![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 138. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on October 30, 2004, at 4:43:47
In reply to Re: reasons for the number 3...more more more » TofuEmmy, posted by karaS on October 30, 2004, at 1:01:15
Once again, I say my opinion without properly understanding the situation or the intention of the rule. It is pretty clear to me now and I have to say I agree 100%.
To think of it as 'setting limits' rather than 'making a rule' helps. It is not like most people will ever break such a 'rule' or 'limit' as a matter of course accidentally. And of course you always warn and explain before you ban. So I say good idea. Enough is enough.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
In reply to Re: Lou's views » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2004, at 22:13:00
> The number of posts what what I meant was arbitrary.
Ah, I see. I liked Scott's response. :-)
> 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).It can be a challenge to deal with contrary behavior (sigh).
> The trouble with rules is that there are always 'common sense' exceptions
>
> alexandra_kThat's no trouble, exceptions can be made.
--
> Could you please explain this concept about false positives etc?
> 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
>
> ggThat's the idea.
--
> 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.
>
> - ScottIf the behavior of B were in fact problematic, those wouldn't be "strikes"...
--
> another alternative to this is to have the determinations e-mailed to you instead of posted on the board.
>
> P.s. I have lurked for years,(since 2000) and haven't registered until now, but felt this important. Thanks for listening.
>
> willow.h.Thanks for unlurking. Emailing me has been and will continue to be fine, the question is whether, and if so how, to limit posted requests.
--
> > > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> AuntieMelI applaud good manners, but:
1. The larger the group, the more likely *someone* is to be bothered.
2. People could also claim something bothered them just to stir things up.
--
> 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
>
> I think that collectively this should be sufficient to cover whatever difficulties arise with individual posters.
>
> Mark H.My concern isn't difficulties being missed, but posters being bothered by these requests. 3 per month would mean a particular poster could be the subject of an unending stream of requests every 10 days?
--
> 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.
>
> partlycloudyIf just one individual litters, does that mean a rule against littering shouldn't be created?
--
> I'm not sure how the moderator selection process works, as a couple other posters had volunteered at one point, and I never heard what became of that.
My idea was to get input from present and former deputy administrators, to give volunteers some guidelines, and to ask them to respond to some example situations to make sure they understood the guidelines, could use the administration system, and could phrase responses appropriately.
But I've been swamped, so unfortunately this hasn't moved forward...
> At any rate, I do not have the time or the desire to serve that role here... I'm afraid I don't have the confidence in my own abilities.
>
> ggTime and desire, OK, but don't let confidence be an issue! :-)
Bob
Posted by SLS on October 30, 2004, at 7:17:40
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
Hi Doctor.
Can we perhaps have a list of the posting limit protocols you are currently considering?
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 30, 2004, at 9:36:18
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
How about limiting each poster to 3 requests per day. If all three are about a single poster, and all three are considered civil, then the requesting poster is given a PBC.
Or...
How about limiting each poster to 3 requests per day, and one request about any given poster.
Still thinking.
I would like to see a limit on total volume, not just the number of times any one poster is brought into the public eye for scrutiny. You original proposal would still allow for a single poster to submit a great many requests per day. You also mentioned that you were swamped.
Maybe use your proposal + a 3 post per day limit?
Still thinking.
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on October 30, 2004, at 10:09:56
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 30, 2004, at 10:17:41
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
I really can't believe I'm weighing in on this. All self-control has gone out the window. I should just eat a donut. Crud.
Maybe I missed the resolution of the idea that it's more about a poster making repeated requests which are declined by Bob. Some people are just not cut out to be interpreters of Bob's rules. I’m one of them.
Say Dinah requests Bob reviews a slew of posts...great! I have a good feeling that she has valid reasons for this. I don't care how many posts we are talking about, or how many posters. She's got a good understanding of the process. Sometimes poo hits the fan around here, weird stuff happens, and this 3-limit rule might have to be broken even by Dinah.
It's more about inaccurate interpretations which lead to Bob to spending his time without cause, and embarrassing/worrying posters needlessly. IMHO.
So, if there MUST be a rule, I'm more interested one that says, you get 3 bad calls in a month....then you sit on the bench. If you submit a 4th, you get spanked.
emmy
Posted by SLS on October 30, 2004, at 10:59:43
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
Hmm.
I just went and checked out the last two posting periods. It seems that there really hasn't been more than 3 posts requesting dertermination per day by any one poster. One example of 4, but that's all. Someone should check me on this, though.Perhaps this should entire into your decision.
