![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 115 to 139 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2004, at 16:38:43
In reply to cunt, posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 15:44:47
> Heh heh, Im guessing that wasn't suppposed to happen.
Oops!
> But couldn't some language be inappropriate in certain contexts?
Sure, it wouldn't be civil to call someone stupid, for example, even though that isn't considered language that could offend others. That's why I included a reminder:
> there are other civility guidelines that this doesn't address
> http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/settings.plBob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 16:58:31
In reply to Re: c*nt, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2004, at 16:38:43
So are 'damn' and 'bugger' allowed then?
I shall continue asterisking them regardless...
> Sure, it wouldn't be civil to call someone stupid, for example, even though that isn't considered language that could offend others.Yeah, I saw the reminder. I guess I was just thinking that while 'bugger' may be allowed 'go bugger yourself' just isn't nice - and it isn't nice in virtue of the word 'bugger'. Yeah, ok I see how it is the same thing...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 17:00:37
In reply to Re: c*nt » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 16:58:31
But then the following is simply false. Or meaningless given the qualification that follows.
>If automatic asterisking is turned on (which is the default) and isn't bypassed, your posts won't be considered by Dr. Bob to use language that could offend others.
Posted by Mark H. on December 28, 2004, at 17:08:32
In reply to Re: c*nt, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2004, at 16:38:43
Posted by Mark H. on December 28, 2004, at 17:52:48
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob's mental health » alexandra_k, posted by All Done on December 9, 2004, at 15:44:33
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2004, at 17:53:48
In reply to Re: c*nt » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 16:58:31
> So are 'damn' and 'bugger' allowed then?
You can look them up, the thing was, the server was just checking the bodies of posts, and not their subjects...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 18:02:06
In reply to Re: Shucky Darn, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2004, at 17:53:48
damn bugger c*nt
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2004, at 18:47:18
In reply to ok, posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 18:02:06
I could NOT resist a thread called CUNT hahahahah what the heck is going on in here?
> damn bugger c*nt
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2004, at 18:51:24
In reply to Re: ok » alexandra_k, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2004, at 18:47:18
It seems the blocker doesnt work on caps???
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2004, at 8:16:52
In reply to Re: ok » alexandra_k, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2004, at 18:47:18
> I could NOT resist a thread called C*NT hahahahah what the heck is going on in here?
Oops again! Thanks for, um, helping me test this. :-)
Bob
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 29, 2004, at 19:27:42
In reply to Re: ok, posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2004, at 8:16:52
Lmao thank you Dr. Bob my eyes almost bugged out when I saw that bypass the caps..glad you got it fixed ...thanks for not killing me :)
> > I could NOT resist a thread called C*NT hahahahah what the heck is going on in here?
>
> Oops again! Thanks for, um, helping me test this. :-)
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2005, at 0:56:04
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
Redirected from:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/471603.html
> Adding a button could be a good idea if it was an *additional* tool. I might have a problem with it if it is used instead of cruising the boards.
>
> The way it is now you get to 'know' the people better than if you only looked at posts that were pointed out to you.
>
> And there is also the danger of crying wolf syndrome.
>
> AuntieMelI was thinking it would be used instead. I agree, not getting to know people as well would in fact be a disadvantage. Crying wolf ("overdoing it") came up before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425651.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:03:08
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:31:43
> > If someone "overdoes it", can't you just tell them so?
>
> I could apply some sort of 3-complaint rule.Maybe I shouldn't wait for the button. One possibility might be to accept complaints that are "upheld", but to limit those that aren't. What if a 3rd (about a particular other poster's posts) that isn't were considered uncivil?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 12:14:40
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:03:08
Think twice before endorsing.
In fact, I think that sword has a distinct tilt to it.
I like the button idea better.
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 12:19:19
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:03:08
Just require that people email you or the deputies about specific posts. General questions could be brought to Admin as before, but complaints about specific posts could be considered something that should be emailed.
I think that it's great to uphold the civility rules, but I also think that the issue of hurt feelings aren't being addressed here very well.
