![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 190 to 214 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 16:49:20
In reply to Re: Lar? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 16:29:56
>
> > I would rather have not seen a single word from him, with respect to ignoring my participation in the debate, than have him say the brief few words he did.
>
> Any chance there's some transference going on here?Thanks for the suggestion, but this is all Dr. Bob stuff. You see, when a person is blocked, and let's assume the person feels unfairly so, one of the most critical details is that time is of the essence. Six weeks, or whatever, is ticking away, and he has rendered you powerless to speak to the issue. That is, except for email. And let's say he takes three weeks to get back to you, and he asks some question that he should have already known the answer to.....and it takes three more weeks to hear from him....it's almost worst than being ignored altogether. Every time he enjoins you, he fosters hope. But then, he disappears. He doesn't teel you he's disappearing. He just does. And your block expires, and it's been a complete and utter waste. He hasn't met your need for timely resolution. It is rendered moot, and that is not a resolution. There needs to be a better way than Bob is God and you can take it or leave it. I can't even manage to see him as consistent, let alone fair.
Here, he has literally said to me that he is not ignoring me, yet his attention is anywhere else.
It's mad-making. I thought I forgave him. I was trying to work towards meeting everybody's needs. I do have a vision, guiding me.
There's more than just triggers at play in this thread, and it would be naive and insensitive of me to not note those other issues, also. Yes, I do understand the pain and suffering of blocks. Oh, yes I do.
And he ignored me. Or, better yet, I have no convincing evidence to the contrary.
I dunno. I just dunno.
Zen asked a really important question of me. Why do I put energy into this? At this point, I don't know. I must be nuts, to keep trying.
And, given that......
TTF?
Lar
Posted by itsme2003 on March 16, 2006, at 17:00:45
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
Dr Bob,
In your last post was the following:
>> I HAVE BEEN ON BOARDS THAT HAVE BEEN RUINED BY HAVING THE WORD "TRIGGER" IN ALMOST EVERY POST ON THE BOARD.
>I'm curious about that. In what way were they ruined for you?
Even though I am educated, intelligent, and articulate I don't know how to answer your question without running afoul of the civility rules. I'll try to give you a terse answer that will at least give you an idea of why I felt that way.
Let's just say that it involves the tyranny of the minority, whining, creative ideas about how anything can be triggering, crying wolf, narcissism trumping content, bullying and controlling behaviors, The Princess And The Pea, some people feeling their problems are more wothy of respect than others, and warning fatigue.
If every post on the board is triggering then what possible benefit could be obtained by warning about each post.
To me, that board had descended into a dysfunctional state and was not doing a good job at its intened purpose because so much energy was wasted on a sideshow.
I see a lot of energy wasted here because of the civility rules, and I would hate to see the waste expanded by having triggering rules that invite some of the same problem areas that I have cited above.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 17:05:21
In reply to Re: Lar? » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 16:49:20
>It is rendered moot, and that is not a resolution.
Yeah, I know the timeliness of responses is something that others have been bothered by, too, myself included at times.
>
> Here, he has literally said to me that he is not ignoring me, yet his attention is anywhere else.Well, I think we interpret this differently. I think ignoring you would mean you had absolutely no reply. I think what he said was that he disagrees. That's not the same as ignoring you. It doesn't mean he didn't read your posts and consider your views. He may not agree. But I suspect this is not something you and I will agree on, either, as it seems quite personal.
>
> And he ignored me. Or, better yet, I have no convincing evidence to the contrary.Other than his post to you.
I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here. Is now the best time for you personally to work towards this? Can it be taken up again in a bit? Maybe see if anyone else helps hold the flag for you?
I admit I don't quite "get" the level of intensity I'm feeling in your posts. I do feel it, though.
Please take care,
gg
Posted by JenStar on March 16, 2006, at 18:27:02
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
I like this suggestion more than any other I've yet read. I am absolutely not in favor of mandatory trigger warnings. Thanks for taking the time to write all this out!
jenstar
Posted by itsme2003 on March 17, 2006, at 8:21:02
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
When I first entered into this discussion I suggested automated filters as part of the solution. I now agree that they will not work here.
I still strongly prefer a non-mandatory system such as I discussed at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620768.html.
I could live with a mandatory system that was simple, non-punitive, allowed a "reasonable person" interpretation of the rules, resolved ambiguities in favor of the poster, and was not expansive in its definition of a trigger.
