![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 128 to 152 of 192. Go back in thread:
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?
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:58:52
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2005, at 22:44:41
> > I personally think people should be able to complain to you as often as they like.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Privately, or here, too? I was thinking here...I think people should be able to complain to you as much as they like, privately. Again, perhaps you could have a separate email address for that so as not to have too much coming into your inbox.
I don't think you can conclude that people don't want to limit the complaints "here". Perhaps that they don't like the parameters of your suggestion, or that they don't want to limit complaints to you privately. But I think there seems to be a majority that would like to see complaints about individual posts or posters be made off board. General complaints about concepts could still be made here.
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:59:20
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:58:52
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 11:17:57
In reply to Re: refusal to listen to requests for fairness » so, posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2005, at 9:17:00
> 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?I have not yet completed a methodical analysis of administrative interventions over the past several months.
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 11:20:22
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:58:52
> I don't think you can conclude that people don't want to limit the complaints "here".
Yes, he can conclude that. I am a person, and at least myself and one other person hold that view. Perhaps it might be accurate to say "not all people..." or to cite a lack of concensus.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2005, at 17:02:39
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 11:20:22
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:03:06
In reply to Re: refusal to listen to requests for fairness » so, posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2005, at 9:17:00
> 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!
Right.
> He/she would only have to make sure he/she never questioned a particular person's posts more than twice.)
That still would be an improvement, wouldn't it?
> 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.I understand the potential benefit of asking for clarification, but in practice, that hasn't always been welcomed, either.
I don't think someone needs to be active or the subject to have a valid opinion about the civility of a post.
And the more conditions there are, the more complicated the whole thing gets...
> 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.
>
> Minnie-HahaIf the complaint isn't upheld, then do they need to defend themselves? If it is, then they'd be notified and could respond (either here or by email)...
> 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?
>
> AuntieMelDid it? Can you post a link? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 8:19:31
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:03:06
It was never put into effect.
It wouldn't solve the issue many people seem interested in. But it might solve complaints about the issue.
How about my current suggestion below, that each poster be allowed one or two posts about specific posts per month on Admin (not responding to other people's requests perhaps, but one or two complaints that they originate). Then after that, they may still complain as many times as they want, but privately in an email to you.
Limiting the complaints about one poster by another would seem to only apply in a minority of cases, and would mainly benefit the administrator of the site, IMHO.
This would seem to address the issue that many people would like to see addressed.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 8:42:36
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 8:19:31
> How about my current suggestion below, that each poster be allowed one or two posts about specific posts per month on Admin (not responding to other people's requests perhaps, but one or two complaints that they originate). Then after that, they may still complain as many times as they want, but privately in an email to you.
I could live with this. My suggestion only had to do with "public" complaints anyway, though maybe that's not clear. I think a person should still be allowed to ask about posts privately. It's only the public requests that I'm concerned about.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 9:35:19
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 8:19:31
Dinah,
You wrote something like,[...this addresses issues of other people...].
Could there be exceptions to your proposed rule to allow requests without making a count of them for:
A. posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings
B. posts that have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward a person
C. posts that Dr. Hsiung has not replied to the request for a determination so that one could ask again without 2 days to elaps to request it again
D. posts that could be considerd to be a persoanal attack at another person
E. posts that are of a poster that Dr. Hsiung applied something like the unconstitutional {U. S.} practice of {Ex Post Facto} to.
F. Posts by posters in the past here that have ridiculed me or others, belittled me or others, brought up my jewishness or the faith of others, promulgated their church group's doctrins that IMO have the potential to degrade and debase jews.
If your proposed rules could have the effect of shielding those type of posts from public view, would you be in favor of that? After all, if the requests could be made to be taken behind the scenes from public view, could not that be a way that could have the potential in your opinion to still my voice here and have the potential to foster those type of things that those type of posts promulgate?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:49:59
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-shield? » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 9:35:19
No, I do not believe it will still your voice. You will still be bringing the posts to the attention of Dr. Bob and the deputies. If Dr. Bob believes that the posts are doing any of the things named, he will act. If Dr. Bob does not believe the posts are doing any of the things named, the result will be the same as present, except that people won't feel as hurt and angry. If that is the point of the requests, to have Dr. Bob sanction posts that are antisemitic or uncivil under site guidelines, then the private communications will work just as well.
I will tell you frankly that I bring my administrative concerns concerning particular posts directly to Dr. Bob, and I do not consider that my voice is stilled. I still discuss broad concepts on board.
The other possibility I can think of offhand is that the requests for determination are not made for Dr. Bob's benefit at all, but to make public the requester's concerns - even though they are addressed to Dr. Bob. I suppose that the making public would be stilled. However, the offsetting benefit would that people wouldn't feel hurt or angry over having posts that Dr. Bob considers ok brought up for review over one or two times a month.
