![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2006, at 18:37:21
In reply to Reporting incivility » willyee, posted by Dinah on October 29, 2006, at 14:54:08
Dinah,
In regards to requesting from the deputies to examine posts that could be considered uncivil,(reporting incivility, you wrote,
[...it *will* be answered {one way or another}...]
Now assuming that the {one way} is an email returned to the requester {answering} the request, then what are you saying could be the {other} ways?
In a reply from you to me here, could you then answer the following?
A. Will the FAQ be changed to say that now the deputies [...*will* reply with an answer to a request...], from writing that [...the deputies do not have to...]?
B. Will the many requets that I have sent to the administration that I have not received an answer from them be answered now?
C. Will the posts that IMO have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on this forum that I have requested that a determination be made as to if they are civil or not, and there has not been an answere to me, now be answered to me as to if they are considered by the administrsation here to be civil or not?
D. If you are saying that in the FAQ where it says that [...you can always ask Dr. (Hsiung) or a deputy...], that that means that what you wrote,[...*will* reply to a request...]is not something new here? If so, then are there two standards here,for I have not received answers to many, many requests?
E. If I can not request about incivility if the post is from one of those that I am not permitted to request about, then in your statement,[...*will* be answered one way or another...], how *will* it be answered ifI can not make the request?
Lou
Posted by willyee on October 29, 2006, at 18:52:20
In reply to Phillipa (and others), posted by Dinah on October 29, 2006, at 13:37:47
> Such a positive and gracious response. I hope that I can learn from it.
I *feel* this is inapproiate being a moderator to actualy post in the middle of a confliction to one side of it,isnt this a major major conflict of interest,isnt a moderator supposed to stay nuetral?
MY goodness im gonna go now whoo
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2006, at 18:52:21
In reply to Re: Phillipa (and others), posted by willyee on October 29, 2006, at 15:01:54
It didn't occur to me that appreciating people following the civility guidelines and letting them know that was a particularly un-administrative thing to do. Dr. Bob himself frequently says thanks to people for doing that.
However, I'm sure Dr. Bob will note your input and let me know if he thinks otherwise.
Posted by Crazy Horse on October 29, 2006, at 18:52:22
In reply to Re: Philipa is a lovely person!! :o) » Meri-Tuuli, posted by willyee on October 29, 2006, at 9:32:53
> The poster did not comment on her as a person.He did not insult her as a person.What he did was notice how she posts to every single thread,even with not productive input.
>
> Im glad at least someone sees that,as im thinking im crazy.
>
>
> If you were real friends you would speak to her about an obviously obsessive need to be part of every thread.Its not heatlhy,and i would tell a friend that.I spend too much time on myspace,and a family member pointed this out to me,i did not get mad,or insulted,but agreed to the obvious i was and know its a problem i need to overcome.
>
> Many of her posts to threads are just random comments.
>
> Again take this as mean,but a friend would be concerned of this.
>Hey, Willyee take a look in the mirror. And fu*ckin back off of Jan!!
-Monte
> As far as your comment to me phillipa,i dident really appreciate it,i understand ill have no symptahy as im sure im not liked,but i know for a fact the comment :nice when i want to be" is rather uncalled for.
>
>
> I post when i believe,or hope i can actualy offer input to the poster,im always kind in my posts,and almost always end with well wishes.
>
> Where you got that comment im not sure,perhaps because im am not afraid to post comments like these,and im not afraid of being banned for speaking my mind.
>
> Anyway the poster dident comment on phillipa as a person,just on a noticable trend which if you looked now you would see she is in every single thread.A friend to her,and yet you dont see this as a concern for someone,ok well then flame me,but i told her as a friend in email in a kind way perhaps thats why.
>
>
> And ill ask that you phillipa please refrain from personal emails to me,keep it on this group,thank you.