I'm still not sure how I feel about all of this. Emmy makes some good points.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on October 30, 2004, at 19:50:09
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
> The number of posts what what I meant was arbitrary.
>> Ah, I see. I liked Scott's response. :-)Yup, me too.
> 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).
>> It can be a challenge to deal with contrary behavior (sigh).Heh, heh, yeah I suppose. Perhaps I should have been clearer: I am contrary when confronted with rules that seem arbitrary. But Scott cleared that up nicely.
Anyway, I recanted.
Bring on the 'limits'
Posted by Dinah on October 30, 2004, at 21:11:56
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2004, at 6:04:22
> My concern isn't difficulties being missed, but posters being bothered by these requests. 3 per month would mean a particular poster could be the subject of an unending stream of requests every 10 days?
So, to be clear, your reason for making this rule is based on this concern. And your concern is not that one poster will complain about many others, but that many posters will complain about one. Since an unending stream of requests could only come from multiple posters, not one. And you want to protect a "particular" poster from being the "subject" of an "unending" stream of requests. Since under Mark's rule, each poster would only have three per month, you can't possibly be talking about one poster making the requests. That wouldn't make any sense.
So my reading of the intent of the new rule is to protect the few from the complaints of the many (once you have decided that the complaints of the many are unfounded) and not to stop multiple complaints from one poster about the posts of many other posters, as long as it didn't exceed three per poster recipient.
I think it would be honest of you to clarify your intent, Dr. Bob. I think many posters mistake it to be the other way around.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 10:40:47
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 30, 2004, at 21:11:56
> How about limiting each poster to 3 requests per day.
But what if there are more than 3 problematic posts one day?
> You also mentioned that you were swamped.
>
> - ScottRight, but I didn't mean by requests for determination...
> > My concern isn't difficulties being missed, but posters being bothered by these requests. 3 per month would mean a particular poster could be the subject of an unending stream of requests every 10 days?
>
> your concern is ... that many posters will complain about one. Since an unending stream of requests could only come from multiple posters, not one.
>
> DinahNo, wouldn't Mark H.'s suggestion have allowed an unending stream of 3 per month from one poster?
Bob
Posted by Mark H. on October 31, 2004, at 12:46:57
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 10:40:47
> No, wouldn't Mark H.'s suggestion have allowed an unending stream of 3 per month from one poster?
>
> BobDear Dr. Bob,
No, my suggestion is that each poster be allowed to make three public requests for determination per month (period). Not three requests per post or concern, but three total.
This means that if there were more than three problematic posts per month that needed to be held up for public scrutiny and administrative review, then more than one poster would need to participate, but each poster could only publicly request a determination three times in any given month.
I apologize if I didn't make that clear before.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mark H.
My previous post follows: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 TofuEmmy on October 31, 2004, at 18:23:57
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on October 30, 2004, at 10:17:41
I shan't be ignored Sir! I still like this plan.
> Maybe I missed the resolution of the idea that it's more about a poster making repeated requests which are declined by Bob. Some people are just not cut out to be interpreters of Bob's rules. I’m one of them.
>
> Say Dinah requests Bob reviews a slew of posts...great! I have a good feeling that she has valid reasons for this. I don't care how many posts we are talking about, or how many posters. She's got a good understanding of the process. Sometimes poo hits the fan around here, weird stuff happens, and this 3-limit rule might have to be broken even by Dinah.
>
> It's more about inaccurate interpretations which lead to Bob to spending his time without cause, and embarrassing/worrying posters needlessly. IMHO.
>
> So, if there MUST be a rule, I'm more interested one that says, you get 3 bad calls in a month....then you sit on the bench. If you submit a 4th, you get spanked.
>
> emmy
Posted by Toph on October 31, 2004, at 23:32:58
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
> So here's an idea, what if we adopt another 3-post rule? In this case, a limit of 3 objections per poster -- to posts I consider OK -- per other poster.
>
> BobI've been on vacation, but I'd like to add my 2$(can't find a cent sign). I like the 3-objection rule, but that's mainly because I think it would never effect me. If it did, I think I would try to devise a way around it. There was a posting style that led to the implimentation of the 3-post rule. Subsequently, a new style evolved using multiple objections. What is to prevent with the new restriction an individual from developing a new way of multiple posting that is within the rules? Instead of increasing rules which limit conduct there should also be a emphasis on rights which guarantee freedoms. Habitual or agregious violators of the spirit of a supportive community should, as others have suggested, be individually handled supportively by the administrator.
-Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2004, at 1:58:48
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule? ...hey you.... Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on October 31, 2004, at 18:23:57
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2004, at 2:22:51
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 31, 2004, at 23:32:58
> > wouldn't Mark H.'s suggestion have allowed an unending stream of 3 per month from one poster?
