![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 19 to 43 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by nikkit2 on December 3, 2004, at 6:59:05
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Dinah-ol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:32:29
Could you please link to the mesage in which someone called someone else a "fruitcake" and an "idiot"..
Thankyou
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 7:07:38
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's replyto Dinah-pa-ol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:56:17
Posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 9:00:36
In reply to the link to this discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 7:07:38
Lou, isn't your question about the use of the words "fruitcake" and idiot" a non-issue since the poster has been banned? Isn't getting banned a clear consequence of being repeatedly uncivil? I believe the fact that the poster in question has been banned makes it unnecessary for any individual posts to be examined.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
In reply to Re: the link to this discussion » Lou Pilder, posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 9:00:36
pc,
You wrote,[...poster...banned makes it unnecessary for...individual posts to be examined...].
Unnecessary? The post is visible and there is no addressing of it from the moderator. If the poster left the forum on his/her own volition, would you still think that the post then need not to be addressed by the moderator?
Lou
Posted by partlycloudy on December 3, 2004, at 12:49:16
In reply to Lou's reply to partlycloudy-bndunnec » partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
You'd have to ask Dr Bob, then. I'll keep quiet.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 2:02:49
In reply to Lou's reply to partlycloudy-bndunnec » partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 11:01:06
> I believe the fact that the poster in question has been banned makes it unnecessary for any individual posts to be examined.
>
> partlycloudyThat was what I thought...
> If the poster left the forum on his/her own volition, would you still think that the post then need not to be addressed by the moderator?
>
> LouNo, in that case I would still address it, since they might change their mind.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 8:03:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 2:02:49
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...in that case,( a poster left on their own volition), I would address it...].
You also wrote elseware,[...if I miss it...I could be reminded and then address it...].
If we look at the type of post in question, there is the potential for some to think that since the post is not addressed by you that it is OK here to post such. There is no visible understanding that the poster that wrote such is absent from the board when they read the post. I am asking you to elliminate that situation by making some type of notation that what is posted is not acceptable here because there is the potential for one to think that since there is no visible notation {from you} that the content of the post is unacceptable here that they could think that it is acceptable here to call a person those names. You say that someware else you evicted the poster for some other post. But those that read the post in question do not have any idea of that unless they frequent another board where the eviction took place.
There are many boards here that I have never posted on. I believe that there could be others here that also do not look at some of the other boards. And I do not think that it is the responsibility of evry poster here to read evry post on evry board to find out. When someone reads the post in question , they see a poster calling another poster here a "fruitcake" and an "idiot" and there is nothing from ther moderstor to indicate at the sorce of the post that it is unacceptable. I am requesting that in these cases that you place a symbol next to the post to indicate that the poster has been evicted from another post on another board and that the symbol means that the post in question is unacceptable.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 9:42:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 2:02:49
> > I believe the fact that the poster in question has been banned makes it unnecessary for any individual posts to be examined.
> >
> > partlycloudy
>
> That was what I thought...
>
> > If the poster left the forum on his/her own volition, would you still think that the post then need not to be addressed by the moderator?
> >
> > Lou
>
> No, in that case I would still address it, since they might change their mind.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
Let us look at the above. Another poster,(partlycloudy) write that {...believe...that the poster in question has been banned makes it {unnecessary} for any individual posts to be examined...].
Then you write to that,[...That was what I thought...]and if the poster left on their own volition,[...I would ...address it since they might change their mind...].
The reason that I am requesting that you impliment a procedure for these type of situations is so that others could know if the post in question is acceptable or not. One here may not know if a poster that wrote such has left the forum or not and what the reason if they left was for them leaving. Posters sometimes post sporatically and may be absent for weeks or months at a time between posts. This is in regards to your stated goal of the forum being for support. I do not belive that one can jump to any conclusion about a post being acceptable or not just because the poster posted some other post that was not acceptable on another board. In this case, the {other} post is on a different board, and not seen on the thread that the post in question is so there IMO is the potential for some posters here to think that the post is acceptable because you have not addressed it and they may not know that another post on another board by the same posted has resulted in an eviction to that poster, nor may they even know that there is some policy here that allows posts that have the potential to be defaming to another poster to remain aunaddressed by you because of another post by the poster. I have seen posts that have been written as unacceptable by a particular poster and there are other posts by that same poster that are acceptable. I do not prescribe to any system of logic that could have the potential to say that since a post is unacceptasble by a particular poster on another board, that it is unnecessary to examine for acceptability or not all the other posts by that poster. I also do not think or believe that it is a sound mental health practice to prescribe to any system of logic that says that since one post by that poster is unacceptable, then all the rest of the posts by that poster can be left unaddressed. If they are left unaddressed then I believe that others could have the potential to think that a post is acceptable when it is not.
