![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 30, 2007, at 8:37:42
In reply to Lou's request to Greywolf for clarification » greywolf, posted by Lou Pilder on April 30, 2007, at 6:12:02
> > I agree, Quintal, that the civility issues are sometimes hard to call, and I think I recently disagreed with action taken on one of your posts that I thought was pretty innocuous.
> >
> > But, sincerely, I think those very close, or even wrong, civility calls are a tiny portion of the overall administrative actions. In my view, most of the civility issues involve obvious (and sometimes intentional) violations of the rules. Given the nature of this site, restraint is more highly valued and necessary than on most other sites. I would be concerned that relaxing the civility rules would make it even more difficult to reign in those who are constantly flirting with the line.
> >
> > Again, I agree that not all determinations under the civility rules are correct or proportionate. I would bet that the deputies themselves would agree that they're not perfect despite their best efforts, and are susceptible to the same interpretation errors as the rest of us. That's one of those system imperfections that can be worked on, but never quite eliminated.
> >
> > My suggestion is oriented more to those administration board posts that are resource killers for, perhaps, less than important reasons. I won't describe any particular threads that fall into this category, but I think most of them are self-evident. Perhaps I'm being too critical, but it seems that many posts seeking "clarification" or guidance regarding site rules are thinly-veiled attempts to engage in debate for the sake of debate, or to simply force the administrators to admit that the rules do not operate flawlessly in every circumstance. I don't think those situations offer much that is productive or constructive. However, since it may be that some posts are the product of a disorder that creates an inclination to engage others in disputes of questionable value, there will probably always be threads of this nature. I guess it's up to the deputies to determine what the appropriate response is in those situations, and in my opinion that's another reason to consider not adding to their burdens when we can avoid it.
> >
> > Greywolf
> >
> Greywolf,
> You wrote, [...those administrative board posts...].
> I would like to post my response to your post here and I am unsure of the posts that you are referring to. If you could clarify by posting the URLs here ,if they could be posted, or email which posts that you are referring to by email to me or to someone else that could forward the URL to me, then I could have the opportunity to post my response accordingly by considering those posts in my response.
> Lou
>
> Greywolf,
I am withdrawing my request to you for clarification.
Lou
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2007, at 0:36:13
In reply to Re: Suggestion to reduce administrative burdens » Quintal, posted by greywolf on April 28, 2007, at 23:50:40
> My suggestion is oriented more to those administration board posts that are resource killers for, perhaps, less than important reasons. I won't describe any particular threads that fall into this category, but I think most of them are self-evident. Perhaps I'm being too critical, but it seems that many posts seeking "clarification" or guidance regarding site rules are thinly-veiled attempts to engage in debate for the sake of debate, or to simply force the administrators to admit that the rules do not operate flawlessly in every circumstance. I don't think those situations offer much that is productive or constructive.
Thanks for your interest in reducing administrative burdens. And for not describing any particular threads. Your support has really been appreciated.
But while I'd like us to be able to discuss issues like the above, I'd also like those discussions to be civil. As on Politics (and this is, after all, our own politics), I think it's more civil to lobby for what you're in favor of than to lobby against what you're opposed to.
As an example, one way to rephrase the above might be:
> My suggestion is oriented more to those administration board posts that seek clarification or guidance regarding site rules. Perhaps before we post them we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for the community as a whole?
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 22, 2007, at 8:13:17
In reply to Re: Suggestion to reduce administrative burdens, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2007, at 0:36:13
> > My suggestion is oriented more to those administration board posts that are resource killers for, perhaps, less than important reasons. I won't describe any particular threads that fall into this category, but I think most of them are self-evident. Perhaps I'm being too critical, but it seems that many posts seeking "clarification" or guidance regarding site rules are thinly-veiled attempts to engage in debate for the sake of debate, or to simply force the administrators to admit that the rules do not operate flawlessly in every circumstance. I don't think those situations offer much that is productive or constructive.