>
> No, my suggestion is that each poster be allowed to make three public requests for determination per month (period).
>
> Mark H.But couldn't that be 3 this month, 3 next month, 3 the month after that, etc., an unending stream, from one poster?
--
> What is to prevent with the new restriction an individual from developing a new way of multiple posting that is within the rules?
Nothing...
> Instead of increasing rules which limit conduct there should also be a emphasis on rights which guarantee freedoms.
One man's limitation is another man's freedom...
> Habitual or agregious violators of the spirit of a supportive community should, as others have suggested, be individually handled supportively by the administrator.
>
> -TophSo the rule should be not to violate the spirit of the community?
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 1, 2004, at 8:29:14
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 31, 2004, at 23:32:58
> > So here's an idea, what if we adopt another 3-post rule? In this case, a limit of 3 objections per poster -- to posts I consider OK -- per other poster.
> >
> > Bob
>
> I've been on vacation, but I'd like to add my 2$(can't find a cent sign).If you're using Windows, make sure your Numlock key is on, hold down the Alt key, and using only the number keypad on the right, key the sequence 0162 and release the Alt key. You will get a ¢ where your cursor was set.
For this and other magic, go to all programs/accessories/system tools/character map. Highlight a symbol, and the keystroke sequence shows on the bottom right.
Lar
Posted by Toph on November 1, 2004, at 10:00:04
In reply to Re: sort of off-topic » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on November 1, 2004, at 8:29:14
Some say we only use 10% of our brain, obviously they have never checked yours out, Larry. I don't know about others here, but if I see a Larry Hoover post, I'm going to check it out right away.
-Toph
Posted by SLS on November 1, 2004, at 10:39:03
In reply to Re: off-topic » Larry Hoover, posted by Toph on November 1, 2004, at 10:00:04
> Some say we only use 10% of our brain, obviously they have never checked yours out, Larry. I don't know about others here, but if I see a Larry Hoover post, I'm going to check it out right away.
> -TophIt's all those extra glial cells.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 1, 2004, at 10:40:03
In reply to Re: off-topic, posted by SLS on November 1, 2004, at 10:39:03
:-)
Posted by AuntieMel on November 1, 2004, at 11:04:50
In reply to Re: Another 3-post rule, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2004, at 2:22:51
Can we make a rule that there will be no more than three 3-post-rules??
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 1, 2004, at 11:35:48
In reply to Re: I have another 3 post rule » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on November 1, 2004, at 11:04:50
Sorry! There will be allowed 3 such rules. ;-)
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:10:45
In reply to Re: I have another 3 post rule » AuntieMel, posted by TofuEmmy on November 1, 2004, at 11:35:48
Here is what I am struggling with. This reminds me so much of a class I taught that literally had more rules than subjects to cover. The prof. used to create a rule every time there was a new problem behavior on the part of the students.
Hellloooo? Why not address the problem or concern with the individual? Not every new behavior that happens is going to generalize to the group. IMO, rules should be made when a problem behavior is seen in many posters, such as being uncivil. Otherwise, I believe an administrator would serve the community much more effectively by addressing individual behavior with the individual(s).
For example, I often interject silly comments into serious discussions, particularly on Admin. If this is a behavior that Dr. Bob and others dislike as being disruptive or perhaps disrespectful, I would appreciate Dr. Bob emailing me and telling me so rather than making a new rule.
No new rule saying only 3 funny posts per month, and the humor will be judged by Dr. Bob! (Shoot, I should never try to make up protest slogans...much too verbose.)
Anyone else thinking this?
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on November 1, 2004, at 13:45:33
In reply to Why do we need a rule for every little thing?, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:10:45
I like you injecting a bit of humor into serious discussions. It puts a bit of perspective on it.
I was trying to do the same thing. Did I miss?
Posted by All Done on November 1, 2004, at 13:47:33
In reply to Why do we need a rule for every little thing?, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 13:10:45
> Anyone else thinking this?
>
> ggUmm, yes.
And it seems to have the potential to hurt the poster or few posters that have the behavior for which the rule was created.
That doesn't feel very supportive to me. In fact, I would feel it's just the opposite. I would be hurt and embarrassed if I realized my behavior resulted in a new rule for the entire website.
Maybe the goal is to make the majority feel safe to post? Is that the same as being supportive?
Laurie
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 14:26:27
In reply to Re: Why do we need a rule for every little thing? » gardenergirl, posted by All Done on November 1, 2004, at 13:47:33
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.