![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 36. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on June 13, 2007, at 15:06:49
In reply to Policy, Safety and You, posted by Dory on June 13, 2007, at 11:01:37
i've often worried about a poster's real life safety after seeing replies that some posters get from others....including deputies. and lately, it's been awfully hard, with the exception of one person, Dinah, who is writing as a poster or a deputy.....
i don't think that safety is high on the priority list in this community hierarchy......
Posted by Dory on June 13, 2007, at 23:09:52
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Dory, posted by fayeroe on June 13, 2007, at 15:06:49
that isn't exactly what i meant.
hypothetical example:
suppose a regular poster is in a state of distress and posts information they shouldn't and it causes their estranged and violent father to find out where they live.
THAT kind of safety. If the poster realizes their mistake and wishes the post deleted, should the potential for personal harm outweigh the policy not to delete anything?
Posted by fayeroe on June 13, 2007, at 23:12:35
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » fayeroe, posted by Dory on June 13, 2007, at 23:09:52
Posted by Phillipa on June 13, 2007, at 23:19:26
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » fayeroe, posted by Dory on June 13, 2007, at 23:09:52
This is a bit different but met a poster here we e-mailed person was going to commit you know what . I called the police in his state he was locked up for the 72 hours for assessment. I also spoke by phone to the police and his pdoc. Today he is doing much better. So my answer is yes if it save a life. But posting personal info as to any actual address or place of employment if the person is having problems in life may not be the best of things but the world is a big place and haven't a lot of us talked to babblers on the phone. I've talked with five and visited one at their house. Names first is okay, state and town okay too. Love Phillipa
Posted by Granger on June 14, 2007, at 7:11:08
In reply to Policy, Safety and You, posted by Dory on June 13, 2007, at 11:01:37
Safety is a concern on boards. The subject of post deletion has been volleyed about and about. I’m not sure if it is as much about continuity as it is a lesson in accountability. Either way, I believe there are circumstances where posts should definitely be deleted.
Folks do get very comfortable over time and post regrettable information and other posters can reinforce the regrettable info in their posts. Posting in crisis can be an exercise in using bad judgment. Some folks seem to only post in crisis.
One needs to only have one incident to highlight how dangerous being very open and forthright can be. It is a harsh lesson and we can find ourselves in situations we could absolutely not predict.
On the other hand, folks can post about thinking of harming themselves or others and when action IS taken, their underroos get in a huge knot with the idea: “I was not serious” or “I said I was just THINKING about…” or “I was venting”.
I don’t know. What responsibility does the site owner hold to the safety of posters? I think it should be more than I see. I think the site owner initially should be involved on their board to even know - an absentee landlord generally harms their tenants more so than the landlord.
Posted by Dory on June 14, 2007, at 17:27:31
In reply to Re: Trigger » Dory, posted by Granger on June 14, 2007, at 7:11:08
Thank you and well said. Simply telling posters they are free to go elsewhere is not anough of an absolution IMO.
Sadly, it won't matter. The prevailing power (singular) that is has little conscience or concern for such matters.
As i am seeing at Babble, one can bang one's head until bloody, make all the sense in the world and have the majority of posters in agreement... and it is meaningless. Nothing will change or be dealt with in a responsibile mannor.
]
Posted by Dory on June 14, 2007, at 18:23:44
In reply to Policy, Safety and You, posted by Dory on June 13, 2007, at 11:01:37
i have asked Bob this question, with more specifics, about how the policies in place take priority over the safety of the poster. i have had correspondence with him but as of yet, and despite asking this question 3 times, i have yet to receive even the beginnings of said explanation. i have received no explanation at all.
Posted by Granger on June 14, 2007, at 20:27:58
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You, posted by Dory on June 14, 2007, at 18:23:44
I am sorry you have not received a response. There seems to be a trend of nonresponses.
From FAQ:
"If someone else has posted information that identifies or private communications from you and you object, or if you did so yourself and have changed your mind, please contact me."
Wonder what that statement means? It is vague and doesn't address what action could be taken by Dr. Bob. I would "assume" (generally dangerous to assume but here goes ---) that some level of attention and prehaps even compassion would be given when that occurs and the infomation would be removed.
Posted by Dory on June 15, 2007, at 8:06:29
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Dory, posted by Granger on June 14, 2007, at 20:27:58
Oh i received a response, eventually, what i didn't receive was an answer. i heard nothing for an inexcusably long time, then several communications back and forth.. oh wait, i am certain communication implies something not applicable to the emails. i ask over and over and he dodges my question. Apparently, one is supposed to accept that's the way it is.