Larry, I'd like to see a complete proposal of your thoughts on this. Your ideas sound good and if we are to have a mandatory system, I'd like it to be based on the ideas that you have put forth. Truthfuly, it seems like this whole idea of trigger warnings is bogged down and nothing is going to come from this, but I hope for your sake and the sake of many others that something gets done.
I encourage you to not get too discouraged if nothing comes of this. Sometimes it takes ideas a while to sink in and if nothing comes from this now, what has been done here will prepare for some action at some time in the future.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 9:58:22
In reply to No automated filtering, posted by itsme2003 on March 17, 2006, at 8:21:02
> When I first entered into this discussion I suggested automated filters as part of the solution. I now agree that they will not work here.
I very much appreciate your saying so.
> I still strongly prefer a non-mandatory system such as I discussed at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620768.html.
>
> I could live with a mandatory system that was simple, non-punitive, allowed a "reasonable person" interpretation of the rules, resolved ambiguities in favor of the poster, and was not expansive in its definition of a trigger.I've asked that people consider just that. A mandatory version of your proposal. Just because something has teeth, doesn't predict biting. I've had dogs.....blah blah.
> Larry, I'd like to see a complete proposal of your thoughts on this.
I was afraid to lay out a "grand vision." I already have it, in my head, but I didn't think that was an approach that anyone would consider. Certainly not His Bobness. He has poured so much of himself into this place. Yet, he has also earned his critics.
> Your ideas sound good and if we are to have a mandatory system, I'd like it to be based on the ideas that you have put forth. Truthfuly, it seems like this whole idea of trigger warnings is bogged down and nothing is going to come from this, but I hope for your sake and the sake of many others that something gets done.
I know it looks like I have been trying to force this down people's throats, and for that, I'm sorry. But the truth is much simpler. I was just about ready to go, to go quietly, just not be here any more, like so many before me, when I saw that innocent-sounding question that sparked this massive thread. And I thought, well, I can't have this inside of me and carry it off, unseen. The rest, as they say, is history.
At this juncture, however, I'm leaning very much towards my former position. I have good argument for that.
My disputes in this thread have been tripartate, in three distinct themes. Babble, the administration. Babble, the people. And Bob. And as you have indubitably become aware, those main and the many subordinate issues are very important to me. The only way to address any of it was right out here in front of everybody. I'm sorry if it was a spectacle. But I have confined myself to this forum, these topics, and my feelings. I wouldn't waste my breath, if Babble didn't matter to me.
> I encourage you to not get too discouraged if nothing comes of this. Sometimes it takes ideas a while to sink in and if nothing comes from this now, what has been done here will prepare for some action at some time in the future.
I know. It took me over two years of therapy to even consider that I had PTSD. I know that.
Yet, one must also consider timing, in the context of his own life. And that's what I'll be doing over the immediate future. Considering the timing. I'm leaning very much towards Babble-broken right now. I'm so far into the grey, it is virtually black. I'm already anticipating the snick of the latch, as the door comes to.
And, as I would hope would come from anyone's efforts to address issues of grand importance, I have a new insight into the nature of my particular distress, here at Babble. I'll describe my insight more fully in (a) subsequent post(s). Perhaps, even in a new thread, I don't know. I'm not sure that I even can participate any longer, given my new insight.
I thank you for not bailing on me. I thank you for considering the coherence of my ideas. They're not random. They are anything but products of the moment. I've been thinking about these issues (and discussing it all with my therapist, and anyone else who would listen) ever since I landed here. Please do not mistake my passion for any hint or element of poorly thought out ideas. Anything but.
To all Babblers:
My passion is proportional to my pain. I didn't want this to be about me. I wanted it to be about Babble, the Babble I envision. I am not the perfect speaker for that vision. But, I'm trying to do it, anyway, despite my own frailties. That's why I'm so touchy when someone judges me, in even the slightest way, instead of my ideas. I don't need anyone to tell me I'm hurting. Just leave me be, the spectacle that I am, and attend to the debate. Please.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2006, at 12:04:54
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
How about for now, trigger warnings become site policy, strongly encouraged but leaving punishment details (if any) for later.
There could be something in the FAQ describing what a trigger is and why the posts should be flagged.
Posters can continue, as they do, flagging other posts as triggers or possible triggers.
The addition would be you and the deputies would also, either by following up a posters flag or by flagging it ourselves, follow it up in an official capacity, with a link to the FAQ.