>
> Thanks for your interest in reducing administrative burdens. And for not describing any particular threads. Your support has really been appreciated.
>
> But while I'd like us to be able to discuss issues like the above, I'd also like those discussions to be civil. As on Politics (and this is, after all, our own politics), I think it's more civil to lobby for what you're in favor of than to lobby against what you're opposed to.
>
> As an example, one way to rephrase the above might be:
>
> > My suggestion is oriented more to those administration board posts that seek clarification or guidance regarding site rules. Perhaps before we post them we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for the community as a whole?
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
YOu wrote,[...perhaps before we post them,(posts that seek clarification or guidance regarding site rules) we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for >the community as a whole<...]
I am unsutre as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean. Could you give more clarification as to what you could want that to mean in regards to members here posting requests to clarify and seek guidance regarding site rules by clarifying ,let's say, how one request for clarification or guidance concerning site rules could be good for the community as a whole and another request for clarification or guidance could not be good for the community as a whole?
If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you could mean as to what is or is not a request for clarification concerning site rules that is good for the community as a whole, or not, and either post a request that could be considered to be good for the community as a whole or to not post what could not be good for the community as a whole.
Lou Pilder
Posted by susan47 on June 29, 2007, at 11:13:50
In reply to Re: Suggestion to reduce administrative burdens, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2007, at 0:36:13
Hello? Are you there? I was wondering if you have the administrative thing set up so that you have someone on the front lines dealing with emotional issues and you have other people in the background doing the research stuff. I know deputies have helped each other out that way, unofficially, in the past. But it might be a good idea to try that, if you haven't already suggested it or done it. Just an idea. Because people all have strengths and interests in different areas, and I think you could find a lot of support .. with less stress maybe .. but then I always talk through my hat so just ignore this. Just had to get it out there. Probably you're already doing it. Or it's just a bad idea.
Posted by susan47 on June 29, 2007, at 11:17:45
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung,clarification-gudhol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 22, 2007, at 8:13:17
Posts like this one boggle my itsy bitsy teeny weeny little mind. I mean, really, I cannot see the forest for the trees. SO many people out there know that this poster is talking about, and I can't even Begin to get my head around it right now. Ouch! I cannot imagine the type of mindset it takes to be this Involved in stuff like this. And yet it must be Necessary Stuff, somehow. I know that. Or it wouldn't be in discussion. What does it all Mean????
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2007, at 13:38:23
In reply to Holy Cow., posted by susan47 on June 29, 2007, at 11:17:45
> Posts like this one boggle my itsy bitsy teeny weeny little mind. I mean, really, I cannot see the forest for the trees. So many people out there know that this poster is talking about, and I can't even Begin to get my head around it right now. Ouch! I cannot imagine the type of mindset it takes to be this Involved in stuff like this. And yet it must be Necessary Stuff, somehow. I know that. Or it wouldn't be in discussion. What does it all Mean?...]
Friends,
It is written here,[...posts like this..boggle..my..mind...cannot see...so many..know...I can't ..begin..my head...the type of mindset...Necessary stuff...What does it all mean?...]
If anyone would like to know anything about this discussion from me, they could just ask.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 9:46:55
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung,clarification-gudhol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 22, 2007, at 8:13:17
> I am unsutre as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean.
Good question, but I'd like to hear what members of the community think...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2007, at 6:43:05
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 9:46:55
> > I am unsutre as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean.
>
> Good question, but I'd like to hear what members of the community think...
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
In regards to your reply to me above,[...{but} I'd like to hear what members of the community think...] to my request to you,[..I am unsure as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean.
If we look at the entire request from me to you here it reads;
[...I am unsure as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole| could mean. Could you give more clarification as to what you could want that to mean in regards to members here posting requests to seek guidance concerning site rules by clarifuing, let's say, how one request for clarification or guidance concerning site rules could be good for the community as a whole and another request for clarification or guidance could not be good for the community as a whole?...]