>
>
> I know my heart,and i know im not mean,and i will speak if i see a friend or person i like doing something that is possably harmmful to them.She is still a friend as well as i understand this is just a message board,i dont know her as a person,but as a person i know she is caring and shows great concern,but that is not the issue at hand.
>
> Anyway ill refrain from posting here since i seem to be to rough on the edges i suppose.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2006, at 18:52:22
In reply to Re: Philipa is a lovely person!! :o) » willyee, posted by Crazy Horse on October 29, 2006, at 16:48:13
> Hey, Willyee take a look in the mirror. ...
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilFollow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.
Regards,
deputy gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2006, at 18:56:27
In reply to Reporting incivility » willyee, posted by Dinah on October 29, 2006, at 14:54:08
Dinah,
Could you include the following in a reply to me?
A. It is unclear to me as to if Dr. Hsiung is saying that he has retracted his writing to me to {have someone else read my request for a determination concerning my wanting to post a link from the Anti-Defamation League as a response to posts here that have not been sanctioned as being uncivil that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings.Could you write here if it is clear to you one way or the other?
B. It is unclear to me here as to if I can request someone here >in my behalf< to use the report uncivility posts for those that I am not permitted to ask about. Could you tell me if it is it claer to you about that? If that is the case, then if I was allowed to do so, could that not negate the prohibition and could I just then ask you as a poster and not as a deputy tp make the request in my behalf?
Lou
Posted by lymom3 on October 29, 2006, at 19:02:29
In reply to Not a follow up, posted by willyee on October 29, 2006, at 14:38:53
I certainly think that she was as polite as can be considering you implied that her posts were useless and a waste of everyone's time. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have hurt feelings about that and I don't know how much nicer she could have been about it.
If you don't want to read her posts and feel they are a waste, then don't read them. I don't think that she has been banned for any posts that she has made. Consider that when you call her uncivil and insulting.
You do post supportive comments and you do help where you can when the meds or situations are ones that you have experience with. I don't want to take anything away from you on that. All of us here are looking for something and we all have a variety of issues. We are all bound to do things that others consider odd, impolite or out of line. As much as you want people to be tolerant of you, so should you be tolerant of others.
Now I'm probably in trouble too. I don't mean to step on any toes or hurt anyone's feelings but life is too short to sweat the small stuff.
Posted by willyee on October 29, 2006, at 19:02:30
In reply to Re: Not a follow up, posted by lymom3 on October 29, 2006, at 17:01:07
> I certainly think that she was as polite as can be considering you implied that her posts were useless and a waste of everyone's time. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have hurt feelings about that and I don't know how much nicer she could have been about it.
>
That post was before any others,as i said it was unprovoked.It was in a previous thread.
Posted by willyee on October 29, 2006, at 19:05:22
In reply to Re: Philipa is a lovely person!! :o) » willyee, posted by Crazy Horse on October 29, 2006, at 16:48:13
> > The poster did not comment on her as a person.He did not insult her as a person.What he did was notice how she posts to every single thread,even with not productive input.
> >
> > Im glad at least someone sees that,as im thinking im crazy.
> >
> >
> > If you were real friends you would speak to her about an obviously obsessive need to be part of every thread.Its not heatlhy,and i would tell a friend that.I spend too much time on myspace,and a family member pointed this out to me,i did not get mad,or insulted,but agreed to the obvious i was and know its a problem i need to overcome.
> >
> > Many of her posts to threads are just random comments.
> >
> > Again take this as mean,but a friend would be concerned of this.
> >
>
> Hey, Willyee take a look in the mirror. And fu*ckin back off of Jan!!
>
> -MonteNow is this civil,come on you cant be so simple minded as to post toughness on the internet.Are we five now,lets not forget who has there information available and out there and who doesent,im not a hard person to get too,but again is this what were resorting to lol.Mabye if she backed off me with her hundred emails i did not ask for it would not be an issue,speak out the mouth what you know please.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > As far as your comment to me phillipa,i dident really appreciate it,i understand ill have no symptahy as im sure im not liked,but i know for a fact the comment :nice when i want to be" is rather uncalled for.
