![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 93 to 117 of 138. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on November 2, 2004, at 13:21:54
In reply to Re: Why we need rules » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2004, at 18:08:29
> Yes, this is true. But how about a rule for how you must slow down when going up hill behind a semi?
I think the general rule is to decelerate at a rate sufficient to avoid a call to your insurance company.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:50:11
In reply to Re: Why we need rules, posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 10:32:24
> > > If something happens once, it can happen again.
> >
> > Yes, but...what is the liklihood?
>
> I don't know, but why not do what we can to minimize it?I am thinking of the idea of diminshing returns here. Is the effort really necessary to have a significant effect on the liklihood of more and more posters behaving in a similar manner?
>
> > > I think the main advantage of a rule is that it makes things more predictable. Posting the speed limit makes it easier for drivers and the police both. And for any deputies.
> >
> > Yes, this is true. But how about a rule for how you must slow down when going up hill behind a semi? How quickly should you decelerate? I'm confused, please give me a rule.
>
> Sorry, what's the issue with going uphill behind a semi?It's a metafer. A metafer! Do I have to challenge you to a duel now? Or just throw spitballs at you? ;-) (And if you are still confused, see clip of Zell Miller on Hardball immediately post-his speech at the RNC)
>
> > I feel weighed down by many specific rules for specific behaviors that are not likely to occur
>
> If they're not likely to affect you, why should you feel weighed down?Because the atmosphere feels oppressive to me. Kind of like being in a heavy, muggy, dark environment, when it could be light and breezy and relaxed, and yet still civil. How's that for a non-helpful answer? Sorry, best I can do with my feelings about this.
>
> > I also believe that the more rules you have, specifically those that have quantifiable criteria, the more likely YOU are, Dr. Bob, to make errors in administration. Whatever happened to the KISS principle?
>
> That could be seen as another advantage of a rule, errors would be easier to identify and then to correct. Simple isn't necessarily best, the most simple would be no rules...KISS isn't saying make it the simplest possible. There needs to be general rules. But common sense and judgement of the moderator can serve the same purpose as creating a new rule for every last behavior, imo. Keeping it simple means not getting so detailed that you lose the general principles.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 17:04:15
In reply to Re: Why we need rules » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:50:11
> > > > If something happens once, it can happen again.
>
> I am thinking of the idea of diminshing returns here. Is the effort really necessary to have a significant effect on the liklihood of more and more posters behaving in a similar manner?If something happens once, then effort is necessary then, anyway...
> > Sorry, what's the issue with going uphill behind a semi?
>
> It's a metafer. A metafer! Do I have to challenge you to a duel now? Or just throw spitballs at you? ;-) (And if you are still confused, see clip of Zell Miller on Hardball immediately post-his speech at the RNC)I'd prefer spitballs. Is it a long clip? Is it online?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 20:36:36
In reply to Re: Why we need rules, posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 17:04:15
Dang it. Last night I looked it up and posted the links, but I see they are not here. Must have messed something up in my late night distress and sleep deprivation.
Here is a link to the transcript. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5892840
The video is 3MB and about 8 minutes long. It does help to see it to get the whole effect. Of course the best effect is also seeing former Sen. Miller's speech at the RNC. (SCARY!)
Both of these can be found at this site http://www.newsfly.org/media.htm if you scroll down.Happy viewing. My hubby also sent me some altered pics of Sen. Miller. My favorite was the one portraying him as the Dark Lord from Star Wars. :-0
Regards,
gg
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 4, 2004, at 4:36:03
In reply to clarification of 'arbitrary' » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 20:40:57
"Why must we resort to rules rules and more rules?
That makes me very sad indeed.
I just trust my common sense best I can, and trust yours enough so that you realise I am doing that and so I trust I will not be blocked for breaking some arbitrary and obscure rule that you have to enforce regardless of context because it is there in the authorised version of the posting rules."I am not going to join this discussion as such... but here you are indeed hitting me in my chest with words that could have been my own. Since this will be a fairly long post about nothing, I am not expecting anyone to read it or answering it, but i will still write.
Rules. I grew up in a country that is said to be the one country in Europe that is most similar to America in a social and cultural context, Norway. In the depth of my heart: I don't know what that means. I have never been in the U.S., and I haven't met that many Americans. I have a friend in New York that I love very much, she must be the most heartwarm person on this planet. But I don't have a clue of how representative she is for Americans in general. I also believe in uniqety and individuality, we are all valuable and wonderful in our own way.