This is why I am requesting the new procedure be implimented by you. I do not think that there could be any harm done to anyone by you notating a post that has the potential to defame another poster or put down that poster. I believe that it is necessarry for you to do so. I am still hurting from posts here that you have not addressed as to the acceptability or not even after I have posted and emailed you to do so and since you have not addressed them, one here could have the potential to think that the posts about me are acceptable by you which have tthe potential to defame me and humiliate me. And if your policy here could hurt me, then I feel that it could hurt others also. Who knows what person could see the post that calls another a "fruitcake" and an 'idiot" months from now. There is the potential for a reader to not know by seeing the post there that the poster that wrote the post was evicted for writing another post on another board. There is the potential for one to not know that you have written that it is unnecessary for you to address the post because of that. They may not even consider that such a policy could even exist because they may be a citizen of a country that prohibits in their constitution any such policy like that to exist in their country.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:51:09
In reply to Lou's reply to to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 8:03:13
> there is the potential for some to think that since the post is not addressed by you that it is OK here to post such.
That's true, maybe I should do more in situations like that... Maybe next time...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 14:00:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:51:09
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...that's true, maybe I should do more in situations like that...Maybe next time...]
I am requesting that now, rather than next time be implimented.
I am offering to settle this by having a voluntary,virtual arbitration here of the issues involved and reach a binding decision. My suggestion is that we each pick 5 posters here to represent each other in a jury. We will present our prospective positions and then there will be a vote from the selected 10 posters that me and you will agree on, to decide the issue and it will be binding upon both of us.
The issues that I want to presebnt to thes virtual arbitration committee are that all posts that have the potential to be defaming or accusitive or to have the potential to arrouse ill will toward a poster or group be attended by you by taking the submitted posts and you posting a symbol to them to indicate that they are not acceptable in realation to the guidlines of the forum. This means that we could go back to some period of time, and I am willing to have that period of time to be 3 archives in a board.
I am asking that my representatives to vote be the following:
Atticus
Noa
Dinah
gardengirl
Larry Hoover
Please advise me if you are willing to accept my offer to have a virtual binding arbitration of this matter and then if you agree, those that I have asked to represent me could either accept or decline and you could pick your representatives.
Lou PIlder
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:35:14
In reply to Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 14:00:10
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 18:03:56
In reply to Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 14:00:10
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:58:12
In reply to Lou's reply to to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-B » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 9:42:18
> I also do not think or believe that it is a sound mental health practice to prescribe to any system of logic that says that since one post by that poster is unacceptable, then all the rest of the posts by that poster can be left unaddressed. If they are left unaddressed then I believe that others could have the potential to think that a post is acceptable when it is not.
Lou, I'm going to take one of your points and make it more general for the sake of my point. Certainly in recent cases, all or nearly all of certain posters' posts were viewed as unacceptable by many in the community. But what about a questionable post by someone who generally is civil? Does this mean that all of their posts must now be scrutinized by Dr. Bob?
While I do think it's unfortunate that all of certain poster's recent posts were deemed "a first offense", I'm not sure why it is necessary for Dr. Bob to provide a seal of approval or disapproval for posts. I think a fair number of the community provided validation that the posts in question were not acceptable to the community. I did that myself in my responses to Herman Munster and to Shalom34Israel. I voiced my feelings about their posts.
>I am still hurting from posts here that you have not addressed as to the acceptability or not even after I have posted and emailed you to do so and since you have not addressed them, one here could have the potential to think that the posts about me are acceptable by you which have tthe potential to defame me and humiliate me.
