my sense is that many more requests have been deemed "okay" and let stand versus resulted in some action by Dr. Bob. If that holds, and I sure hope someone undertakes this task...then the odds of administrative sanction are small compared to the number of requests.
Let's assume for the moment that this is indeed the reality. Would it help to then re-frame the requests for administrative review as an individual behavior rather than a judgement on your post? If the person requesting the review is (and I am talking about Lou here, just to be direct) using a different standard than Dr. Bob, we need to remind ourselves just who's standard is the one to follow.
If we can have some faith in Dr. Bob and our peers in viewing Lou's requests for determination as Lou's behavior and standards, and not necessarily those of the rest of the board, would it feel as bad? Could we possibly view it as something that exists mainly between Lou and Dr. Bob?
I realize I have not had one of my own put up by Lou for determination, so I can only empathize about how it would feel to try to reframe in this way. But what if we all tried it? Perhaps we can then either choose not to read the posts or skim them, or read and view them as an individual need.
And along the same lines, can we separate the behavior from the poster? Because as Dinah and Scott have both said in the past, there is much more to Lou than this issue. I'm glad I got to know more about him recently.
What do you think? (I admit I'm working on CBT skills, so those of you with experience with it, please feel free to give me feedback..either here or via Babblemail...)
Thanks,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 22:14:04
In reply to Lou's response to gardengirl » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2004, at 21:59:41
Hmmmm, as I was writing it, I wasn't sure how my own upset with my city's charter relates to this argument. I appreciate your working with me to clarify it. Actually, I don't think I'm saying that there should be no anti-discrimination laws, for example with regards to housing. Instead, I object to the original charter amendment (XII, in Cincy) that says no law can be passed offering protection for this group.
First, I believe that this group deserves protection, but that is a debate for another time ;-). But I also object to the principle of bad or frivoulous laws. I think in this case, passing (or maintaining) a law that says you can't pass another kind of law is redundant. Why not just put it to the voters about whether we want to offer protection from discrimination for this group? Instead, the voters do not get a chance to make their opinions heard and effect change (or leave things as they are). Article XII takes that right away from me, to decide if I want to agree or disagree with such legislation. (That's why I will be voting on Tuesday to repeal Article XII).
I'm guessing the reason I brought it up here (and disclosed way more about my city and views than perhaps I will be comfortable with tomorrow), is that I feel like Dr. Bob's creating a new rule and offering it for comment has evoked in me the same kind of feeling of helplessness that Article XII does. I don't really get a say, as it appeared that he had already decided before much Babble comment.
Wow, I know I am rambling, and this may not have made things any clearer. (Welcome to the way GG's brain works!)
Take care,
gg
Posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 22:27:31
In reply to and yet I liked the last 3 post rule... (nm), posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 20:47:33
What about allowing any one poster 3 requests for determination per day total. If all three are declined, PBC, then block?
Or allow a total of 3 declined requests per day before PBC, then block?
Something like that. I'll give it more thought.
I don't like the 3 strikes and you're out forever rule of A complaining about B. I think this would be detrimental to the board as the behavior of B might remain problematic for years.
I think I'd like to see an extended probationary period of the board's operation without an additional 3 post rule. Perhaps problematic posting can be discouraged somehow?
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 22:50:02
In reply to What about..., posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 22:27:31
It's starting to sound like the instant replay rule in the NFL. If you request and are wrong..you lose a time out. :-O
gg
Posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 23:05:09
In reply to Re: What about... » SLS, posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 22:50:02
Hi GG.
> It's starting to sound like the instant replay rule in the NFL. If you request and are wrong..you lose a time out. :-O
>
> gg
Sort of.If the goal is to produce limitations, which would be better?
1. Limit a poster to 3 requests for determination per day, regardless of outcome.
2. Allow an unlimited number of requests per day until a limit of 3 such requests are deemed unsactionable.
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 23:09:40
In reply to Re: What about... » gardenergirl, posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 23:05:09
Yikes, for the sake of my eyes, I guess I would vote for number one. I know there are times when Dr. Bob is away and something outrageous happens with posts that can sometimes accumulate before he gets here. But usually I just point to one or two, so I could live within the number one's guidelines. I also find that if it is something egregious, more than one poster brings it to Bob's attention.
But do we get a vote on this?
gg
Posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 23:13:30
In reply to Re: What about... » gardenergirl, posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 23:05:09
> 2. Allow an unlimited number of requests per day until a limit of 3 such requests are deemed unsactionable.
I'm not sure I like this one. Because of the delay inherent in the review process, a poster would have to gamble that one of his first 3 requests would result in sanction in order to post a fourth. Or perhaps this risk should be part of the process.
