![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 23:04:19
In reply to Re: For the record » Dinah, posted by LegWarmers on April 4, 2006, at 22:50:48
> > If I understand correctly the issue here is that there is a belief that uncivil posts on the thread were missed?
>
> yes. First, the poster posted on two boards, so to me, thats 2 punishments, right? the poster claimed matt had no validity to his posts and that he was high drama and that he shoudlnt be posting and so on and so on... Is that appropriate? and appropritate times 2?No. If both posts were posted before a PBC, then it is one infraction and gets one PBC.
>
> >
> > Or is it that you'd like him to comment specifically on the issue of people claiming to know someone personally and giving off board information about them. And whether that is considered uncivil under board policy? In other words, a clarification on board policy?
>
> Its both. I think that is a very real and scary issue and this person implied to know that Matt was on a suicide watch... whatever that means. And then said, in time I will reveal who i am. That is teasing. there is play teasing and then there is provocative teasing and this person was teasing in a way that was scary. i know who you are and i know what you are doing, kind of scary. That issue NEEDS to be addressed and or clarified.I think you'd probably be better off using hypotheticals here, since you need to be careful not to negatively characterize the behavior of any poster.
Posting information that you know to be incorrect is uncivil. Posting mysteriously is not uncivil. I'm not sure about being mistaken. I mean, it's concievable that a poster could confuse a poster for someone they know for one reason or another. It is uncivil posting personal information about someone, but I'm not sure where the line is drawn on that. It would be worth having Dr. Bob clarify.
>
> >
> > So that if someone knew me off board, or claimed to know me off board, and said things that I'd prefer not to disclose on board, would that be uncivil? Is that the issue?
>
> Yes and no, that is an issue yes. BUT this person claimed things that were not true, they claimed information that they had no true knowledge of at least thats what it appears. unless, yes, this person does somehow know Matt. But from what I gather, Matt does not know this person and this person implied to know Matt and have personal information regarding him. There appear to be several civilty issues here.
> Do you agree?
>Again, I would say it depends. A poster might be posting information they know to be untrue, which falls into the civility guidelines per Dr. Bob. They might be posting in error, believing what they say to be true. Or they may be posting truthfully something that another poster might prefer to not be made public. I think it's the last scenario that needs to be clarified by Dr. Bob.
Posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 0:29:47
In reply to Re: For the record, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 23:04:19
gg I have a question. Would the fact that I just got an e-mail from Matt's mom and persmission from her to forward it to bob with the comment of the outrageousness of this person claiming to be Matts's mom make a difference along with a forward of matt's response to me via babblemail to this person to Bob make a difference in the situatation. I did send those to Dr. Bob. Matt's Mom is very upset and concerned for her sons's safety.And when I informed via Babblemail what was going on on social that was when he joined in. Just thought I would keep all parties informed. Boy I love having posters e-mails makes it so much easier if they are blocked. Love phillipa
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 5, 2006, at 3:20:23
In reply to How Many of you would thinkit funny and some punch, posted by Phillipa on April 4, 2006, at 21:38:22
I quite often call my husband a studid c*&t, but I'm pretty sure many here would find it offensive if I said that to them.
And, if someone I didn't know very closely told me to go stick my head in a toilet, I wouldn't lunch them, but I certainly would walk away and not speak to them again.
Theres a fair amount at this place that gets posted that makes me feel uncomfortable you know.. and I do think the txt person was strange. But, they *didn't* reak any civility rules as far as I understand them, and Matt did. Its painful, but those are the rules.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 5, 2006, at 3:27:06
In reply to Re: For the record » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 0:29:47
I'm really confused.
If what Matt says is correct, then can we trust that this wasn't his Mum posting?
And he spoke in one of his posts about having to go as two people aren't allowed to post here from the same computer.I'm really confused.
Nikki
Posted by wildcard11 on April 5, 2006, at 5:27:43
In reply to Re: For the record » Phillipa, posted by NikkiT2 on April 5, 2006, at 3:27:06
~okay, this thread could def. be a headache..lol i think the main question/concern here is why did txtoolgirl NOT get blocked for statements that may have been overlooked...i do see *why* Matt got blocked under the rules, however i think the issue that is causing this to continue is that again, the 'original' poster went overboard w/ only a PBC (similiar to an incident not long ago), and that Matt got a *2* week block (was there a PBC for Matt?), which i think is seen unfairly b/c of the *way* in which the original poster was posting about him.
that said, Nikki, i do see a point you made!!!
Posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
In reply to Acting as deputy » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on April 4, 2006, at 18:25:35
> > But where do you look to see who is acting as duputy if not stated.