This is short of mandatory (as there is no punishment) yet it is a much stronger encouragement, backed by the site owner for all to see (not just the followers of admin.)
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 19:04:29
In reply to Lar D.NP please. » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 14:18:40
I will extend the same consideration
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 19:56:32
In reply to Re: Lar D.NP also D.N B and E-mail thanks, posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 19:04:29
I expect her to be blocked.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 20:02:56
In reply to That was a clear violation of a DNP request, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 19:56:32
Posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:31:09
In reply to Re: Lar D.NP also D.N B and E-mail thanks, posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 19:04:29
stoppit :-(
please?
Posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:41:20
In reply to Re: No automated filtering » itsme2003, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 9:58:22
how about a happy board...
(the notion has come up before)
and then just put
TRIGGER on top of all the other boards.i mean... substance... that boards just a big substance abuse trigger isn't it?
maybe i should read the thread sorry
please don't fight :-(
please :-(
Posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:42:37
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult » itsme2003, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:55:46
no i'm not going to read this.
((((larry)))) i'm sorry you are hurting.
((((gabbi)))) i'm sorry you are hurting too.
i don't know what to say. sorry :-(
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 20:45:29
In reply to ((((Gabbi)))) (((((Larry))))), posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:31:09
Thanks Agent 858, it's okay. : )
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 20:55:55
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:42:37
If my post was indeed a violation, and I have to play this game outside of the sandbox
it was no more a violation than this,Re: DNP....saved me the trouble (nm) Larry Hoover 3/16/06
and I don't give a d*mn if there's a block, or I would have mentioned it yesterday.
I only want my request respectedI had to ad the D.N.B DNE. because of new circumstances, and
it wasn't any more than an intent to clarify as per the last discussion about D.N.P and D.N.B
I find it difficult to conceive of it being seen otherwise.
That post was not directed to Lar, the thanks was to you.
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 20:57:01
In reply to ((((Gabbi)))) (((((Larry))))), posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:31:09
Yes I'll be all too glad to stoppit. I'm tickled that you like the name!
I'm not hurting, but thanks. I'll save that for when I am.
(((((Agent858)))))
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 22:49:24
In reply to That was a clear violation of a DNP request, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 19:56:32
I am confused.
I'm not angry.
I saw my name in a subject line, after a mutual DNP. I had already written mine to her, when I saw that she had just sent one to me, as I clicked on the edit screens. So, I changed my subject line to indicate that I meant a mutual event, in light of her post to me, being virtually a perfect coincidence in time. Earlier today, when I said, saved me the trouble.
When I said just now that that looked like a violation of the DNP, not only with my name in the subject line, but including an idea not covered by babble rules (email isn't a babble concern, is it?), I thought I'd make a point out of what I thought a fair block for such an offense might be. I thought the one day thing would be an idea to consider. That's what I wanted my point to be. The one day thing.
I don't like rules that aren't clear and concise. Frankly, if you read the FAQ, neither one of us has grounds to DNP the other. Which isn't fair, as custom has invaded the territory of guidelines. Remember what I said about the FAQ, earlier?
It seemed like inverse serendipity, to me, to bang my head one more time against poorly implemented administrative policies. Rules should not be about hair-splitting. I was bemused, sort of, to poke that fairness issue like that.
The comment about email itself totally floored me, as I received an unsolicited email from that party hours after that post was made here.
I don't know what's going on. I want no part of a fight. Or a dispute over such a matter.
I just wanted to be left alone by her. For a little while because things seem weird.
I don't want anybody blocked. Not Bob's version.
I think this is just very weird. And I need to go to bed. I hope this is just a bad dream, in effect.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 22:54:56
In reply to Re: That was a clear violation of a DNP request, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 22:49:24
but I'm going to try and turn out a silk purse anyway.
DNPs are clumsy, and IMHO ill-conceived. It reverses onus. I have long lobbied Bob for an ignore button, in place of this rule.
It makes more sense, to me, to put control in the hand of the viewer. I have "block sender" in any software that I use to view other boards. If it bugs me, I alter the setting, and nobody else has to blink an eye.
This other way is so counter-intuitive to me, that I just think it's bad. That's articulate Lar, reduced to three letter words.
G'nite all minus 1 (not meant to violate DNP).
