![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 138. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by Willow.H. on October 28, 2004, at 8:56:34
Friends,
There is an on going attempt here to limit the number of requests to Dr. Hsiung for determination for acceptability as to the guidlines of the forum.
The reasons put forth so far are as I see it:
A. It takes time for Dr. Hsiung to reply to the requests.
Lou's answere to that:
Appoint an assitant moderator for each board. I would like to see the following:
Moderator for the social board---------bobby
Moderator for the med board----------- open
Moderator for the faith board..........myself
Modeator for the administration board..Larry Hoover
Moderators for the psychological board..gardengirl
Moderator for other boards.............open
Moderators for the psychological board.Alexandra-K
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:37:18
In reply to Lou's views, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
Friends,
Another reason that I see that others would like the number of requests restricted is:
B. Some posters do not want their post to have a determination to be made that is visible to the public
Lou's view:
In this case, I suggest the following:
The moderator puts a halt on the thread involving the request. When the moderator returns with the determination, the halt is lifted. No one then can post to the request while it is under review so that the moderator is not influenced and the poster in question has nothing written about what is in the post under review. Those that want to give support to the poster in question can do so by the interposter feature mail here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:44:28
In reply to Re: Lou's views-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:37:18
Friends,
Another reason that I see that others here would want requts for determination restricted is that there is something about the number 3 involved. I fail to understand the reasoning, if any, behind the number 3.
I am requesting that those that are advocating a "three" rule, to explain their reasoning concerning that and perhaps answer the following:
A. Why not 4?
B. Why not 5?
C. Why not 10?
D. Why not 2?
E. Why not 0?
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 8:07:13
In reply to Re: Lou's views-C, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:44:28
> Friends,
> Another reason that I see that others here would want requts for determination restricted is that there is something about the number 3 involved. I fail to understand the reasoning, if any, behind the number 3.
> I am requesting that those that are advocating a "three" rule, to explain their reasoning concerning that and perhaps answer the following:
> A. Why not 4?
> B. Why not 5?
> C. Why not 10?
> D. Why not 2?
> E. Why not 0?
> Lou
Symmetry. It is a nice number to complement the 3 consecutive post rule. The rationale for choosing the number 3 in the consecutive post rule has been discussed previously and is supported by data regarding posting habits.
- Scott
Posted by partlycloudy on October 29, 2004, at 8:48:16
In reply to Lou's views, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
I feel hurt that someone would propose a board of moderators without any input from other members of this site.
Isn't this Dr. Bob's decision?
Posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 9:36:45
In reply to Re: Lou's views-C, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:44:28
3 Is The Magic Number
3 Little Pigs
3 Blind Mice
3 Trinity
3 strikes
3 outs
3 physical forces
3 metaphysical elements
3 past present future
3 stooges
3 Hindu Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva
3 stable tripod
3 phyical dimensions
3 Chinese produces all things
3 trimesters of pregnancy
3 wishes
3 consecutive posts
3 Babylonian Ea, Anu, and Enil
3 heads Kirfel
3 heads Gamorrah
3 heads Reptilicus
3 bears Goldilocks
3 quarks
3 atomic particles
3 sports announcers
3 ABC
3 middle C
3 Row, row, row your boad
3 times a bridesmaid, never a bride
3 third time's a charm
3 morning, noon, and night
3 ages of man
3 Tick-Tack-Toe
3 XXX
3 in a row
3 face cards
3 quarterback, halfback and fullback
3 minute egg
3 front, side, and back yards
3 points field goal
3 ring circus
3 triple play
3 first middle last names
3 SOS three dots, three dashes, and three dots
3 divisions of government
3 beg, borrow, or steal
3 blood, sweat, and tears
3 hop, skip, and jump
3 hook, line, and sinker
3 ready, willing, and able
3 men, women, and children
3 Tom, Dick, and Harry
3 ready, willing, and able
3 signed, sealed, delivered
3 tall, dark, and handsome
3 cool, calm, and collected
3 me, myself, and I
3 voices of speech
3 wishes
3 Snap, Crackle, and Pop
3 in-1 oil
3 sun, earth, moon
3 ATP
3 NE, DA, 5-HT
3 Kingdoms of life
3 ready, set, go