If I may offer an interpretation here, I think the above may be the crux of the matter for you. I can tell you are upset and perhaps frustrated that Dr. Bob has not responded to all of your inquiries. I can also tell that your inquiries are very important to you. Can you accept validation from others instead of Dr. Bob? Does that help at all? In some ways, at least to me, validation from my peers is more valuable than that from an authority figure.
At any rate, I feel for you in your frustration. Are there still inquiries you have made that have not been addressed by Dr. Bob? Perhaps you could consolidate them and send them via email to him? I would suggest you could also consolidate them and put them in a post, but I don't know how that might be affected by the new rule.
Take care,
gg
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 1:13:31
In reply to AGAIN I'm the last one picked for dodgeball !!! (nm), posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:35:14
i'm sure he's just more familiar with them. i'd think you'd make a stellar jury member, i mean dodgeball player, personally. :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:23:58
In reply to AGAIN I'm the last one picked for dodgeball !!! (nm), posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:35:14
People can be picked for dodgeball one week...
And not allowed to post replies the next...
I have concluded that it really is not personal at all.I'd pick you for my dodgeball team
But I'm opposed to exercise as a matter of principle...
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 1:53:11
In reply to Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 14:00:10
Hi Lou I have been around maybe a year and a half I am not sure maybe 2...maybe less lol and am off and on the site. I thus may be missing your function on the site. I am more and more confused reading this thread because it SOUNDS like you maybe co-own the site with Dr. Bob? I see nothing stating this so I am lost ..I am not being funny, uncivil or sarcastic or anything if you are not but man I am confused because of your posts and offers to him. If it is just his site why would he or anyone want to set up a panel of people pre-picked by someone else ? I know if I owned a site I would not want that and it would be like my home people can come or go if they do not like my rules. I do not always agree with Dr Bob...I have come close to trouble a few times myself.
Also I will say I use to be on a site called Depression Forum they long since moved BUT we had moderators and admistators and Forum Leaders, that met behind the scenes a clique as it was...and they could take posts off and whole threads also they P.M. ed you (like IM) and nobody else could see what went on. If they didn't like what was said about caring about your T for example they would say IN PRIVATE they were taking it down they did that kind of thing often. If you spoke of SA and it bothered one of them they ran to a friend and bam you were out..It boiled down to censorship not civility...It was a mess and the site lost a lot of people. IF Dr Bob wants others involved why not let *everyone* vote on if it stays or if it goes not a select group? I agree as to some of the posters in question but still we have a lot of freedom in here that I have not seen on other sites I have been on. Sorry if I am not saying this well I do agree on some posters but I see this could also backfire.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 8:24:17
In reply to Re: Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 1:53:11
F4MT,
You wrote,[...If I owned a site...it would be like my home... people can come and go if they do not like my rules...].
Well, in your home would you say that you could allow a guest to be defamed or ridiculed or humiliated by another guest and say to the guest that was defamed or ridiculed or humiliated by the other guest that they could leave because it will be allowed for the other guest to defame you in front of all the other guests? If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to reply accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 8:56:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-B, posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:58:12
gg,
You wrote,[...can you accept validation from others instead of Dr. Hsiung?...].
Let us look at this forum as like a newspaper. And let us say that the editor allowed articles to be written by others that defamed or ridiculed or had the potential to arrouse ill-will toward someone. There could be then others writing in aginst the article about the person that was subjected to the article. But would that in your opinion, suffice to take away any thought that the newspaper endorsed what the article wrote about the person that was the subject of the articl or would it be necessarry for the newspaper to respond that they do not endorse what was written about the person? If you could reply to that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 5, 2004, at 17:45:37
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~endrs, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 7:02:49
Life is messy. People are human. Life is not fair much of the time. This is how the world operates.
There is no way to be acceptable to everyone. People get offended. People move on. Such is life.
It is my opinion that Babble should operate as the real world. You take the good and ignore the bad. American society is becoming so STERILE due to political correctness and fear of being sued.
Life is messy and so is Babble. Anything else in my opinion is completely unrealistic.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2004, at 21:47:35
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl-lb » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 8:56:31
>But would that in your opinion, suffice to take away any thought that the newspaper endorsed what the article wrote about the person that was the subject of the articl or would it be necessarry for the newspaper to respond that they do not endorse what was written about the person?