Just drink the Kool aid.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2007, at 8:15:09
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Granger, posted by Dory on June 15, 2007, at 8:06:29
Posted by zenhussy on June 15, 2007, at 9:16:47
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Granger, posted by Dory on June 15, 2007, at 8:06:29
Posted by dispatcher on June 15, 2007, at 12:14:49
In reply to *kool aid trig--Jonestown mass suicide in Guyana? (nm), posted by zenhussy on June 15, 2007, at 9:16:47
From PBS -
Jim Jones carefully revealed only as much of himself as he needed to to any given audience -- the inner circle of Peoples Temple, his larger congregation, local politicians, or his various female companions. Much of the time he hid behind his sunglasses and let others project their hopes and fears through him.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/jonestown/gallery/index.html
Posted by Dory on June 15, 2007, at 16:43:51
In reply to Re: *kool aid trig--, posted by dispatcher on June 15, 2007, at 12:14:49
wow. this was cooler than i thought. all i meant was do what you are told, and yes as in Jtown. But it was not meant as a reference to the end result per se, just to the directive and thoughtless following of said directive.
i really like yours better dispatcher.
Posted by muffled on June 16, 2007, at 18:32:50
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Dory, posted by Granger on June 14, 2007, at 20:27:58
> I am sorry you have not received a response. There seems to be a trend of nonresponses.
>
> From FAQ:
>
> "If someone else has posted information that identifies or private communications from you and you object, or if you did so yourself and have changed your mind, please contact me."
>
> Wonder what that statement means? It is vague and doesn't address what action could be taken by Dr. Bob. I would "assume" (generally dangerous to assume but here goes ---) that some level of attention and prehaps even compassion would be given when that occurs and the infomation would be removed.**But it won't be :-(
Sucks all right :-(
M
Posted by Granger on June 16, 2007, at 19:26:05
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Granger, posted by muffled on June 16, 2007, at 18:32:50
> **But it won't be :-(
> Sucks all right :-(
> M
Yep, sure does.
Posted by Granger on June 17, 2007, at 6:49:25
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Granger, posted by muffled on June 16, 2007, at 18:32:50
One of the issues I have long thought was problematic was/is the lack of governing much on content, which is different from govening on presentation.
While not exactly related to allowing personal info to remain even after a request to have it removed for privacy and safety reasons - there appears to me to be more attention to how something is put forth than what is being posted.
Posted by muffled on June 17, 2007, at 10:04:45
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » muffled, posted by Granger on June 17, 2007, at 6:49:25
Sigh. Yet another good point.
Some stuff contentwise is hard. Thats where triggers are important, then you can be prepared somehow.
Generally it seems babblers for the most part self restrict on content. But sometimes there's screwups.
My issue is with admins utter inflexibility. Bob seems to be willing to be more lenient (esp since he's not been around anyways), but he never wants to delete a post. I think there have been times when IMHO a post should have been deleted and he just WON'T.
There also has been some blocks that are a bit questionable, but again, in the past Bob has been unwilling to change them.
Its the inflexibility that gets to me.
As for content, I honestly don't understand those "veiled" type threads where the content is allowed cuz apparently flies below the civility radar, but apparently is still hurtful and downright nasty. Appaerently there's ways to do this, and its gotten to me before. Its hard with just words to know whether a person is being sarcastic etc.
I am learning to just stay away from those threads as best I can.
I honestly dunno wassup w/babble, I really don't.
Bob exists, but I dunno wassup w/him either?
Take care, try and not get too caught up in admin, it'll chew you up and spit you out.
Muffled
Posted by Granger on June 17, 2007, at 21:51:18
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Granger, posted by muffled on June 17, 2007, at 10:04:45
> Take care, try and not get too caught up in admin, it'll chew you up and spit you out.
> MuffledHey M,
Yes, in the past, I had spent much time fretting and jaw tightening over Adm. issues here but I *try* to no longer allow them to get to me. It felt like an exercise in futility. Now, I just occassionally feel the need to mouth off just to see it in a post. :) I do like seeing like minded sensibilities - that does my heart good.
I have been fortunate to discover, babble, for the most part : }, is composed of good folk trying to have a place.
You take care of you too, M
Granger
Posted by muffled on June 17, 2007, at 23:04:23
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » muffled, posted by Granger on June 17, 2007, at 21:51:18
Posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2007, at 8:55:20
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Granger, posted by muffled on June 16, 2007, at 18:32:50
If a person posts personal information and needs it removed they should report it.
If it is *inside* a post then the deputies can xxx it out.
If the personal information is a person's name then only Dr. Bob has the power to change it.
He will, though. I have seen it.
Posted by dispatcher on June 18, 2007, at 9:14:35
In reply to Re: *kool aid trig--, posted by Dory on June 15, 2007, at 16:43:51
Some may apply or all - regarding cults that is...
"Do you know someone in a destructive cult?
Warning signs!