> >
> >
> > I post when i believe,or hope i can actualy offer input to the poster,im always kind in my posts,and almost always end with well wishes.
> >
> > Where you got that comment im not sure,perhaps because im am not afraid to post comments like these,and im not afraid of being banned for speaking my mind.
> >
> > Anyway the poster dident comment on phillipa as a person,just on a noticable trend which if you looked now you would see she is in every single thread.A friend to her,and yet you dont see this as a concern for someone,ok well then flame me,but i told her as a friend in email in a kind way perhaps thats why.
> >
> >
> > And ill ask that you phillipa please refrain from personal emails to me,keep it on this group,thank you.
> >
> >
> > I know my heart,and i know im not mean,and i will speak if i see a friend or person i like doing something that is possably harmmful to them.She is still a friend as well as i understand this is just a message board,i dont know her as a person,but as a person i know she is caring and shows great concern,but that is not the issue at hand.
> >
> > Anyway ill refrain from posting here since i seem to be to rough on the edges i suppose.
>
>
Posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2006, at 20:04:58
In reply to Re: Philipa is a lovely person!! :o), posted by willyee on October 29, 2006, at 19:05:22
> Now is this civil,come on you cant be so simple minded as to post toughness on the internet.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. You've been asked to be civil, so now I am blocking you from posting. I've asked Dr. Bob to determine the duration of the block.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilFollow-ups regarding these issues should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.
Regards,
deputy gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2006, at 20:57:20
In reply to Blocked » willyee, posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2006, at 20:04:58
> I've asked Dr. Bob to determine the duration of the block.
According to the current system:
previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 4 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 4 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to his previous block, that's 1 - 0 = 1 week. And if we triple that, that's 3 weeks.
Bob
Posted by Crazy Horse on October 29, 2006, at 20:59:46
In reply to Not a follow up, posted by willyee on October 29, 2006, at 14:38:53
> Willee you can be a sweetie when you want to. Love Phillipa
>
> The above comment was a post from phillipa.I was offended by this,basicaly what she is saying is that im usualy a mean person,this honestly troubled me,and i felt it was uncivil,come on are we playing favorites here,can you explain if not how this is not uncivil,and could not be taken as a insult,a unprovoked one?
>
> <This is a new question,not a follow up,please address>Get a flippin life Willyee!
-Monte
Posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2006, at 20:59:47
In reply to Re: Not a follow up » willyee, posted by Crazy Horse on October 29, 2006, at 20:06:43
> Get a flippin life Willyee!Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. You've been asked to be civil, so now I am blocking you from posting. I've asked Dr. Bob to determine the duration of the block.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilFollow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to admin and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.
Regards,
deputy gg
Posted by Phillipa on October 29, 2006, at 20:59:47
In reply to Blocked » Crazy Horse, posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2006, at 20:18:42
GG Monte was just supporting me. Monte I'm so sorry. Love Jan
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2006, at 21:07:42
In reply to Blocked » Crazy Horse, posted by gardenergirl on October 29, 2006, at 20:18:42
> I've asked Dr. Bob to determine the duration of the block.
According to the current system:
previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 16 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 16 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 2 weeks. If we apply that to his previous block, that takes him back to 0. And if we go from there, that's 1 week.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 30, 2006, at 8:49:31
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2006, at 18:56:27
I'm afraid I don't understand Lou. I don't see how what I said changes anything as it currently stands. And I certainly wouldn't assume that it did.
I didn't say the poster would be answered by me or by any particular deputy, or any deputy at all. It could well be that in any particular instance, we might not be sure of the answer, and feel it's a call best made by Dr. Bob, and leave it to him.
As to why you haven't received any answer at all from Dr. Bob, I'm afraid you'd have to ask him.
Are you asking if you can ask me as a poster to review posts once you have reached your limit of three? I had made the offer to one and all, if you remember. However, at your request, I withdrew it.