Requiring the emailing of complaints about posts could address that. Maybe a separate email address for that?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:31:33
In reply to Double edged sword there, folks., posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 12:14:40
> I like the button idea better.
Wouldn't the button come with a rule like this, anyway?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 12:38:34
In reply to Re: Double edged sword, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:31:33
No, I personally think people should be able to complain to you as often as they like. It serves a needed purpose, and it hurts no one. You could have a standard "I think it's ok" response.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 11, 2005, at 13:59:20
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:03:08
> > > If someone "overdoes it", can't you just tell them so?
> >
> > I could apply some sort of 3-complaint rule.
>
> Maybe I shouldn't wait for the button. One possibility might be to accept complaints that are "upheld", but to limit those that aren't. What if a 3rd (about a particular other poster's posts) that isn't were considered uncivil?
>
> BobThere have been a number of good ideas suggested. If enough are in agreement that there is a problem to be addressed, why not try something? You could even annouce that it (whatever method is chosen first) is going to be used for a trial period. (Can you send an email to all Babble members at once?) If that doesn't work, you could modify it, or move on to another idea, and try it for a trial period. What could we try?
* An ignore button.
* An "X" number of complaints rule (but IMO, not as proposed above... I'll describe separately).
* A request that all challenges to other posts' civility be directed via Babblemail to Dr. Bob (or a deputy) IF the person doing the challenging has not tried first (civilly), to get the poster to clarify what he/she meant.As for talk of being more democratic, if an issue has come to a head, why not vote on it? We have the Psycho-Babble Open group that has polling features, and which only allows one vote (which can be changed until the poll closes) per Yahoo ID. Prior to the vote, members would be advised that it was coming up (once again, via a mailing to all members). There could even be "pro" and "con" positions published on Psycho-Babble or the Open group, so that people who don't have a fixed opinion, but who want to vote, could educate themselves on the issue and make a decision. This doesn't seem that hard to me. Maybe getting the details set up at first, but after that... Why not?
If we're not gonna do anything else about this, I think *at least* the posters whose posts are being questioned (without first being asked themselves for clarification) should be notified that their posts ARE being scrutinized (that, IMO, has the potential to arouse ill-will toward the posters being questioned) so that they may defend themselves!
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 11, 2005, at 14:39:15
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:03:08
> ... One possibility might be to accept complaints that are "upheld", but to limit those that aren't. What if a 3rd (about a particular other poster's posts) that isn't were considered uncivil?
Dinah was right about this rule having unintended (I hope) consequences. To me, the goal is to keep particular posters from habitually (like many times a day/week) asking about the civility of others' posts. But the rule as you've outlined it above would prevent people from trying to change or stop behavior they find offensive, though others might not. (Unless that IS the intended consequence, in which case, I'm agin it. For instance, after the third time I asked you if a particular posters' habitually questioning others' posts was uncivil, and having you say "I think it's acceptable," I could no longer try to change that habit, without getting blocked... Even if that was only my third request in a year and the habitual questioner was questioning others' posts every day! He/she would only have to make sure he/she never questioned a particular person's posts more than twice.)
I see a rule like this as having a more conditions on it, like:
If a particular poster *habitually questions (any) others' posts
And he/she does so without first asking the other to clarify
Or he/she was not even an active poster on that part of the thread
Or he/she is not the subject of the post or thread
Then that poster can be warned and/or blocked.* The meaning of habitually to be decided: More than once a week? More than six times a month? The details aren't super important to me... I trust you on this. (And we need to remember that if the post in question is uncivil, it is most likely going to come to light via the offended parties active in the thread. It's not like the loss of an unofficial deputy or two is going to throw the forum into chaos. And said unofficial deputies would still be able to pick and choose some posts to question.)
BUT, as I stated before, whatever we do, I think the person whose post is being questioned should be notified they're being scrutinized, so that they may defend themselves.
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 15:22:27
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:03:08
> Maybe I shouldn't wait for the button.