Anyone could attack a group they disagree with by unfairly labeling it a destructive cult. How would you know whether it really were such a cult or not? Isn't there an objective method to evaluate groups for cultic tendencies? Yes. The following early warning signs can help you reasonably determine whether or not a group is likely to be a destructive cult, and if you should be concerned about a friend, coworker, or loved one being involved with it.
The main reason that the following destructive cult tactics are so damaging to both the individual and society is because they debilitate rationality and reduce empathy. Rationality and empathy are indispensable in making good personal and social decisions. History is littered with personal and social catastrophes where a lack of rationality and lack of empathy were its core causes.
Ask yourself if the following criteria apply to the group you are concerned about.
A destructive cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of its members' behavior.
Cults are likely to dictate in great detail not only what members believe, but also what members wear and eat, when and where members work, sleep, and bathe, and how members think, speak, and conduct familial, marital, or sexual relationships.A destructive cult tends to have an ethical double standard.
Members are urged to be obedient to the cult, to carefully follow cult rules. They are also encouraged to be revealing and open in the group, confessing all to the leaders. On the other hand, outside the group they are encouraged to act unethically, manipulating outsiders or nonmembers, and either deceiving them or simply revealing very little about themselves or the group. In contrast to destructive cults, honorable groups teach members to abide by one set of ethics and act ethically and truthfully to all people in all situations.A destructive cult has only two basic purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. Altruistic movements, established religions, and other honorable groups also recruit and raise funds. However, these actions are incidental to an honorable group's main purpose of improving the lives of its members and of humankind in general. Destructive cults may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality such claims are superficial and only serve as gestures or fronts for recruiting and fund-raising. A cult's real goal is to increase the prestige and often the wealth of the leader.
A destructive cult appears to be innovative and exclusive.
The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the ONLY viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. But these claims are empty and only used to recruit members who are then surreptitiously subjected to mind control to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.A destructive cult is authoritarian in its power structure.
The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes. There is no appeal outside his or her system to a greater system of justice. For example, if a schoolteacher feels unjustly treated by a principal, an appeal can be made to the superintendent. In a destructive cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.A destructive cult's leader is a self-appointed messianic person claiming to have a special mission in life.
For example, leaders of flying saucer cults claim that beings from outer space have commissioned them to lead people away from Earth, so that only the leaders can save them from impending doom.A destructive cult's leader centers the veneration of members upon himself or herself. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and other leaders of genuinely altruistic movements focus the veneration of adherents on God or a set of ethical principles. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.
A destructive cult's leader tends to be determined, domineering, and charismatic.
Such a leader effectively persuades followers to abandon or alter their families, friends, and careers to follow the cult. The leader then takes control over followers' possessions, money, time, and lives."
Posted by Phillipa on June 18, 2007, at 19:34:07
In reply to Re: Reporting personal information » muffled, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2007, at 8:55:20
True once I posted my e-mail address publicly and e-mailed Dr. Bob to remove it and he did. It was very foolish to post it as there are so many not nice people on the internet. Love Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on June 18, 2007, at 21:08:22
In reply to Re: Reporting personal information » muffled, posted by AuntieMel on June 18, 2007, at 8:55:20
Right, and true, but there are other types of information that people later regret posting. Not seemingly so specific as name, address, etc., but to *them*...maybe too revealing if the wrong person/people read them and pieced together things? Even the remote possibility might be scary?
I'm guessing that might be the kind of information Dory posted here about.
And then, even if Dr. Bob is willing, I can envision total disagreement between the 2 parties of what is and isn't 'personal', you know?
-10der, posting as a poster
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2007, at 3:53:22
In reply to Re: Policy, Safety and You » Granger, posted by Dory on June 15, 2007, at 8:06:29
> Apparently, one is supposed to accept that's the way it is.
>
> Just drink the Kool aid.I'm sorry we haven't been able to reach a middle ground, but please don't be sarcastic, post anything that could lead others (such as me) to feel accused, or exaggerate.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by muffled on June 19, 2007, at 14:45:17
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dory, posted by Dr. Bob on June 19, 2007, at 3:53:22
> > Apparently, one is supposed to accept that's the way it is.
> >
> > Just drink the Kool aid.
>
> I'm sorry we haven't been able to reach a middle ground, but please don't be sarcastic, post anything that could lead others (such as me) to feel accused, or exaggerate.
>
> But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob**OK I had to go back up the thread to see WTF is wrong w/coolaide :-( Sad :-(
I guess dory was just expressing her frustration, but needs to learn to do it the 'babble' way....
So, I guess a better way to say it would have been???
EG:
I feel like there's no recourse for me.
I feel like I wasn't heard or understood in my seriousness of my situation.
I feel very frustrated that there was not any solution that made sense to me, to my problem.
I feel angry and upset.Is that what she should have said?
Or just say nothing at all?
Or re-post to administrators/deputies?
Emotions suck big time, but they pass, and the hurt and fear will ease. But it sucks, damn it sucks.
M
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.