I grew up in Norway. Norway is a country that has many many rules. Rules that can make me puzzled for so many days, I'm just wondering... why do we have a rule that seems to make everything worse? Think about this dilemma for example: many people havetheir life ruined by a problem of falling asleep. lets say that half of these people could be cured by using Melatonine that they could for example get on prescription from the doctor. Now, I suppose that since many of you are Americans you know what Melatonine is so I am not going to tak ethe taime to explain it, you can ask if you have read this far and wonder.
One problem remains though for people with this type of sleeping disorder in Norway. You see, it is illegal to sell or import that to Norway. The reason is that it's a new discovery, we don't know enough about long term effects soandsoandso. reasonable. Except that those 50% of all with a sleeping disorder that gets their life ruined that could have been helped with Melatonin... they have to get to the doctor and get something else instead. For example benzodiazepines.
Now, please understand that growing up in Norway has made me aware of the fact that I KNOW that there are many people who find this perfectly logical and reasonable. I am really really sorry if you find me offensive now, and I hope you can forgive me, because I really don't see th elogic in this.
But this is just an example of how rules works in Norway. We have rules for absolutely everything. And if a new problem pops up, then we make it illegal. That will sure solve the problem. If there isn't a "law made rule", it is a social rule. And everyone is making great trouble making sure you also follow the social rules. Sigh.
Believe me. I am not an anarchist, I do not prefer chaos. But I am not obsessed with order either. I find a world that is filled with silly rules killing on creativity and intelligence. I think that people should be allowed to think for themselves an dtake responsibilities of good behaviour. A system that is propped with rules will not allow that. It makes us robots in Utopia.I moved to the netherlands. It's not so far from Norway, but if you view it culturally, it is very different. The Netherlands is absolutely not a perfect country, it has quite a few obvious flaws for that. But hey. It doesn't exist a such thing as a perfect country, and why would we want to have that? But it surprises me on some areas, in such a positive way that I sometimes wonder if I weren't really supposed to be Dutch from the beginning of... I just ended up in the wrong country.
The Netherlands is the most tolerant country I have ever heard of. I experience time after time that here things work perfectly fine without the ten rules we have in Norway concerning the same case 8without specific examples right now- I have to get done writing soon). And even though this is a country with 16 million inhabitants. In Norway we have 4,5 inhabitants. What difference does that make? Well, the 16m people in the Netherlands is put on an area that is something like 10% of the size of Norway. People here are stacked on top of each other compared to Norway. Norwegians would have been confused and gone crazy in such a situation without a whole bunch of rules to control the situation. here no one seems to notice it. Even mor einteresting is the fact that it's also several different cultures mixed together. It seems like the whole world is represented in the Netherlands. You learn pretty quick when things like Chinese New Year is for example, since that is loudly celebrated amongst the Chinese every year. The Africans are having markets where they sell typical african stuff, and so have the turks. You can buy whatever food you can think of, whatever clothes. They even have aboriginal museums.
Norwegians get insecure if someone from a different culture start suggesting something that isn't "typical" Norwegian. For example that muslim girls bust be allowed to wear hijab at work. Here no one would have to raise their voice about that, because no one would think of making it illegal in the Netherlands. In Norway, they are discussing this right now, up and down, inside out.
Norwegians think Norway is the superb place to live, the best place in the world. We think we have the best political system, that no one is poor in Norway, no one suffers. If someone get depressed, you might hear the comment "what is he nagging about? Doesnt he know that he lives in th ebest country in the world?". With all these rules, it has to be perfect, right?
When I was a pregnant student, I could hardly afford to buy food, because as a student I didn't have the right to any kind of supprt. I was too sick to work, so I could barely continue my studies. But hey, I know that I was lucky, because I managed. There are thousands of people in Norway that are starving on a regular basis... but I somethimes wonder if it is illegal to talk about them? I worked in a prison for 8 months as a clinical psychologist. I met people that were doomed because they didn't follow the rules they couldn't understand. That made them get put in to an even stricter system that they don't understand. I met many people in that prison that had had such a life that I felt like congratulating them for still being alive. I heard storied about 10 year old boys that had never spoken to a grown up. I heard stories av maltreating, beatings, sexual abuse, torturing. Things behind the doors that every Norwegian know about, but a scial rule makes it illegal to mention. I have friends who has experienced all the shit that these people had, but that had managed to stay out of prison. Now, well. In a way good that they are put in to prison and at least picked up somewhere?