Why not? Because of the limited time you have budgeted as the sole programmer for the site?>One possibility might be to accept complaints that are "upheld", but to limit those that aren't. What if a 3rd (about a particular other poster's posts) that isn't were considered uncivil?
>
> Bob
What happened to "Let's continue trying to work things out"? Has it become "Lets see what we can do to silence those who expose possible inconsistency in Robert Hsiung's administration of a mental health board?"Things that decrease access to bureaucratic remedies tend to increase the likelihood of untoward bureaucratic behavior.
Beyond damaging my ability to ask why people are allowed to write things that encourage me to feel put down, such as calling my laws hypocritical and pathetic, your proposal might contravene ethical guidelines established by yourself and your professional peers. Those ethical guidelines say public mental health forums should include the opporunity for members to report negative experiences and for those reports to be accessible to your peers. Now, ostensibly for the good of a group you have systematiclly selected over several years because of their tolerance for your unique administrative style, you seem to propose eliminating any sustained feedback that could expose to your peers inconsistencies in your administration. You propose that you become the sole arbiter not only of what is civil, but also of what criticisms presented to you about your decisions will be available to your peers and to prospective group members who might want to review your administrative style before deciding whether to participate in a potentially harmful activity.
Perhaps, as has been repeatedly suggested, you need to find another term than "civil" if you plan to continue as a psychiatrist creating arbitrary rules of behavior that define what you call civility, but which widely diverge from community practices on the Internet or from widely accepted definitions of civility. Systematically excluding people from access to administrative remedies is not consistent with what is considered civil in the vast majority of communities, especially among Western democratic populations.
.
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 11, 2005, at 23:02:43
In reply to refusal to listen to requests for fairness » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 15:22:27
on the mark!
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2005, at 22:44:41
In reply to refusal to listen to requests for fairness » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 15:22:27
> I personally think people should be able to complain to you as often as they like.
>
> DinahPrivately, or here, too? I was thinking here...
> What could we try?
>
> * An ignore button.
> * An "X" number of complaints rule (but IMO, not as proposed above... I'll describe separately).
> * A request that all challenges to other posts' civility be directed via Babblemail to Dr. Bob (or a deputy) IF the person doing the challenging has not tried first (civilly), to get the poster to clarify what he/she meant.
>
> Minnie-HahaI think it's better not to be dependent on a button to ignore others. And in theory it's a good idea, but in practice posters can tire of requests for clarification.
> > Maybe I shouldn't wait for the button.
>
> Why not? Because of the limited time you have budgeted as the sole programmer for the site?Right.
> What happened to "Let's continue trying to work things out"?
It's proving hard to do?
> Things that decrease access to bureaucratic remedies tend to increase the likelihood of untoward bureaucratic behavior.
I'm not sure what "untoward bureaucratic behavior" you have in mind, but I think there maybe something to be said for having to think through requests for "bureaucratic remedies"...
> ethical guidelines say public mental health forums should include the opporunity for members to report negative experiences and for those reports to be accessible to your peers.
>
> soWhat guidelines are those?
Reports of negative experiences could still be made here, it's just that complaints about particular posters would be limited. And reports could always be made elsewhere.
--
It sounds like people would rather not limit complaints here?
Bob
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 13, 2005, at 23:22:37
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2005, at 22:44:41
> It sounds like people would rather not limit complaints here?
>
> BobHeavens no, I'm not against limiting complaints here! That's why I was listing different options that have been suggested, plus my own suggestion, which is a variation of the 3-complaint rule. Could you please comment on that? Especially if there are parts of it you don't agree with, and why.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511068.html
Posted by so on June 13, 2005, at 23:23:40
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2005, at 22:44:41
Posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2005, at 9:17:00
In reply to refusal to listen to requests for fairness » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 15:22:27
It was my understanding that such a rule was already in place.
3 complaints about poster B by poster A - as long as all three complaints were deemed civil would be the limit.
Didn't that happen a few months ago?
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.