![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 7:23:24
>
> It is written ,[...a site to offer {advice}...]
> I ask:
> Advice from who?Advice from other posters. Anyone on this site can offer advice to anyone else on this site, unless there's a DNP request in force.
> It is written here,[...the main purpose..to support other people..]
> I ask:
> Is it supportive of this site to leave posts unsanctioned that have statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?That depends, Lou. Splitting this into two issues, I guess it really depends.
But it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory. Remember, if you're the ONLY one who sees a problem with a post, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone else is blind. It might just mean that there really is nothing wrong with that post.
The other issue is that truly discriminatory posts are generally not supportive.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 13:26:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
Friends,
It is written here,[...it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory..]. Does this mean that;
Dr. Hsiung took a vote and the overwhelming majority voted to leave posts that have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings unsanctioned because those voters did not find them to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 13:33:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
Friends,
It is written here,[...it might mean...there is..nothing wrong with that post...]
If any reader here is interested in the posts that could be in question, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
> it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory.
FYI, the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or on the present.
Bob
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 19:53:13
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
Posted by Dinah on September 15, 2006, at 19:55:34
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
They seem to *be* the present and future.
I mean, I'm all for sticking to prior practice and all, but it's not like any of this is in the past.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2006, at 20:30:26
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
> whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or on the present.
more helpful for who?
for you?
for lou?
or are you trying to channel what is most helpful for the community as a whole?in the words of someone or other:
> It's a big step to connect the past with the present,
oh yes indeedie do.
to see the impact of the past on the present. you might have an easy job forgetting. not so for others, you know.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 23:35:06
In reply to I dunno, posted by Dinah on September 15, 2006, at 19:55:34
> it's not like any of this is in the past.
Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are there recent posts that should be sanctioned that aren't?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 16, 2006, at 0:16:36
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 23:35:06
I mean the side effects of their lack of sanction is not in the past. It is definitely in the present, and I foresee it going into the future.
While again, I don't like to see past practice violated, and it wouldn't seem fair really to the posters involved to actually sanction anyone, I must confess that sometimes I just wish you'd tag any of these posts that might have been missed, as opposed to ones that you actually think are civil. I don't know. I guess I'm just wishing for peace. But maybe peace doesn't come that way.
I haven't given it a huge amount of thought, and your consideration of my words should reflect that.
In other words, I don't really know what I'm saying.
Posted by Racer on September 16, 2006, at 0:41:53
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 16, 2006, at 0:16:36
I don't know, either, but...
How about something like choosing an arbitrary date and saying "anything that happened before this date won't be considered, but everything after will be examined again." We could even vote on how far back we want to go. I'd suggest one year.
I'd also suggest that anyone who brings things up before that admittedly arbitrary date should be subject to a strong reminder that it is not allowed...
Just, you know, off the top of my pointy little head...
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 2:34:40
In reply to How about... » Dinah, posted by Racer on September 16, 2006, at 0:41:53
> I don't know, either, but...
Me neither, but...
> Just, you know, off the top of my pointy little head...
Me too.
What do you do with a poster whose 11 month old post has been identified as deserving a PBC for a minor, but obvious infraction, and who has been behaving civily ever since? Do you interrupt their posting continuity with a PBC? What about if it were an eggregious violation?
Perhaps a challenge should occur more immediately during the discourse rather than as a scavenger hunt. Give someone 3 weeks to challenge the civility of a post. Then, a PBC would not seem so out of place temporally. Ah. No. That's no good. Some people are blocked from posting for longer than that, and can't defend themselves. Blocks don't extend for more than a year, though. Other posters might not be visiting so often. Still others might not come across an offending post for quite some time, as they had not been a participant in that thread. I guess 1 year does make sense. But what about maintaining continuity?
It is either 3 weeks or 1 year or infinite.
That's what I have it narrowed down to.
Probably 3 weeks if you are actually going to issue a PBC.
Probably 1 year if you are going to red-flag posts without issuing PBC beyond 3 weeks.