I think that if the newspaper had a written notice somewhere that said they do not endorse any materials submitted to them, something like "the views of those writing in to this paper are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the editorial board", then no, I do not think that the editors would have to address a specific article written that might be inflammatory.
Dr. Bob has a similar notice, stating that he is only responsible for his own posts. That is not as specific as what I wrote above, but one can infer he means the same.
gg
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:11:27
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-hm » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 8:24:17
Lou, if I understand your question correctly I personally would allow my guests to be adults and deal with the issue themselves. Now if a fist fight or something broke out I would ask they both leave for the THAT visit. If I personally KNEW one friend struck the other first and for ZERO reason I would ask my slap happy friend to go. I would not ask the rest of my guests to decide who would stay and who would go and so on. It's like my smoking rule here you are not allowed to smoke.. not only in my house but also ON my property I have a lot of land and if my friends want to be on my property they will not smoke. If they want to smoke then they could go somewhere else and smoke with their other friends. They do NOT HAVE to smoke on my property nor fight with me on my rule and they respect that. So I guess my point is as it is MY home and they are guests it would be MY call right or wrong.
I am still wondering what your role is as far as if you work or co own the site I am seriously not understanding that.> F4MT,
> You wrote,[...If I owned a site...it would be like my home... people can come and go if they do not like my rules...].
> Well, in your home would you say that you could allow a guest to be defamed or ridiculed or humiliated by another guest and say to the guest that was defamed or ridiculed or humiliated by the other guest that they could leave because it will be allowed for the other guest to defame you in front of all the other guests? If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to reply accordingly.
> Lou
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:25:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl-lb » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2004, at 21:47:35
I totally agree with you GG...I use to co-own a small site and we had rules as well as disclaimers.
>
> I think that if the newspaper had a written notice somewhere that said they do not endorse any materials submitted to them, something like "the views of those writing in to this paper are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the editorial board", then no, I do not think that the editors would have to address a specific article written that might be inflammatory.
>
> Dr. Bob has a similar notice, stating that he is only responsible for his own posts. That is not as specific as what I wrote above, but one can infer he means the same.
>
> gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
In reply to Re: Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 1:53:11
> it SOUNDS like you maybe co-own the site with Dr. Bob?
No, he's just making suggestions, which everyone is welcome to do.
> Also I will say I use to be on a site called Depression Forum they long since moved BUT we had moderators and admistators and Forum Leaders, that met behind the scenes a clique as it was...and they could take posts off and whole threads also they P.M. ed you (like IM) and nobody else could see what went on. If they didn't like what was said about caring about your T for example they would say IN PRIVATE they were taking it down they did that kind of thing often. If you spoke of SA and it bothered one of them they ran to a friend and bam you were out..It boiled down to censorship not civility...It was a mess and the site lost a lot of people. IF Dr Bob wants others involved why not let *everyone* vote on if it stays or if it goes not a select group?
The idea of being more democratic has come up before, for example, at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89921.html
And recently, I myself asked about a more democratic structure:
> > Fight-flight occurs most frequently in workplaces where ... the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure.
>
> http://www.peopleincharge.org/groupdynamics.htm
>
> ... Would a more democratic structure help?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/406827.html
But there wasn't much response...
1. At that other forum, how were the moderators, etc., selected?
2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
Bob
Posted by All Done on December 6, 2004, at 2:09:32
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
> 2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
>
> It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
>
> BobDr. Bob,
Would it be made known on board that the post was reported to you? If not, and you were to review a reported post and deem it uncivil, would the process of PBC'ing or blocking then move on board?
Thanks,
Laurie
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2004, at 2:37:27
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
>
> 2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
>
> It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
>
> BobI do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
To tell the truth I've always preferred the benign (mainly benign) monarchy of this site to a democracy because I think you protect the minority from the majority, and I *always* think that's a good thing. Not that the majority here is bad or anything, but it's just human nature. While you, as someone not involved, have a bit more distance and aren't as likely to let emotions rule your decisions. (I'm sure you get emotionally involved at times, but I notice you administrate the charged threads last on occasion.) But I don't see much potential for problems with this idea. And I'm great at seeing potential problems. :)
You do realize that the occasional curse word would rarely if ever be reported, don't you? :) Which I rather like, but you might not.
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.