And you could still bring one or two posts a month to public attention, if Dr. Bob does not act on them privately.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 10:28:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-shield? » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 9:49:59
Dinah,
You wrote,[...don't think your voice would be stilled...could email Dr. Hsiung...] So, he could also not reply on the board or to me or to delay hes board respons so that the delay could have the potential to cause more of the same posts adn the delay could have the potential to allow Dr. Hsiung to not give a determination at all, for he could say that since time has run or since something else has happened, that his determination is moot.
But could it? If I requested a determination, the determination is for the rest of the board and for the time going on. The decision could be relevant for all time in the future, not just for that particular post at that time.
If you think that I am asking for the determination so that the poster could be sanctioned, I have written that that is not my intent. My intent is to discover if sommething is acceptable {or not} and not to have others sanctioned.
Thearfore, if there is no public reply, and my voice is not allowed to post, then I would like for you or anyone else to write what your definition is of a person's voice being stilled, for my definition is that if a person's voice is stilled , they have been forced to either say less so that others here less of their voice, or they are silenced so that their vloice can not be heard at all.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 10:35:26
In reply to Lou's replyo Dinah's post- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 10:28:21
If your intent is to have your objection to a post recorded for all time (or as long as Babble is around), then yes, your voice will be stilled in that intent.
But in many ways on Babble our voices are stilled. We are not allowed total freedom of speech.
Dr. Bob needs to weigh the desires of some posters to have their complaints visible for eternity against the desires of other posters, which they have expressed better than I could.
As far as people believing something is ok in the time between a post is made and Dr. Bob comes to the board, if many posts which do not meet board civility guidelines are made, the situation could be seen as escalating, and you could contact the deputies about an escalating situation.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:27:11
This is following the post at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512950.html I hope you don't mind that I started a separate thread on the subject, since it seems to be referenced in numerous places and the discussion is therefore hard to follow.
Here is the last suggestion for a 3-complaint rule (that I know of) that you’ve posted:
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?
And here’s what I described as an unintended consequence of the rule as suggested.
> > 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!
Your response to this was “Right.” But has anyone else got an example of an unintended consequence that concerns them?
Anyway, I was talking about trying to change a behavior that some feel is uncivil, and not necessarily about posts that are about me or something I’ve said. This scenario is a little different. What would happen under the 3-complaint rule as proposed? I am Poster A. Twice I have asked Administration to make a call on Poster B’s posts – that weren’t about me or something I’d written. Twice Admin has ruled that his/her posts were civil. Would I ever again be able to question a Poster B post? Even if it’s about me or something I’ve said? Would I need to be 100 percent sure (if that’s possible) that he/she has been uncivil without risking a PBC or block?
> > He/she [a person habitually questioning other people's posts] would only have to make sure he/she never questioned a particular person's posts more than twice.
> That still would be an improvement, wouldn't it?
It depends on your point of view.
Let’s assume there are 1,000 members on this site. Let’s say that Poster A questions each member’s posts two times. That would be 2,000 acceptability requests. If Poster A only made one request a day, the site would face them until about January 2011. Then again, if he/she decides to question only half of the members’ posts, at the same rate, the site would only face about 32 months of such requests. Of course, that’s only if Poster A alone decides to exercise this right, at this rate – and assuming no new members join.
> > 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.> I understand the potential benefit of asking for clarification, but in practice, that hasn't always been welcomed, either.
>
> I don't think someone needs to be active or the subject to have a valid opinion about the civility of a post.
>
> And the more conditions there are, the more complicated the whole thing gets...OK, I’ll drop the first two conditions and reformat the suggestion. The following is less complicated and allows people to publicly question as many posts as they’d like that are about themselves or something they’ve posted, or even posts that they just perceive to be about themselves or something they’ve written.
If a member makes habitual, public requests to Administration about the acceptability of others' posts, then that member is subject to a warning or a block, unless the member perceives that the posts are about himself or herself, or something he/she has written.
“Habitual” here means x times in an x (day/week/month) period. (Whatever Admin thinks is fair.)
BTW: What would the proposed 3-complaint rule look like when formally written? Here’s what I came up with:
If during “a calendar year” [substitute whatever Admin thinks is fair] Poster A questions Poster B’s posts two or more times, and those requests lead to two judgments by Administration that the questioned posts were civil, then any subsequent request by Poster A about Poster B, which follows with a judgment that the questioned post was civil, shall result in Poster A being blocked.
Of course, if there are any other conditions that you think would make this fair, they should be written into the rule. (For instance, what if Poster A makes a request for a ruling about a post that he/she perceives to be about him/herself?)
> > 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.
> If the complaint isn't upheld, then do they need to defend themselves? If it is, then they'd be notified and could respond (either here or by email)...
I’d like to. And I think others would like to as well, though some may not. Maybe that could be part of the registration process. A question like, “If your posts are brought to the attention of Administration for a ruling on their acceptability would you like to be notified?” If I got a notice, I could defend myself, and I wouldn’t have to keep an eye on Admin to make sure my posts haven’t been challenged.
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.