I consider my request to you to be in accordance with the TOS here in regards to your policy that it is fine to discuss actions taken by the administration, policy, and if one would want to know your rationale for something to just ask you. Your use of {but} is generally accepted to mean {unless}. It is my understanding that the TOS here is that if anyone would like to know your rationale to just ask you. In your reply,[...>but< I would like to hear what others think...], if you are wanting to mean that the {but} is equilvalent to {unless}, then this is something IMO new to the TOS here. And if so,then could my request be of the nature that it was before a new policy was added to your TOS and be responded to without others giving their thinking?
In the last part of my request it reads,
[...If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you could mean as to what is or is not a request for clarification concerning site rules that is good for the community as a whole, or not, and either post a request that could be considered to be good for the community as a whole or to not post what could not be good for the community as a whole...]
I would like to post my responses by incorporating your rationale for what could be a request that could or could not be good for the community as a whole. I would like to post my responses without any delay because of the importance to me concerning posts here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and/or could lead a Jew to feel put down and/or accused. If I was to know of what your rationale is for what is or is not a request that could be good for the community as a whole, then I could have the opportunity to post accordingly using your rationale for such.
As to what others think, I am asking that if anyone here is considering to be a respondant in this thread to Dr. Hsiung's wanting to know your thinking, that you state as to if what you think is speculation as to what Dr. Hsiung could mean or it is your own thinking, or if it is fact concerning Dr. Hsiung's thinking and site your authority for such.
Lou Pilder
Here is the link to my innitial request to Dr. Hsiung (last part of post).
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2007, at 12:01:52
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr.Hsiung-xpstfcto? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2007, at 6:43:05
> > > I am unsutre as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean.
> >
> > Good question, but I'd like to hear what members of the community think...
> >
> > Bob
>
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reply to me above,[...{but} I'd like to hear what members of the community think...] to my request to you,[..I am unsure as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean.
> If we look at the entire request from me to you here it reads;
> [...I am unsure as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole| could mean. Could you give more clarification as to what you could want that to mean in regards to members here posting requests to seek guidance concerning site rules by clarifuing, let's say, how one request for clarification or guidance concerning site rules could be good for the community as a whole and another request for clarification or guidance could not be good for the community as a whole?...]
> I consider my request to you to be in accordance with the TOS here in regards to your policy that it is fine to discuss actions taken by the administration, policy, and if one would want to know your rationale for something to just ask you. Your use of {but} is generally accepted to mean {unless}. It is my understanding that the TOS here is that if anyone would like to know your rationale to just ask you. In your reply,[...>but< I would like to hear what others think...], if you are wanting to mean that the {but} is equilvalent to {unless}, then this is something IMO new to the TOS here. And if so,then could my request be of the nature that it was before a new policy was added to your TOS and be responded to without others giving their thinking?
> In the last part of my request it reads,
> [...If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you could mean as to what is or is not a request for clarification concerning site rules that is good for the community as a whole, or not, and either post a request that could be considered to be good for the community as a whole or to not post what could not be good for the community as a whole...]
> I would like to post my responses by incorporating your rationale for what could be a request that could or could not be good for the community as a whole. I would like to post my responses without any delay because of the importance to me concerning posts here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and/or could lead a Jew to feel put down and/or accused. If I was to know of what your rationale is for what is or is not a request that could be good for the community as a whole, then I could have the opportunity to post accordingly using your rationale for such.
> As to what others think, I am asking that if anyone here is considering to be a respondant in this thread to Dr. Hsiung's wanting to know your thinking, that you state as to if what you think is speculation as to what Dr. Hsiung could mean or it is your own thinking, or if it is fact concerning Dr. Hsiung's thinking and site your authority for such.
> Lou Pilder
> Here is the link to my innitial request to Dr. Hsiung (last part of post).
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.htmlDr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Good..but I'd like to hear what members of the community think...]