The only problem is that the prison is full of rules reflecting the social world to the degree that it is ridiculous. I was treating a drug addict for example... a person who had been in and out of jail the last 15 years. I had agreed with my patient that now it was about time to do something about that, so he signed up on a treatment program. Then we applied for the prison, stating he had severly drug problems and needed to go through such a program to get help. he was denied becaus ethe urine samples taken from him the last three months proved that he had been using drugs in prison. He could not be scheduled for a drug abus etreatment program before he was clean. I went to someone a bit hight up in the system and asked me to explain the logic behind that, but he got mad when I asked about it. Because "everyone had to understand such a simple matter. A rule is a rule, and the rule is stating that to get any kind of advantage you have to show positive behaviour in the prison. Drug treatment is viewed as an advantage because it is assumed that the prisoner will benefit from it. A positive urine sample is a negative behaviour. Thereby, he can't go".
A collegue of mine asked the director of the prsion if she could start a drug treatment group in the prison, and the response was that "a prison is not a treatment place, but a punishment". Fair enough. I still have a problem understanding what makes this such a good thing that we keep up with it?
I agree with the previous poster. I think it is scary when common sense is swapped out with rigid rules. Who does it benefit?
Just asking
(yes I know this is probably not the right board, but I dunno which board would be correct and how to redirect it).
Charlie
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 5:38:39
In reply to Another 3-post rule?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 11:14:57
> This rule is being applied retroactively?
>
> gg
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/410911.htmlI think that makes sense, how about it?
> If that is so, what are you suggesting that I do if a future post, that you have not addressed, and has in it a statement that I did read and consider to be either accusitive or sarcastic or defaming to me, or such other similar kinds of statements, directed at me by the poster? If you are saying that I can email to you concerning the post, what could I do to deal with it if you do not reply to me within some time period that we have not established yet, and could a resonable time period for this be 12 hours?
>
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/411059.htmlYou can email me. The time period we discussed before was 2 days. For other suggestions, maybe ask at Psycho-Babble Social?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 10:41:48
In reply to Re: Just to clarify new rule, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 5:38:39
The retroactive application of this new rule, (and I assume you have decided to implement it??) worries me in that there are some who are already "in the hole" and may not know it. In addition, I think it's unfair to apply a new rule to old events. If the rule were in place at the time of the old posts, the poster may have decided on a different approach.
In pro football, coaches need to use their requests for instant replay review carefully as they only have a limited number. I think this caution would apply here as well if people had known they had a limited number prior to posting.
So in short, I do not think it should be applied retroactively.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 22:36:51
In reply to Re: Just to clarify new rule » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 10:41:48
> In pro football, coaches need to use their requests for instant replay review carefully as they only have a limited number.
I agree, there are advantages to starting from scratch. But even if A has exhausted his or her 3 requests for reviews of B:
1. A can still monitor others.
2. Others can still monitor B.Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:13:22
In reply to Re: Just to clarify new rule, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 22:36:51
> > > 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?
> >
> > A could keep questioning them. But if any more of the questioned posts were considered civil, those complaints would be considered uncivil.
>
> Even if A's requests ** were about something B said about A or something A had written ** (as opposed to some other question about the acceptability of what B posted)?Right, even then.
> we can't defend ourselves if we'd like to, because we don't need to?
>
> Minnie-Haha
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/513685.htmlSorry, let me back up. I think what makes this hard is defense sometimes becomes offense. It's always fine to clarify what you meant in a previous post (as long as you're civil), if that's what you mean...
--
> Sorry - it took a while to find them:
>
> AuntieMel
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/513714.htmlThanks for taking that time. So we do already have this rule! Sorry about my memory lapse.
I'd like to leave it up to posters whose posts are objected to to invoke this. If there's a third "false alarm", they can do so by letting me know the URLs of the objections.
Bob
Posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 19:29:23
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:13:22
Then if a person openly asks a general question about what it might be permissible to write here, then is the third such request deemed uncivil?
For example, this post is not a complaint. It is a question. How does it count?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:15:23
In reply to are 3 open inquiries about the FAQ uncivil? » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 19:29:23
> Then if a person openly asks a general question about what it might be permissible to write here, then is the third such request deemed uncivil?