I hope I have answered your question, as I wasn't quite certain what you meant. I was just explaining the new rule, not making any. You know I don't have the ability to make new rules.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2006, at 9:13:57
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dinah- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 30, 2006, at 8:49:31
Dinah,
You wrote,[...don't see..what I said changes...].
You wrote that members can use the feature made recently to alert Dr. Hsiung and all the deputies about uncivility and that it *will* be answered..]
The use of the stars in [...{*will*} be answered...], is generally meant that there is emphaticness associated with the word used with the stars.
The FAQ writes that the deputies do not have to intervene.
I am asking if what you write as {*will*} be answered changes the FAQ where it writes that deputies {do not} have to intervene. In the case where all the deputies do not know the answer, and Dr. Hsiung does not reply to me, then there is not an answer to me from the administration. So when you wrote, [...*will* be answered one way or {the other}...], I have requested to know what {the other} ways could be if all the deputies and Dr. Hsiung do not reply to me with an answer.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 30, 2006, at 9:29:50
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's reply to Lou » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2006, at 9:13:57
Deputies do not have to intervene. In those instances where deputies do not feel that they could or should intervene, it is up to Dr. Bob to answer. As long as the request is within the rules, as in the three request rule, I assume that he will answer. It doesn't of course mean he'll agree.
I don't quite understand why you are so upset about deputies not having to intervene. While sometimes we might have real life concerns that take our time, a frequent reason we don't is that we don't know the answer. If it's something we're not sure about, or we don't think is uncivil but of course can't make a ruling that it is because we wish Dr. Bob to make certain because clearly if someone asks someone is offended, or in cases where the rules are complex, we often defer to Dr. Bob. It doesn't mean things aren't addressed. It means they're addressed by Dr. Bob in whatever way he sees fit. And since he's the ultimate authority anyway, it ends up making no difference. And in my humble opinion, is a far better state of affairs than deputies ruling on things they aren't sure about. Dr. Bob is the judicial branch of this system, so to speak, and it's up to him to define laws by making rulings, again, so to speak.
Again, if you are making requests to him and they aren't answered, you'll have to ask him about that. I can't answer for him.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2006, at 9:54:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's reply to Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 30, 2006, at 9:29:50
Dinah,
You wrote,[...it is up to (Dr Hsiung) to answer...I assume he will..ther're addressed by (Dr. Hsiung) in whatever way he sees fit...if ..requests to him are not answered...]
My overiding request to you in this discussion is in regards to your statement,[...it *will* be answered {one way or another}...].
Are you saying any of the following from your replies to me here about my request to you?
A.Your use of,[...(one way >or another<,}...] in regards that there will be an answer to the requestor means that the {only} >other way< than a reply from the deputies is a reply from DR. Hsiung?
B. If so, are you saying that if he does not reply when the deputies do not reply, that his {not replying} is a reply?
C. Could you offer another way that an answer could be given to the requestor, if the deputies and Dr. Hsiung do not reply?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 30, 2006, at 10:04:00
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's reply to Lou (B) » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2006, at 9:54:45
I'm afraid you'll have to ask Dr. Bob that.
I think I have said everything that I can think of on the subject, and don't see how I can contribute further.
I apologize if I haven't been helpful.
Posted by ed_uk on October 30, 2006, at 13:37:16
In reply to Re: the duration, posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2006, at 21:07:42
Gosh, this is very complicated Dr. Bob!
> According to the current system:
>
> previous block: 1 week
> period of time since previous block: 16 weeks
> uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
> particularly uncivil: no
> different type of incivility: no
> clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
> provoked: no
> uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
> already archived: no
>
> If we take 16 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 2 weeks. If we apply that to his previous block, that takes him back to 0. And if we go from there, that's 1 week.
>
> Bob
Posted by yxibow on October 30, 2006, at 17:35:27
In reply to Re: the duration, posted by ed_uk on October 30, 2006, at 13:37:16
> Gosh, this is very complicated Dr. Bob!