That could have the potential IMO to delay your response to my request because of the waiting for others here to post and then waiting for you to respond after that, if you are intending to respond after a member posts. If the member posts and you agree with them, then you could post to confirm their post. And if a member posts and you do not agree with them, you could post as such which still could have the potential IMO of there being more time without my requests to you being answered by you unless you at that point state that you do not agree with them and post what you want to mean.
Either way, if we consider your standard that one match can start a forest fire, any fire that could be burning could spread.
I am requesting that if you are going to wait untill a member posts here so that you could either confirm or not, or not respond to the member's post at all, what they write as being what you mean, that I be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts to respond to the fact that there is going to be a delay in your responding to me as to what you are wanting to mean by,[...good for the community as a whole...].
My response could be one that what you refer to as {less-confident } posters could possibly be that what my response could be might be unbeknownst to them for it will encompass:
A. the history of the concept of {good for the community as a whole} as related to
1. The position of Joseph Stalin
2. The position of Jean Jacques Rousseau
3. The position of National Socilism (NAZI)
4. The position of Benito Mussolini(Fascism)
5. The French Revolution
6. Jeffereson's writings
7. Brown vs Topeka
8. US vs Bob Jones University
9. the 1962 civil rights act (U.S.)
10. the positons of other psychiatrists and psychologists concerning [...good for the community as a whole...]
11. The position of Dr. Martin Luther King jr
12. The position of the now nation of Israel
13. The position of the decisions in 1945-1946 that still hold today.
14. other related positions to the standard of, [...good for the community as a whole...]
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 7:06:41
DR. Hsiung,
In regards to your procedure to keep reminding you in reference to your statement here,
[...perhaps before we post them,(posts that seek clarification or guidance regarding site rules) we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for{the community as a whole}...], I have the following request concerning your policy, rules, actions that you take and rationales and such.
I am unsure as to what you want to mean by {good for the community as a whole}.If you could post examples here of what could be a post that requests clarification or guidance that could be good for the community as a whole and a post that is an example of one that could not be good for the community as a whole, then I could have the clarification that I am looking for from you and respond accordingly.
Here is a link to a post where I had requested this on the bottom of the page on June 22.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2007, at 13:29:13
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung,clarification-gudhol » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 22, 2007, at 8:13:17
> I am unsutre as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean.
Sorry, but I don't think I have anything else to add at this time...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2007, at 15:16:22
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-June 22-gdfrwhol, posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 7:06:41
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to your procedure to keep reminding you in reference to your statement here,
> [...perhaps before we post them,(posts that seek clarification or guidance regarding site rules) we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for{the community as a whole}...], I have the following request concerning your policy, rules, actions that you take and rationales and such.
> I am unsure as to what you want to mean by {good for the community as a whole}.If you could post examples here of what could be a post that requests clarification or guidance that could be good for the community as a whole and a post that is an example of one that could not be good for the community as a whole, then I could have the clarification that I am looking for from you and respond accordingly.
> Here is a link to a post where I had requested this on the bottom of the page on June 22.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.htmlDR. Hsiung,
In regards to now that you would like reminders posted as follow ups to the outstanding requests rather than starting a new thread, the above is the outstanding request where I have requested that you give examples of posts that request clarification or guidance regarding site rules that you could identify as being good for the community as a whole and those that you could give an example of that could not be good for the community as a whole, then I could know what kind of requests are which, and respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2007, at 7:43:43
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-June 22-gdfrwhol, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2007, at 15:16:22
> > DR. Hsiung,
> > In regards to your procedure to keep reminding you in reference to your statement here,
> > [...perhaps before we post them,(posts that seek clarification or guidance regarding site rules) we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for{the community as a whole}...], I have the following request concerning your policy, rules, actions that you take and rationales and such.