Probably infinite if you have developed OCD.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 3:12:45
In reply to Re: How about..., posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 2:34:40
Why not just tag a 'please be civil' onto them?
That way people hunting through the archives don't come away with the mistaken impression that it is considered acceptable to say those kinds of things on Babble.
That way current posters don't need to live in fear that they will be blocked for some post they posted 4 years ago.
I think there could be a problem in the sense that the floodgates may be open for people to protest past posts as well as current ones. But with limits on how often you are allowed to protest...
I just think it would be a nice way to make peace.
I think it could help the community.
I don't think anybody likes seeing people 'getting away' with x while other posters get sanctioned. Ignoring the problem... Doesn't make it go away...
You could say 'sorry I missed this before but (whatever bits aren't civil) aren't civil. And put a link into the faq. It wouldn't be that hard - would it?
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 3:41:30
In reply to Re: How about..., posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 3:12:45
> Why not just tag a 'please be civil' onto them?
Well, I didn't really think an actual red tag would be the best way to go. I guess the term I was looking for was "red flag". Sorry.
Currently, there are no limits for how many requests one can make if they are all accepted. This might present problems with volume of requests if the entire archive is subject to review. I guess it can be tried first. Gosh, what an expensive proposition this might be. I guess with the current volume of requests, it seems that administration has a sufficient budget.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 3:56:50
In reply to Re: How about... » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 3:41:30
> > Why not just tag a 'please be civil' onto them?
> Well, I didn't really think an actual red tag would be the best way to go. I guess the term I was looking for was "red flag". Sorry.oh no no no no no. i didn't mean a literal tag. sorry i wasn't clearer. i meant that bob could reply to the post (like he does now). his post would show up tagged on the bottom of the thread. that was what i meant...
> Currently, there are no limits for how many requests one can make if they are all accepted. This might present problems with volume of requests if the entire archive is subject to review.there haven't been that many oversights - have there? i guess rules have changed over time... people used to be allowed to swear it seems. i'm not sure how useful it would be to go back through that... maybe there could be something in the faq about how you used to be able to but then the rules changed and that would be a way out of doing the every individual post thing.
maybe bob could process them slowly... a few at a time or something like that.
i dunno.
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 7:44:10
In reply to Re: How about..., posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 3:56:50
> i meant that bob could reply to the post (like he does now). his post would show up tagged on the bottom of the thread. that was what i meant...
You mean bring the past into the present...
...with no limitation as to how far back in time a post was submitted.
That is precisely what I think should not be done. To "correct" the archives, if a regular PBC could not be inserted into the thread, then I would be in favor of either editing the subject header or editing the post and placing appropriate text at the top of the submission. Of course, this problem could be obviated if posts older than 3 weeks were simply left to the discretion of the head moderator for sanction, and posts older than 1 year not to be considered.
> > Currently, there are no limits for how many requests one can make if they are all accepted. This might present problems with volume of requests if the entire archive is subject to review.
> there haven't been that many oversights - have there? i guess rules have changed over time... people used to be allowed to swear it seems. i'm not sure how useful it would be to go back through that... maybe there could be something in the faq about how you used to be able to but then the rules changed and that would be a way out of doing the every individual post thing.
>
> maybe bob could process them slowly... a few at a time or something like that.
>
> i dunno.
Yeah. Headaches. Wow.3 weeks / 1 year
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 9:04:04
In reply to Re: How about..., posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 7:44:10
> > i meant that bob could reply to the post (like he does now). his post would show up tagged on the bottom of the thread. that was what i meant...
>
> You mean bring the past into the present...
>
> ...with no limitation as to how far back in time a post was submitted.
>
> That is precisely what I think should not be done. To "correct" the archives, if a regular PBC could not be inserted into the thread,***
What I meant here was to insert the PBC post immediately after the sanctioned post within the thread rather than append it to the end of the thread as the most recent submission.
***
> then I would be in favor of either editing the subject header or editing the post and placing appropriate text at the top of the submission. Of course, this problem could be obviated if posts older than 3 weeks were simply left to the discretion of the head moderator for sanction, and posts older than 1 year not to be considered.