>
>
>
>
> > According to the current system:
> >
> > previous block: 1 week
> > period of time since previous block: 16 weeks
> > uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
> > particularly uncivil: no
> > different type of incivility: no
> > clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
> > provoked: no
> > uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
> > already archived: no
> >
> > If we take 16 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 2 weeks. If we apply that to his previous block, that takes him back to 0. And if we go from there, that's 1 week.
> >
> > Bob
>
>And dare I say, I know this valuable resource is your project, but I don't quite understand why someone who was sticking up for someone else was also blocked.
Sigh, Dr. Hsiung, I do think sometimes that there gets to be an obsessive (hence the above criteria listed out to the nth degree) correlation between person X and blocking.
I also do believe that there is political correctness that goes on here at times that doesn't take into account that we all cannot hide behind the internet and never venture out into the world.
The real world is (and living in a certain city in Southern California) tough and I think people naturally seek solace which is fine, but I also think that reality needs to come into place.
Every day in someone's workforce there is a jerk, there are rules, people **** each other off, and at the end of the day you hopefully have more in your bank account.
I think that there has to be a balance between preparing people for the real life out there and solace so it doesn't get to the degree of coddling.
I know this because I've been an "adult child" for some years and it only gets worse making yourself housebound.
Maybe I've strayed from the general subject at hand, but I'm just offering my opinion, which I give as a disclaimer.- tidings
Jay
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2006, at 23:16:41
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's reply to Lou (B) » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2006, at 9:54:45
> Could you offer another way that an answer could be given to the requestor, if the deputies and Dr. Hsiung do not reply?
I think our policy will be to respond to notifications either by posting to the thread we're notified about or by replying directly to the person who notified us. Unless that rule of 3 applies.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2006, at 23:22:42
In reply to Re: the duration » ed_uk, posted by yxibow on October 30, 2006, at 17:35:27
> I don't quite understand why someone who was sticking up for someone else was also blocked.
Because two wrongs don't make a right.
> I think that there has to be a balance between preparing people for the real life out there and solace so it doesn't get to the degree of coddling.
Thanks for your input. I think it would be great to prepare people for life "out there". Couldn't people here help each other with that on Social or Relationships? :-)
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2006, at 7:13:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2006, at 23:16:41
DR. Hsiung,
Your reply was,[...will..respond..by posting in the thread or replying directly...]
My question that your reply to me was,[...could you offer another way that an answer could be given if Dr. Hsiung and the deputies do not reply...].
Are you saying any of the following?
A. There are no requests from you to us that we have either not posted a reply or replied directly to you with an answer to your question.
B. We will uphold our policy here and you can send the many posts that you requested for us to address or reply to you that we have been unwilling to provide an answer to, again to us, and we will either post in the thread or reply to you directly with an answer to your request.
C. The posts, that in your opinion, have the potential to foster antisemitic feelings by the nature of those posts, in your opinion, not being sanctioned as other posts that accuse or put down others, or are not sensitive to the feelings of others, will remain as they are and we will not post that they are uncivl or not supportive, in the thread or reply directly to you about them.
D. You can have another use the report feature (in your behalf} and we will respond to others making requests in your behalf, even in relation to those posters that I have made a rule of 3 that will expell you from the community if you ask about their posts.
E. I am not requiring that you ask someone first before you request that I determine in advance if a post is acceptable to be posted and you can disregard my previous request to you to do that.
F. I will appoint a deputy of your choice to review each and every post that in your opinion has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings that are not notated by us to be uncivil, and they will post a note of some nature to show that the administration does not consider the statement in question to be civil and/or supportive.( I am not asking that the poster be sanctioned)
G. In your request for {another way} to have your requests answered, there is none, so those posts that in your opinion have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew here, we will not revisit and they will be allowed to stand.
Lou Pilder
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.