The idea with this is just to limit complaints about specific posters. General questions should be fine.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 18, 2005, at 19:49:13
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:13:22
>
> Thanks for taking that time. So we do already have this rule! Sorry about my memory lapse.
>
> I'd like to leave it up to posters whose posts are objected to to invoke this. If there's a third "false alarm", they can do so by letting me know the URLs of the objections.Hi Dr. Bob,
I am interested in seeing how this rule will be applied, and thus, I am submitting these URL's to you for your inspection. They comprise 3 requests for determination from Lou to you regarding 3 of my posts. I've included your responses indicating you found my posts acceptable.I've also babblemailed these URL's to Lou as a courtesy.
Interested in how this works...
gg
Lou’s first request since the 3 complaint rule started:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/453884.html
Your reply:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/454907.htmlLou’s second request:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/510150.html
Your reply:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/510408.htmlLou’s third request:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/514678.html
Your reply:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/514805.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2005, at 1:31:32
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on June 18, 2005, at 19:49:13
> I am interested in seeing how this rule will be applied
Well, the idea is it's now up to Lou to deal in some other way with posts by you that he has issues with.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 19, 2005, at 11:46:53
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2005, at 1:31:32
Posted by so on June 25, 2005, at 23:46:55
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2005, at 1:31:32
> > I am interested in seeing how this rule will be applied
>
> Well, the idea is it's now up to Lou to deal in some other way with posts by you that he has issues with.
>
> BobIt appears all three of the post-and-replies linked here appeared at a time which the administrator was suggesting by his consideration of a future three-complaint rule that there was at that time no three-complaint rule.
I would be concerned about a person sanctioning another for violations of a self-styled rule that are alleged to have occured at a time when even the person promulgating the rule was acting as if no such rule was in force.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 21:54:25
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by so on June 25, 2005, at 23:46:55
> I would be concerned about a person sanctioning another for violations of a self-styled rule that are alleged to have occured at a time when even the person promulgating the rule was acting as if no such rule was in force.
I agree, that wouldn't seem right.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 15:41:53
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:13:22
Hi, everyone,
The deputies and I thought this was worth revisiting...
> 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.
>
> Say A objects 3 times to posts by B. If I see a problem with those posts, then I'll enforce the rules, and A has helped me administrate. B may feel angry, but that would be considered an acceptable tradeoff.
>
> If I consider those posts OK, however, it would then be up to A [to] deal in some other way with posts by B, for example, by not even reading them.
>
> A could still object to posts by C, and the 3-post "clock" would start over.Others could still object to posts by B.
> And it would go both ways, B could object to posts by A, but subject again to this 3-post rule.
> > I thought the perfect solution would be for people with concerns (including "requests for determination") to email Dr. Bob privately, rather than making a public comment on the Admin board. However, Dr. Bob recently wrote: "Thanks for the suggestion. I know it has its downsides, but overall, I think it's better for this to be out in the open."
>
> I think it's like having PBCs out in the openWell, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to appreciate this, but I think the above was a faulty analogy. A determination is like a PBC, but a request for a determination isn't.
I do think a better solution would be for requests to be emailed (or babblemailed) to me and the deputies. The time we have to deal with them is limited, however, so I'd still like to limit them.
If we do determine that there are issues, we'll continue to deal with them out in the open. And it'll continue to be fine to discuss both the particular actions we take and our general policies here.
So, to recap, we'll now consider it uncivil (1) to object here to specific posts and also (2) to object directly to us more than three times per poster per other poster.
> > If you are saying that I can email to you ... what could I do to deal with it if you do not reply to me within some time period that we have not established yet ... ?
>
> The time period we discussed before was 2 days.If you email all of us and don't hear back from any of us within 2 days, then please email all of us again. If you don't hear back from any of us within another 2 days, then go ahead and post here, but just to ask us to check our email, not to object.
> I'd like to leave it up to posters whose posts are objected to to invoke this. If there's a third "false alarm", they can do so by letting me know the URLs of the objections.
Since those posters may no longer be aware of any objections, the deputies and I will take responsibility for keeping count.
OK, how does that sound?
Bob
Posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 4:48:19
In reply to Re: objection rules, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 15:41:53
> to object directly to us more than three times per poster per other poster.
i didn't think people objected to posters so much as objecting to posts. i don't see why there should be a limit since it isn't personal...