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 22:57:01
In reply to My brain hurts, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 22:54:56
sleepy time drugs are making me incoherent
I hope no animals were injured in the making of this film.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 17, 2006, at 23:21:25
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2006, at 12:04:54
Sounds reasonable to me. And in the process, perhaps the entire concept could be fleshed out more as to what would be considered a triggering level of mention.
I still think fellow posters should be encouraged to put up trigger warnings, because that would be the quickest way to get a warning up, and least formal. But perhaps a thanks to the poster flagging it from Dr. Bob or a deputy with a link to the FAQ? And of course, if no one else flags it, Dr. Bob or a deputy could.
That would be kind of good in a lot of ways, in that there would be more community involvement in the evolution of standards.
And if it doesn't work out, Dr. Bob could always adjust things. Which would be easier than reversing a policy written in stone, I think. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 17, 2006, at 23:43:22
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on March 17, 2006, at 23:21:25
I really really really think that having the option to self-flag a post via a check box in the posting window would be a great addition. (sorry to suggest more work, Dr. Bob). I know from other ventures I'm involved in that the easier you make it for someone to do something, in this case, the fewest clicks...the more likely it will happen.
I suppose if someone were very cautious and self-flagged all of their posts, we could give a gentle request and clarification.
What do others think about having this feature, if it's possible?
gg
Posted by Dinah on March 17, 2006, at 23:47:54
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY, posted by gardenergirl on March 17, 2006, at 23:43:22
If Dr. Bob can do it, that would seem to be a good idea. Would it sort of be like "add name of previous poster" or "no message" in degree of difficulty? Or more like the "report this post" button that seems to be a high degree of difficulty.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 17, 2006, at 23:52:26
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on March 17, 2006, at 23:47:54
You mean the one that's so difficult it doesn't exist yet? ;)
I was imagining it as being sort of like the Amazon links...a series of checkboxes for maybe the "big 5" (just making that up, didn't count the list) subjects. I think someone actually mocked up what it might look like in a previous post in this thread.
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 18, 2006, at 8:38:11
In reply to My brain hurts, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 22:54:56
Sometimes the pain is so bad, I can't think. I'm on nine meds for pain, and it's not working. Last night I couldn't string two thoughts together, and I'm sorry to anybody who tried to make sense of what I was rambling on about.
I can't apologize to that other party, because that's illegal here, but I would if I could. I am concerned about her, not about me.
I intended to post a post more like this one, last night, but I found myself incapable of doing so. Again, mea culpa.
The points I was trying to bring out:1. Hair-splitting arguments indicate bad rules have been made. I intended my first post re: violation of the DNP to draw attention to the hair-splitting issue.
2. In cases of hair-splitting, I would hope that the penalties incurred, if any, would be equally as thin. 24-hour "chillin'" blocks ought to be invoked, if any penalty is to be invoked at all. Anything more than that, is uncivil. (More on incivility in a later post, Bob willing.) So, I meant the two posts to be considered together. One, the rule is bad. Two, the usual penalties are unfair.
The first resort ought to be clarification. Civility is about manners. An opportunity to clarify is mannerly. Clarification can be invoked by either party, in a mannerly discussion.
3. For clarification's sake, my subject line which included the phrase "saved me the trouble" contains ellipsis, and ought explicitly to have said, "that saved me the trouble".
4. I had intended to impose a "cooling off" DNP of my own (my only option, presently), and only upon a moment's reflection did I realize that by not explicitly asking for a mutual DNP, I was not going to obtain the results I desired. So, I clarified in the next post, made immediately following the former one.
Why is all this even at issue?
I've been studying the administrative procedures at great depth, because even though I consider myself to be an intelligent and well-read person, I struggle to comprehend the implementations used here. I read a lot of law. I read a lot. And nowhere on the planet am I more mystified, generally, than I am here, when I try to negotiate *these* administrative matters.
I'd like a second look at pretty much everything we do, with respect to blocks. I'm not asking to change everything. I'm asking for another look. I saw my opportunity to use an example right before our eyes. I didn't anticipate a bad drug reaction, and my subsequent incapacity. I'm sorry (Babble at large).
Back to DNPs, explicitly.The rule was originally drafted to specifically address harassment. As I recall, one poster felt that another poster was "following her around", and commenting on every post she made. All were civil posts, but they became unwelcome.
Since that time, I have clear recollections of the rule being used only twice in that way.
