![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 47 to 71 of 157. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 26, 2006, at 16:25:40
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - *Trigger*, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 10:38:34
> I need to stay safe for me, and if I need to ignore a poster, I will do it for my own well being. But I don't need to hear, I am going to kill myself everytime I get into chat either and choose NOT to socialize with a paticular person who I feel is harrassing and blackmailing me.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you have a problem with a post, please use the report this post function. If you have an issue with a babblemail please forward it to Dr. Bob, or to a deputy. If you feel that there is an issue in chat, please report it by email or babblemail to Dr. Bob or a deputy.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override or upgrade deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 26, 2006, at 16:29:13
In reply to Re: About DNP's, posted by Deneb on December 26, 2006, at 8:53:50
It's against Babble policy to pressure others, or to post to those who have requested that you not post to them.
It is *not* against the rules, as I understand them, for either party to mention the other party, or to discuss the contents of their posts.
I'm going to have to ask you to please not pressure Happyflower to respond to you, per the civility guidelines as I understand them. If I am misapplying them, I'm sure Dr. Bob will feel free to correct me.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 16:43:18
In reply to Please don't pressure others » Deneb, posted by Dinah on December 26, 2006, at 16:29:13
>
> It is *not* against the rules, as I understand them, for either party to mention the other party, or to discuss the contents of their posts.
Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to a post by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.This is what it says in the rules.
Posted by Dinah on December 26, 2006, at 16:49:35
In reply to Re: Please don't pressure others » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 16:43:18
*Directing* a reply to someone is against the rules. My understanding is that mentioning them or the contents of their posts is not.
I believe it recently came up with me personally, and that was my understanding of the rule.
But if Dr. Bob doesn't agree, you can count on him to say so.
Posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 16:54:02
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - *Trigger* » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on December 26, 2006, at 16:25:40
I have directly told a deputy face to face about the threat of sucide I receive when I choose to not talk to a certain member, in fact this was said in front of Dr. Bob at the time, face to face, and nothing was done about it. It isn't a matter of pressuring me to talk to them. IT is about them saying they are going to kill themselves if I don't talk to them.
In chat this behavior was done right in front of the deputies and nothing was done except to comfort the sucidal person.Only now , after I risk my *ss being blocked for speaking up, offering definate proof, is anything being done. Even that was a slap on the wrist. I give up, I really do.
Posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:00:30
In reply to The rule » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on December 26, 2006, at 16:49:35
So a person can get away with a DNP to someone, by not pushing the reply button , but still can say what they want to them in a very obvious way and still be within the rules because they didn't push the reply button specifically to the person?
It seems like the rules says something different to me.
So again it comes down to protecting the people who are good at staying on the line of the rules and getting away with it?
Posted by Dinah on December 26, 2006, at 17:07:51
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - *Trigger* » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 16:54:02
I think that reporting a situation is different than talking about it. I think that for these issues, an official report or request to deputy *as* deputy or to Dr. Bob *as* administrator needs to be made.
That has always been my understanding.
The report this post function should work for that purpose as well, since it goes to all deputies and to Dr. Bob. Ideally, anyway. I suspect mine isn't working right now.
I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated. Misunderstandings and miscommunications can be frustrating, and I'm sorry for any part my actions played in those.
Posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - *Trigger* » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 16:54:02
It just seems to me that the rules are protecting the wrong people, that if somone can still blackmail and manipulate others, as long as they stay within the lines. But the ones harmed has to jump through hoops to have anything done to protect them.
This is so wrong, and I am protesting against it. I am thinking of seriously of leaving due to this factor, I know I am not the only one who feels this way. If nothing is done with people who manipulate others by threatening sucide in order to get their way, I will probably leave for my own safety and sanity.
Posted by cubic_me on December 26, 2006, at 17:40:51
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
Happyflower, I just wanted to give you support and say that I can totally understand what a difficult situation you have been in.
I feel that the rules seem to be working against the people who give the most support in these situations.
Posted by fayeroe on December 26, 2006, at 17:44:43
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
i also understand and support you completely on this issue. i am sorry that i didn't post this sooner. you're not alone here. xoxox pat
Posted by ClearSkies on December 26, 2006, at 18:39:50
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
> It just seems to me that the rules are protecting the wrong people, that if somone can still blackmail and manipulate others, as long as they stay within the lines. But the ones harmed has to jump through hoops to have anything done to protect them.
I think that reporting a harassment (as Dinah outlined) would be a way to stop the problem. I thought of the dinner with Dr Bob as a casual get together. I didn't realize that you had expected a follow-up to your comment at the time, or else I would have brought it up with Dr Bob and the other deputies for further discussion.
I have to say that that evening was a whirl of sensations for me and I don't actually remember all of our conversations (plus I plain couldn't hear everyone).
ClearSkies
Posted by madeline on December 26, 2006, at 20:10:41
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
I support you on this HF. I would hate to see you leave, and hope that this situation can be resolved.
Maddie.
Posted by Deneb on December 26, 2006, at 20:21:07
In reply to Re: Restate - *Trigger*, posted by notfred on December 25, 2006, at 23:23:53
I'm not reading this thread. It upsets me too much. I saw you posted something above. I just realized I rescinded my DNP when I replied to you. I'm reinstating my DNP.
Please do not post to me Notfred. Thank-you
Deneb*
Posted by madeline on December 27, 2006, at 7:26:25
In reply to Re: Restate - *Trigger*, posted by notfred on December 25, 2006, at 23:23:53
I know that documenting harrassment in chat maybe a little hard to do, but I can honestly say that I have seen this harrassment myself in chat and have had to use the "ignore" option.
Posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 7:34:17
In reply to I am protesting!, posted by Happyflower on December 26, 2006, at 17:29:54
> It just seems to me that the rules are protecting the wrong people, that if somone can still blackmail and manipulate others, as long as they stay within the lines. But the ones harmed has to jump through hoops to have anything done to protect them.
I also wish this would be addressed for the sake of what's "good" (IMO) for the community. I do not wish for anyone to be hurt but I am having a difficult time figuring out why some posters get warning after warning without being blocked and this practice is not applied to others. There must be something I don't know as it feels unequally applied to me - then again, that's a concern that been brought up over and over.
Posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 8:15:42
In reply to Re: I am protesting! » Happyflower, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 7:34:17
I got quick on the submit button....
To add:
In regard to wording, the behavior of posting content linking “talk” of suicide (ideation, planning, action, fantasy - feel free to add ---) as being a potential consequence of the information, content, actions, etc. posted or not posted by other posters, well, despite semantics, I feel that type of message creates a link implying a cause and potential effect relationship. I feel that is harmful to the board at large and individual posters.
Posted by madeline on December 27, 2006, at 9:00:17
In reply to *Trigger*, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 8:15:42
I agree, but would potentially take it beyond an implied link. I think it clearly says that "what you did/said (didn't do/didn't say) made me feel like committing suicide".
If that doesn't satisfy the requirement of making someone feel put down or accused, then I don't know what does.
In certain cases I even think it goes beyond simple manipulation or pressure and straight into coercion.
M
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:08:06
In reply to Re: *Trigger* » Farkus, posted by madeline on December 27, 2006, at 9:00:17
Yes, I agree, it goes well beyond being civil. In fact it is also a symptom of anti social personality disorder.
People with this disorder may appear charming on the surface, but they are likely to be aggressive and irritable as well as irresponsible across all areas. They may have numerous somatic complaints and possibly attempt suicide but due to their use of manipulative behavior, it is difficult to separate what is true and what is not.
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:11:33
In reply to Re: *Trigger* » madeline, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:08:06
Definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder
Personality denotes characteristic ways of thinking, feeling, behaving, and reacting to the environment. A personality disorder is said to exist when a person chronically uses mechanisms of coping in an inappropriate, stereotyped, and maladaptive fashion. Personality disorders are enduring and persistent styles of behavior and thought, not atypical episodes.
So this scares the heck out of me especially since I can't be left alone. My mother has this, and it just hits too close to home for me.
Posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:14:03
In reply to More symptoms of antisocial behavior, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:11:33
my words directly.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 9:52:58
In reply to *Trigger*, posted by Farkus on December 27, 2006, at 8:15:42
Friends,
It is written here,[...this is harmfull to..posters...].
There is a good study about suicide from about 5 years ago called The Great Smoky Mountains Study. The research indicated that there is a relationship to those having depression and suicide, but those that also had an anxiety disorder ran 50 times the risk for suicide behavior.
If this research is valid, and I have not found any contradictory research to show that it is not, then this brings up what IMO is a valid discussion as to this thread as to what could be a contributory factor , or not, in relation to aspects of the administration of this site.
One aspect is that if the population here could contain those of GAD, how could that validate or not, some of the aspects of, let's say, Happyflower's posts?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 27, 2006, at 9:54:38
In reply to Re: *Trigger* » madeline, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:08:06
From Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
It's ok to ask for rule changes, or to complain about how rules are applied.
But it is not ok under the rules here to bring it to a personal level and talk about an individual poster in negative terms.
I'm not positive whether that's been done since my last PBC's, and Dr. Bob might decide that it has been done. But I want to remind everyone to keep it theoretical on this board, and not post anything directed toward any poster that could lead them to feel accused or put down. Hypotheticals are good, and so is a reporting of the behavior only - without any characterization of the behavior in negative terms.
In addition I will say that PBC's have already been given on this thread. To several people. So at this point, please just report any continuation of offenses to Administration.
Please do not refer to any poster, whether by name or by clear implication, in negative terms. This is in violation of board civility policies, and PBC's have already been issued on this issue.
If anyone has any questions about what they're about to post, and whether it's ok under the rules, you can babblemail it to me or to another deputy for review before posting.
Posted by madeline on December 27, 2006, at 10:17:28
In reply to Reminder, posted by Dinah on December 27, 2006, at 9:54:38
I think that is very fair Dinah.
I don't want to double post, but over on the psych board I posted something that I learned about myself too about this whole discussion.
I know that this can be resolved with no more hurt to any of the parties involved.
I'm sorry If I contributed to that hurt in any way. Sincerely sorry.
Maddie
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 10:20:38
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Farkus' post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 9:52:58
Friends,
In reading Happyflower's posts, I find that there are IMO very valid aspects for discussion here and think that there is merit to a continued discussion. In reading those posts, however, I am seeing into perhaps a deeper meaning than what is shown. This may be because of other aspects of the forum that could be interelated to what Happyflower has posted and could be discussed by email if you like. I think that this thread and some of the aspects of Happyflower's posts, has the potential to be very fruitfull in relation to support and education about many aspects of this forum.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 10:32:02
In reply to Re: *Trigger* » madeline, posted by Happyflower on December 27, 2006, at 9:08:06
Friends,
It is written here,[...anti social personality disorder....].
This aspect brought up here , I think has great merit for discussion. It could be that Happyflower has a very deep understanding of the nature of support and education as to how things are interelated that I may share with her/him.
I would hope that this thread continues to allow development of these aspects that IMO could facilitate support and education here.
Lou
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.