I'm going to have to sleep on this. I still don't like the 3 strikes and you're out forever concept.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 23:33:45
In reply to Re: What about..., posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 23:13:30
So far, I like the 3 request per day limit the best.
I still reserve the right to change my mind when I wake up in the morning.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2004, at 23:45:11
In reply to Re: What about..., posted by SLS on October 27, 2004, at 23:33:45
I think sleeping on decicions is a good thing. But then I also think sleeping in general is a good thing. A hobby, even.
:)
gg
Posted by nikkit2 on October 28, 2004, at 6:49:06
In reply to Lou's rsponse to some of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2004, at 17:36:39
"So one solution to this controversy could be for Dr. Hsiung to delete a post that is under "review", on a temporary basis "
This could lead to people, who are desperate for some support, not receiving any because one member of the community feels that there is something questionable in the post.
Posted by Willow.H. on October 28, 2004, at 8:56:34
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
Dr. Bob, another alternative to this is to have the determinations e-mailed to you instead of posted on the board. Then the one's you find needing a pbc,etc. can then be re-posted by you (from your e-mail) to the admin board,there by keeping everything in the open as far as sanctions go, but keeping the one's you find to not be objectionable quiet and behind the scenes.
this not only frees up the board, but keeps people from unnecessarily becoming upset as their posts are scrutinized.( It also stops the need of another new rule.)
P.s. I have lurked for years,(since 2000) and haven't registered until now, but felt this important. Thanks for listening.
willow.h.
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2004, at 8:59:21
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by Willow.H. on October 28, 2004, at 8:56:34
Hi Willow.
> P.s. I have lurked for years,(since 2000) and haven't registered until now,
Welcome!
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2004, at 9:03:50
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
> If the goal is to produce limitations, which would be better?
> 1. Limit a poster to 3 requests for determination per day, regardless of outcome.
> 2. Allow an unlimited number of requests per day until a limit of 3 such requests are deemed unsactionable.
#1 is becoming more and more attractive to me, and would be the simplest to administer.
- Scott
Posted by Willow.H. on October 28, 2004, at 9:05:14
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by SLS on October 28, 2004, at 8:59:21
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2004, at 9:10:04
In reply to Re: thank you for the welcome :-) (nm) » SLS, posted by Willow.H. on October 28, 2004, at 9:05:14
Willow H.
My welcome to you also. Could you be by any chance a Willow that was on Benzodiazapine support board?
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on October 28, 2004, at 13:50:42
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by Willow.H. on October 28, 2004, at 8:56:34
Dr. Bob, another alternative to this is to have the determinations e-mailed to you instead of posted on the board.
**Willow, I asked Dr. Bob several days ago if that could be done and hedidn't want to do it. He felt like the process should play out on the board. But after all that has happened since then, maybe he will consider it.....:-) Pat
Posted by AuntieMel on October 28, 2004, at 14:39:22
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 19:27:56
>>>> I can see an end-run around the rule. Once you've got your allotted three complaints from poster A you can *carefully* continue what you were doing and just keep on bugging poster A.
>>>>
>>>> AuntieMel>>No, that would be the rule working. If what you're doing is OK, you *should* be able to continue without being complained about...
Ah, but purposefully doing it, knowing it bothers someone is bad manners. And while it might not be against the "rules" I consider bad manners to be very uncivil.
Posted by Mark H. on October 28, 2004, at 23:01:31
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
Dr. Bob,
I support a limit of 3 "requests for determination" per month. This would give each poster up to 36 opportunities a year to point out publicly those posts of others which caused them concern.
Having a three request per month limit would encourage all posters to carefully consider which posts they hold up for public scrutiny.
In practice (based on experience so far), the vast majority of members of this community would likely never use up their allotment; however, I think that a three request per month limit would be a fair compromise to the current lack of limits.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark H.
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 0:41:45
In reply to Re: I Support a Limit of 3 Requests per Month » Dr. Bob, posted by Mark H. on October 28, 2004, at 23:01:31
Please note that if 100 Babblers are active in any given month, my suggestion of a three requests per month limit per person still allows up to 300 "requests for determination" each month, or up to 3,600 such requests per year, spread out over the whole community.
While I don't believe most people will use their full allocation, I think that collectively this should be sufficient to cover whatever difficulties arise with individual posters.
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2004, at 2:42:57
In reply to Re: Limit of 3 Requests per Month, posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 0:41:45
And is the reason I thought Dr. Bob should ask for brainstorming *before* coming to a decision.
A hearty well done from this poster, Mark.
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.