There were discussions about whether a DNP might be a reasonable way to deal with hurt feelings, too. Civil posts can still be provocative, after all. I've studied the discussions in absolute thoroughness, and: a) I saw no evidence of a concensus; b) I saw no evidence that the matter had been properly drafted as a proposal to put to the members of Babble overtly, for further discussion; c) the FAQ was not ammended; and, d) I saw no evidence that Bob had even made a final decision, unless he wishes question marks to become a mark of certainty.
In brief: a) cliques ought not to change rules, and not tell anybody; and b) if (a), nobody should be penalized because of (a).
Apart from all of those issues, using DNP requests to create "chillin' zones" is bad policy. I think it fosters unhealthy coping strategies, and serves to create mountains out of molehills.
A better alternative, to manage these episodes of hurt feelings, would be to implement an ignore function. Here's why.
1. Under the current policy, the only way to create a cooling off zone is to make a public scene out of the situation. That is the antithesis to civility. An ignore button strategy would be invisible to other people. Respecting privacy is a major component of civility.
2. It requires the externalization of locus of control. An external locus of control is other people or outside agencies being responsible for a person's well-being, or absence thereof. It's like laying blame, or showing fault. In contrast, an internal locus of control places the individual himself as the primary agent of responsibility. Crudely, it is "I'll be happier if that other person doesn't do X" vs. "I don't want to see any of that person's posts".
3. People may simply disagree on any topic, but that's nobody's fault. However, managing one's feelings about a disagreement is one individual's responsibility. DNP, used for chilling, reverses the onus. E.g., the fact that I have external plumbing does not make ME responsible for another individual's reactions to men in general. Yet, a DNP could do so.
Lar
Posted by SLS on March 18, 2006, at 9:41:07
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on March 17, 2006, at 23:52:26
Hi.
If I may add a few comments: (I guess I just like to here myself type).
I don't seem to be very vulnerable to being triggered by the things I read here, so I cannot truly empathize and identify with those whom are sensitive to them. However, it does seem that it would be nice if those who are triggerable be warned in advance that the post they are about to read will trigger them.
Because there are so many individuals reading posts here, there must be a great many diverse things that will act as triggers for people. I wouldn't know where to begin when creating a list of actionable phraseology to encompass all sensitivities of all individuals. It's only fair that everyone be afforded the same level of safety, right?
I'm trying to think of how such a policy could be employed.
What a mess.
I like GG's approach towards the issue of flagging possibly triggering posts. It should be an evolving process to create a system of trigger warnings. For now, I think a checkbox on the submission form should be made available; the checking of which will add a red flag similar to the yellow and green "new" flags currently employed. I think its use should be made voluntary, although subject to a moderator's comments and referral to a FAQ demonstration. I don't personally know what will trigger everyone here. I don't know how anyone else should be expected to know this either. What is obvious to one person may be elusive to another. Let people flag themselves. Let moderators flag posts. Let readers e-mail and alert moderators of possibly triggering posts. Let moderators comment on triggering posts.
Should readers act as policemen and flag other peoples' posts? I guess you'll have very little choice but to allow it. They could either change the subject line or reply with a flagged "no message" post.
What if someone persists in their use of triggering language along the same thread without flagging their posts despite a moderator's commentary? Red flag the poster for a limited period? Block the poster? What about people who consistently introduce triggering text along multiple threads? What do you do with follow-up posts that contain the triggering text? What is the threshold at which a triggering post becomes uncivil such that even self-flagging is insufficient to avoid administrative action?
Lots more questions to be addressed and pondered, I'm sure. So far, civility seems to be judged using a precision that is afforded by an exacting use of grammar to establish a set of rules as to how one person relates to another. You can't be so precise when judging what constitutes globally triggering content.
There are a lot of good suggestions posted along this thread regarding the methods by which triggering phraseology might be monitored. I have none to offer. However, I would still like to express my impression that the attempt to enforce with blocks a policy against submitting unflagged triggering posts seems like it would involve an unwieldy set of rules and protocols. Keep it simple and voluntary at first with moderators flagging posts and giving commentary along with additional references to a FAQ. See where that leads. Refine policy and implementation as the dynamics of the boards evolve with this new discipline. You wouldn't want too many people "triggered" to leave the community by an abrupt and restrictive change in the way they are to be required to evaluate the triggerability of their own content. Is triggerability a word? I guess it is now.
What a mess.
I guess with time will come clarity.
I hope people continue to offer suggestions. And I hope the doctor "titrates" gradually the construction and implementation of a trigger-warning policy.
- Scott
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.