>
> The current deputies are Auntie Mel, Dinah, and me. You can contact any of us or Dr. Bob by email with questions or concerns if you do not wish to post the question to the board for whatever reason. Additional information about deputies can be found in the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#deputies
> As noted above in the thread about new deputies, Clearskies, 10derheart, and Racer are currently in the process of being selected for two new deputy positions. I believe that clearskies signed her post as "not-deputy" (or something similar) to clarify that status, although she can better address that.I don't want to creat any more confusion or distress about this. In future, I will consult with Dr Bob's deputies and ask them to issue any PBC's if they agree a post warrants one. That's probably what I should be doing anyway while Dr Bob evalutates the candidates.
I'm sorry if I caused a problem about this.
ClearSkies
Posted by Sobriquet Style on April 5, 2006, at 7:24:30
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
The rules are different. If real life enters board life, specific issues etc, then the rules can become complicated.
Illusions, delusions and jumping to conclusions. How does anyone draw a conclusion what is real and what is not in paricular threads about what is reality of a situation in real life? Why simply come to Administration of course.
Good luck
~
Posted by Dinah on April 5, 2006, at 7:56:33
In reply to Re: For the record » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 0:29:47
As I said to a different poster in a previous post, the rules are VERY clear. No matter how you feel about a poster and what they posted, and even if they received a PBC for what they posted, it is against Babble civility guidelines to speak in violation of the civility guidelines.
So I would strongly advise against posting anything that characterizes another poster as anything negative.
You would have to check with Dr. Bob as to whether posting an email from Matt's mom would be equivilant to posting for a blocked poster.
But even if it's ok, you couldn't say more than that the things said were not correct, not that another poster's behavior was outrageous.
And please hold off doing it until Dr. Bob can rule on this particular case.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 10:57:15
In reply to Please be careful » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on April 5, 2006, at 7:56:33
Dinah no there is a misunderstanding. I don't want to post Matt's Mom's E-mail. I sent both her E-mail and Matt's Babble mail to Dr. Bob. No I'm not posting it or anyone else's on the board. They have been sent to Dr. Bob via his E-mail. That is what was meant by loving E-mails. Only Dr. Bob will see them. Not the board. Love Phillipa
Posted by Tabitha on April 5, 2006, at 11:15:13
In reply to Re: Please be careful » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 10:57:15
Hi Phillipa, I don't think seeing the emails is going to get Dr Bob to un-block Matt, if that's what you're hoping. You know the drill, no matter what went before, the response always has to be civil. It can be hard to understand & accept, but I don't think it's going to change.
I think it's great that you support Matt though, and I'm glad you kept your cool in that thread, because I'd hate to see you blocked, too.
Posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 12:04:45
In reply to Re: Please be careful » Phillipa, posted by Tabitha on April 5, 2006, at 11:15:13
My point is not trying to get Matt unblocked but to let him know that is Mom was aware of what was going on and she said I meaning me would take care of it. So I guess I am being used nothing that isn't done in real life everyday but I have to do what I know is right and that is to inform the moderator that it wasn't a random act of madness on Matt's part. I stick up for everyone in real life too. Which is probably why I take and need meds for anxiety but you gotta do what you gotta do. I guess it's the nurse in me. Yes I tried to keep my cool . Thank-you for the support. Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on April 5, 2006, at 12:47:36
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
Clear Skies I knew exactly what you meant and was not confused about it. But you do have a point someone who isn't on the boards very often could be confused. As usual you are very thoughtful and through in thinking of this as it wouldn't have occurred to me. No confusion on my part but I can't speak for others. Love Phillipa
Posted by special_k on April 5, 2006, at 18:14:26
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
oh. i've been known to ask people to please be civil.
i figured that was okay.
doing it as a poster looking out for them (to give them a chance to backtrack a bit before a deputy and / or bob hits the boards)
i wasn't planning on stopping with that...
i think it is okay for posters to do that?
Posted by ClearSkies on April 6, 2006, at 6:25:24
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by special_k on April 5, 2006, at 18:14:26
I think so too.
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 10:00:59
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by ClearSkies on April 5, 2006, at 6:14:40
> > > But where do you look to see who is acting as duputy if not stated.
> >
> > The current deputies are Auntie Mel, Dinah, and me. You can contact any of us or Dr. Bob by email with questions or concerns if you do not wish to post the question to the board for whatever reason. Additional information about deputies can be found in the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#deputies
> > As noted above in the thread about new deputies, Clearskies, 10derheart, and Racer are currently in the process of being selected for two new deputy positions. I believe that clearskies signed her post as "not-deputy" (or something similar) to clarify that status, although she can better address that.