Posted by AuntieMel on August 9, 2006, at 9:50:33
In reply to Re: objection rules, posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 4:48:19
Maybe, but if a person objects to a large number of posts by the same poster wouldn't it start to *feel* personal?
And, though Dr. Bob didn't say it, the three times rule was three objections that were ruled *not* uncivil. It didn't apply to more than three objections to truly uncivil posts.
Posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 10:12:53
In reply to Re: objection rules » Estella, posted by AuntieMel on August 9, 2006, at 9:50:33
I don't think the poster gets to see them anymore (if they are emailed to deputies / bob).
but yeah i stand corrected on the only if i've said they are civil point.
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 11:15:13
In reply to Re: objection rules » AuntieMel, posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 10:12:53
I think previously one could email as many objections as one wished. It was only on board objections that were limited.
Now it would appear on board requests for determinations to specific posts are limited to none at all and off board ones are now limited.
I think I approve of the former part, about on board requests for determinations. But I'm not sure I agree with that latter part... I can see times when that might not really be fair. But I suppose if other people saw problems with the post they could bring it to the attention of Dr. Bob and deputies.
Posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 16:54:16
In reply to Re: objection rules » Estella, posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 11:15:13
As I said somewhere, I don't understand the utility of this rule, except if Bob is overwhelmed with objections in his private email.
Even then, I can't say this strikes me as a fair idea.
I could understand limiting people's objections beyond a certain point--which I can't imagine is three per other poster per lifetime-- or if there seems to be some sort of personal issue, to asking people not to object for a while, and to give it more thought.
But three objections that Bob doesn't agree with per lifetime? That seems draconian.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Bob doesn't agree, but is wrong.
Or let's say that the poster"s comments are close to the line, but Bob wants to be more rather than less accepting. Let's say that for some reason, Bob later realizes the person has been using the suppression of objections to be just-so close to the line, but not over. He begins to regret his leniency.
Yet for all this time, everyone who's objected more than three times has been estopped from asking about Bob's judgment.
This can impose costs on many people who might want to join in on threads where this poster is active, to interact with those other than the one poster.
I don't know. I could see limits-- but three? per lifetime per objected-to poster?
Jost
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 19:53:50
In reply to Re: objection rules, posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 16:54:16
I actually agree.
I see the purpose for it on the board, but I don't really see it in emails.
I agree that at some point there should be limits, but three per person no matter what the time frame doesn't seem to be the best use of limits. And the burden of counting the requests from/to might be greater than the burden of receiving a few more emails.
Maybe the limits should be defined in another way? And perhaps after the rule of email only requests has been in place for a while, and areas of concern have been identified?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 10:30:52
In reply to Re: objection rules, posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 16:54:16
> As I said somewhere, I don't understand the utility of this rule, except if Bob is overwhelmed with objections in his private email.
There's that, not wanting to be overwhelmed, but I think it could also help keep our focus on support...
> I could understand ... if there seems to be some sort of personal issue, to asking people not to object for a while, and to give it more thought.
Maybe people will give them more thought because there's a limit?
> Or let's say that the poster"s comments are close to the line, but Bob wants to be more rather than less accepting. Let's say that for some reason, Bob later realizes the person has been using the suppression of objections to be just-so close to the line, but not over. He begins to regret his leniency.
>
> Yet for all this time, everyone who's objected more than three times has been estopped from asking about Bob's judgment.Those particular posters would be, but others could still object...
> This can impose costs on many people who might want to join in on threads where this poster is active, to interact with those other than the one poster.
Costs because that poster would be posting uncivilly? Maybe, but part of the idea is that if we haven't acted on 3 objections, there's a reasonable chance we wouldn't on additional ones, either.
Thanks for your input, and let me know if you have any other questions,
Bob
Posted by Jost on August 10, 2006, at 11:09:07
In reply to Oh OK Thanks, posted by zazenducks on August 8, 2006, at 19:05:42
Is that a rule, or a suggestion that there be discussion of a proposed rule?
I find myself baffled by the rule and at a loss as to the problem the rule solves.
But mostly, I don't understand why there should be a lifetime restriction of three objections that Bob doesn't agree with by any one poster A against posts by any other poster B.
???
Jost
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.