>
> > > Currently, there are no limits for how many requests one can make if they are all accepted. This might present problems with volume of requests if the entire archive is subject to review.
>
> > there haven't been that many oversights - have there? i guess rules have changed over time... people used to be allowed to swear it seems. i'm not sure how useful it would be to go back through that... maybe there could be something in the faq about how you used to be able to but then the rules changed and that would be a way out of doing the every individual post thing.
> >
> > maybe bob could process them slowly... a few at a time or something like that.
> >
> > i dunno.
>
>
> Yeah. Headaches. Wow.
>
> 3 weeks / 1 year
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 17:19:29
In reply to Re: How about..., posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 7:44:10
> You mean bring the past into the present...
only the pbc will show up on the current boards the rest of the thread (and the original post) will remain in the archives. in fact... it doesn't have to be a pbc that bob posts... it could just be something to say that that phrasing isn't in accordance to the civility rules. more for other posters benefit than to get the poster of the thread in trouble. that is the idea.
> ...with no limitation as to how far back in time a post was submitted.yep.
my understanding is that lou typically does request determinations not just on the current boards but from the archives as well. bob typically ignores the past ones 'lets leave the past in the past' but... it that really helping the issue?
in my trails over the internet i found a link to something fairly unfortunate that bob said at one point. i take lou's point that it sounds... like something that might incline a reader to think that it was okay to post things likely to arouse anti-semetic feelings. i can take lou's point.
but that is one instance and i guess i do think of it as unfortunate. i don't think i've seen them all over the boards and i don't think it was bob's intention that it come across that way.
but...
how hard would it be to add a clarificatory post?
i don't know.
maybe it is opening up a can of worms.
perhaps...
but to say 'lets just leave the past in the past' well...
maybe it depends on how hurt you have been in the past as to whether that is the best thing to be done or not.
how much the past does indeed live in the present anyway.bob might be keen to forget past inconsistencies...
not sure how people feel who have been the subject of them...
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2006, at 17:36:49
In reply to Re: How about... » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 17:19:29
Friends,
It is written here,[...Lou requests determinations from the preseant and the past...I can take Lou's point...this is one instance..]
The posts in question are mainly requested for a determiation by me shortly after when they are posted. Some I am not permitted to request a determination on the board for the reason that I am blocked from posting, so I use email. Some I can not use email or post a request for a determination as per before the new rules here.
But there are numerous posts of the nature in question. I could send you 25 and stop via email if you like. Then if you would want more, I could send you more if anyone would like via email.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 18:48:59
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2006, at 17:36:49
> But there are numerous posts of the nature in question.
I see. Well then, I guess it is unlikely that Bob is prepared to make that much more work for himself. I know I would't be keen on making that much more work for myself.
It is a shame really because there are some things in the archives that get by.
But if it comes down to requesting determinations on every post or every second post or every fifth post or one post in every second thread... Well... How many people would Bob need to hire full time and would they manage to work through the archives to get to the current boards in the next couple of years?
> I could send you 25 and stop via email if you like.
No thank you. I used to read your requests for determination and I agreed with most of Bob's decisions. That is to say that I thought most of them were acceptable.
There was just one post where I thought his response wasn't very perspicuous and I could take the point that the response could indeed be interpreted in a way that was anti-semitic. I don't think he intended it in that way, but I thought that it could help matters somewhat if he were to clarify.
That instance isn't about the civility of his post, however. It was more about clarifying what he said so that there wasn't any ambiguity about that.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2006, at 5:06:24
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 18:48:59
Friends,
It is written here,[...No thank you.I used to read...requests for determination... agreed with {most} of Dr. Hsiung's decisions..]
Then, friends,is there not the possibiblty that others could not agree with the decision? Then could there not be posts that I have not posted a request for a determination that one may have not seen that could be a part of the emails that I could send you if you would like?
My offer to send by email these posts in question is a general offer to anyone that is interested in these posts so that they can make their own determination as to if the posts in question have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. I am now sending these in groups of 5 with a further request to send 5 more and so on.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2006, at 5:31:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 18:48:59
Friends,
It is written here,[...much more work for himself...It is a shame...How many people would Dr. Hsiung need?...].