>
> I don't want to creat any more confusion or distress about this. In future, I will consult with Dr Bob's deputies and ask them to issue any PBC's if they agree a post warrants one. That's probably what I should be doing anyway while Dr Bob evalutates the candidates.
>
> I'm sorry if I caused a problem about this.
>
> ClearSkiesI thought it was great when you stepped in!
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:17:03
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy » ClearSkies, posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 10:00:59
yeah. i mean... if you ask people to be civil... you might well be entailing they are being uncivil (but that seems to fall out of grice's maxims of conversational implicature rather than as a logical entailment) and it don't seem to be uncivil to imply (in grice's sense) that someone is uncivil...
i mean... you are just reminding them to be civil... which is perfectly civil... right?
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:19:34
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:17:03
sorry... i just mean... that i say PBC sometimes... and i didn't think i was being uncivil or overstepping my bounds / role in doing so.
people are free to ignore me...
but i would say... at their peril...
'cause if bob hits the boards... they might get more than a PBC... especially if they continue after a poster has asked them...
assuming bob grants my point as legitimate (as is his perogative) of course...
Posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 11:39:48
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:19:34
Of course it is civil. If you see where another poster is getting into hot water I am always grateful that they warned me whether they are a deputy or not. Obviously they saw somethin in my post I didn't think of or didn't see. Love Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2006, at 14:01:57
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:19:34
If I remember correctly, it is acceptable and perhaps has even been encouraged at one point for Babblers to ask others to be civil when appropriate. The way Dr. Bob encourages us to say it is to say something like Please don't ________, which as I think specialK said is asking for future behavior versus characterizing the post already made as uncivil.
Again, if I remember correctly, a poster-issued PBC has "counted" in the past. And I believe it should, assuming it's appropriately given, meaning the post it refers to was indeed uncivil in some way.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2006, at 4:23:27
In reply to Re: Acting as deputy » special_k, posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 11:39:48
> they may be posting truthfully something that another poster might prefer to not be made public. I think it's the last scenario that needs to be clarified by Dr. Bob.
>
> DinahI do think that should probably be considered uncivil. Right now, the FAQ refers to:
> > information that identifies or private communications from another poster
but not information *about* another poster more generally. Should we make that change?
--
> Of course it is civil. If you see where another poster is getting into hot water I am always grateful that they warned me whether they are a deputy or not. Obviously they saw somethin in my post I didn't think of or didn't see.
>
> PhillipaI agree, that's a way to support (by looking out for) each other. As long as the warnings are themselves civil...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2006, at 19:52:21
In reply to Re: information about another poster, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2006, at 4:23:27
> > they may be posting truthfully something that another poster might prefer to not be made public. I think it's the last scenario that needs to be clarified by Dr. Bob.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I do think that should probably be considered uncivil. Right now, the FAQ refers to:
>
> > > information that identifies or private communications from another poster
>
> but not information *about* another poster more generally. Should we make that change?Thanks, Dr. Bob. That seems like a sound change.
Posted by Phillipa on April 7, 2006, at 20:25:05
In reply to Re: information about another poster, posted by Dinah on April 7, 2006, at 19:52:21
I posted a funny E-mail from my Daughter on Social she is not a poster so not breaking a rule was I. It was bout how she drove around two hours with a craving for a Reuben sandwich from Arbys. I could just picture her getting a craving and unable to satisfy it. Love Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on April 11, 2006, at 15:48:02
In reply to Re: Please rephrase » gardenergirl, posted by wildcard11 on April 4, 2006, at 15:20:27
> i was wondering why the poster that Matt replied to and got blocked did not receive a block also for their posts?
Sigh. The world may never know.
I did ask about subsequent posts after the PBC. Perhaps no answer and Dr. Bob having been on the board multiple times since then means they were within site guidelines?
Otherwise, I'm clueless. But I wanted to make sure you got a reply to your question.
Take care,
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 1:10:45
In reply to Never did get an answer » wildcard11, posted by gardenergirl on April 11, 2006, at 15:48:02
> I did ask about subsequent posts after the PBC. Perhaps no answer and Dr. Bob having been on the board multiple times since then means they were within site guidelines?
Sorry, I fell behind. Briefly, I did think they were within the guidelines, though not of course as measured as they could've been...
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2006, at 8:05:46
In reply to Re: hadn't gotten an answer yet, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 1:10:45
This is the end of the 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.