3 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
3 love, honor, and obey
3 hours: minutes: seconds
3 degrees Kelvin background radiation
3 traffic light: green, yellow, red
3 levels of the brain
3 big three auto manufacturers
3 life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
3 beginning, middle, end
3 Faith and Hope and Charity
3 heart and the brain and the body
3 physical dimensions
3 birth, life, death
3 Rumpelstiltskin, Rumpelstiltskin, Rumpelstiltskin
3 hat-trick
3 triple crown
3 cheers
3 Peter denied Christ three times
3 Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
3 Hail Marys
3 Jesus, Mary and Joseph
3 Three Wise Men
3 Third Secret of Fatima
3 Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades
3 Heaven, Hell, Earth
3 Three Musketeers
3 Three Amigos
3 see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
3 Three Men in a Boat
3 three witches in Macbeth
3 The Three Tenors
3 Three Dog Night
3 Earth, Wind, and Fire
3 Peter, Paul, and Mary
3 Animal, Vegetable and Mineral
3 Left, Right and Centre
3 Mind, Body, Soul
3 Small, Medium and Large
3 Rings
3 good, better, best
3 protein, fat, carbohydrate
3 desire, arousal, orgasm
3 Three's Company
3 day weekends
3 positive, negative, neutral
3 male, female, neuter
3 proton, neutron, electron
3 up, down, sideways
3 membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus
3 pi orbitals
3 shell, white, yolk
3 holes in a bowling ball
3 black, white, gray
3 father, mother, child
3 God, Man, Devil
3 days of Resurrection
3 three Graces
3 more examples
3 Bipolar I, Bipolar II, Cyclothymia
3 three coins in a fountain
3 menage a trois
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 29, 2004, at 11:37:58
In reply to Another reason for the number 3, posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 9:36:45
3 Refuges - Buddha, Dharma, Sangha
3 alarm chili
3 toed sloth
3 Faces of Eve
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 29, 2004, at 11:53:40
In reply to Lou's views, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
> A. It takes time for Dr. Hsiung to reply to the requests.
> Lou's answere to that:
> Appoint an assitant moderator for each board. I would like to see the following:> Moderator for the faith board..........myself
> Modeator for the administration board..Larry Hoover
> LouI'm both honoured and concerned, Lou. Honoured that I am considered, but concerned about the implications. I don't think board-specific moderation is the best choice, as rules of conduct are not board-specific. Differences in interpretation, application, or timeliness of action could lead to the perception of unfairness, even bias.
And, in as much as there are unsettled issues with respect to posts to e.g. the faith board, an individual posting about those unsettled matters would not be a good choice to moderate them.
Lar
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 12:44:43
In reply to Now THAT sounds like a reasonable rule of 3 » Mark H., posted by Dinah on October 29, 2004, at 2:42:57
> 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.Thank you, Dinah. I hope Dr. Bob agrees.
Best wishes to all,
Mark H.
Posted by Mark H. on October 29, 2004, at 12:47:42
In reply to Another reason for the number 3, posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 9:36:45
Dear Scott,
You are incredibly smart and very funny! Thank you for injecting some humor into this difficult process. (You too, Emmy.)
Mark H.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 29, 2004, at 12:55:32
In reply to Lou's views, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2004, at 7:24:29
> Friends,
> There is an on going attempt here to limit the number of requests to Dr. Hsiung for determination for acceptability as to the guidlines of the forum.We must ask ourselves why this limit needs to be determined.
As I understand it, and from what I have read,
There is one person
one single person
who is currently requesting determinations from Dr Bob on posts' acceptability.Why on earth do a new set of rules need to be adopted because of a single individual's behaviour? These rules will affect the entire group at Babble, but there is just one individual whose repetetive requests are provoking the rules to be created in the first place.
I am completely and sincerely baffled. Can someone help to explain this in simple terms to me?
I am trying very hard not to offend anyone. I am frustrated at not being able to understand the necessity of all of this.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 29, 2004, at 14:25:14
In reply to Another reason for the number 3, posted by SLS on October 29, 2004, at 9:36:45
wow, you must have had a lot of time on your hands....
you forgot 3 minutes to midnight.
Please tell me there was an easy way to do that...
pretty pretty pretty please.
Jai
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.