Now let us look at this? You see, when these posts were posted, I posted my requests for a determination in times that can be seen in the posts. If any posts were not replied to, and then the posts were allowed to stand, in the ones that I made an innitial timely request and went unanswered, those, at least, could be still subject to review, could they not? For in those, was it not something else other than my delay that has resulted in those posts going unanswered?
Then there are those posts that I requested from the administraion a detrmination in a timely manner via email that can not be seen here.
If anyone would like to see the ones that I have requested a determination for that were done by me via email, I could send you at your request 5 of these at a time if you would like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 6:53:42
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2006, at 5:31:54
I give Lou Pilder much credit for his persistence, especially when he is often faced with the challenges of persistent opposition or lack of support. His arguments here are clever. I do, however, still feel that posts that have not been sanctioned as being uncivil are not de facto indicated as being civil. I also feel that there should be some limitations as to how old a post can be for it to be labelled as uncivil and brought to the attention of the community by being posted at the head of the thread. For posts that are older than those being considered for public sanction, it might be desirable to update their status of civility by editing their subject header or placing some text at the top of their content body. However, administration might find it to be a good idea to limit the age of these updates to 1 year so as to keep the volume of archive management manageable. This limitation would also keep the focus on the present and foster continual hunts into the past to search for people's moments of weakness or lapse of etiquette. Of course, there may be eggegious violations of rules that stood at the time. Perhaps it is civil to invoke a statute of limitations.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 7:05:12
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 6:53:42
*** Correction.
> I give Lou Pilder much credit for his persistence, especially when he is often faced with the challenges of persistent opposition or lack of support. His arguments here are clever. I do, however, still feel that posts that have not been sanctioned as being uncivil are not de facto indicated as being civil. I also feel that there should be some limitations as to how old a post can be for it to be labelled as uncivil and brought to the attention of the community by being posted at the head of the thread. For posts that are older than those being considered for public sanction, it might be desirable to update their status of civility by editing their subject header or placing some text at the top of their content body. However, administration might find it to be a good idea to limit the age of these updates to 1 year so as to keep the volume of archive management manageable.*** This limitation would also keep the focus on the present and prevent the continual hunts into the past to search for people's moments of weakness or lapses of etiquette.
Of course, there may be eggegious violations of rules that stood at the time. Perhaps it is civil to invoke a statute of limitations.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2006, at 7:24:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 6:53:42
Friends,
It is written here,[...feel that posts that have not been sanctioned...are not de facto indicated as being civil...].
Now can we reason together here? You see, does not Dr. Hsiung write in his FAQ that we are to trust him and that what he does is in his thinking what will be good for the community as a whole? So could not there be the potential for some to think that if there is no sanction to a post that [...it is good for the community as a whole...]?
Then there are statements by DR. Hsiung like,[..I think that it is acceptable..] and [...I'm going to let it stand...]. Is it not the generally accepted meaning of [...let it stand...]to mean,[...{to side with} and {to allow to remaine valid}, and {as a position that one is prepared to uphold}, and {to advocate support of}...]?
Then there are posts that the administration is unwilling to reply to me about my request to them to sanction the post. These are mainly in email and if anyone would like to see these, I could email them to you if you like. I will not email the email, but only the post in question that I did not receive a reply from the administration.
I ask:
A. Is not there the potential for some to think that if a post is left unsanctioned, that it is {left to let stand}?
B. Is not there the potential for some to think that if a post is left unsanctioned that there is the potential for some to think that it is left unsanctioned because of what Dr. Hsiung writes in his FAQ that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole?
C Could not there be the potential for some to think that if the administration is unwilling to reply to my request for a determination, that the statment in question is civil?
Is not no answer, an answer?
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 7:29:44
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2006, at 7:24:07
There is only so much time in the day.Time spend checking the civility of past posts is time that can't be spent checking the civility of present posts.
How many requests for determination have you made, Lou?
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.