> > I am unsure as to what you want to mean by {good for the community as a whole}.If you could post examples here of what could be a post that requests clarification or guidance that could be good for the community as a whole and a post that is an example of one that could not be good for the community as a whole, then I could have the clarification that I am looking for from you and respond accordingly.
> > Here is a link to a post where I had requested this on the bottom of the page on June 22.
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.html
>
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to now that you would like reminders posted as follow ups to the outstanding requests rather than starting a new thread, the above is the outstanding request where I have requested that you give examples of posts that request clarification or guidance regarding site rules that you could identify as being good for the community as a whole and those that you could give an example of that could not be good for the community as a whole, then I could know what kind of requests are which, and respond accordingly.
> Lou PilderDr. Hsiung,
In regards to your statements where you write,[...I do not have anything to add {at this time}...], I am unsure as to what you want to mean by that. I have researched the statement and find it used in various ways and I am unsure as to how you are wanting to use it here. In your statement , there is the part,{at this time} which is diferent from just writing that you do not have anything to add. This could mean that you could change your mind from not having anything to add {at that time} to that you could have something to add at{this time}.
So I am asking you, at this time, if you could now have something to add?
My request is based on the generally accepted practice concerning that your statement to the members to {just ask you} here about your rationales and such concerning actions that you take and your policy and rules and such could give rise to an expectation that if a member requests what you have posted that members can ask you about that a reply could be posted by you.
I am asking at this time for the criteria for a request to be good for the communty as a whole verses the criteria where a request could not be good for the community as a whole to be posted, as part of your rationale that you write here for one that would like to know your rationale to just ask you. It is my great fear here that the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings could arrise toward me here if the criteria for a request to be determined as good or not for the community as a whole are to remain in question. This is because there is your statement that members that post requests for clarification and guidance concerning site rules ask themselves if the requests could not be good for the community as a whole,and I am a member, and I am asking you to identify the criteria to determine that by you posting an example here of that because I have posted requests for clarification and guidance and such about your rules and I would like for the forum to be have known if any of my requests are those that you consider to be not good for the community as a whole by you posting examples, so that I could have the opportunity to respond to prevent IMO the potential for me to be stigmatized and be possibly subjected to antisemitic violence.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2007, at 22:53:24
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr.Hsiung-gd4comunasawhole, posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2007, at 12:01:52
> A. the history of the concept of {good for the community as a whole}
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding the concept of {good for the community as a whole} to Psycho-Babble Politics. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20070708/msgs/774451.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by confuzyq on August 6, 2007, at 23:00:20
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
> > Are you saying here that I, as a deputy, am a modern day Eichmann? Are you comparing me, personally, as a deputy, to the Nazi SS leadership?
> >
> > Please clarify this for me.
>
> Racer,
> Please do not post to me.
> Lou
>Lou, this is the same kind of clarification that you would readily request from another, right down to asking if someone's words were meant to cast you yourself or members of your religion in a certain light with which you wouldn't be pleased.
Also, it was my understanding that for a PDNP to be honored by Admin now, the situation must meet more requirements than previously. For example, that some kind of harrassment or badgering was taking place, or something blatantly unkind, thoughtless or uncivil was said. Otherwise, it was posited that PDNPs in themselves had the potential to be uncivil, if some kind of personal distaste only but no clear cause for the upset and request could be seen.
Racer's question doesn't consist of any of that. If her feelings might be hurt by a possible interpretation of your words, why not just answer and tell her if her interpretation was correct or incorrect?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2007, at 23:00:21
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
> > > Are you saying here that I, as a deputy, am a modern day Eichmann? Are you comparing me, personally, as a deputy, to the Nazi SS leadership?
> > >
> > > Please clarify this for me.
> >
> > Racer,
> > Please do not post to me.
> > Lou
> >
>
> Lou, this is the same kind of clarification that you would readily request from another, right down to asking if someone's words were meant to cast you yourself or members of your religion in a certain light with which you wouldn't be pleased.
>
> Also, it was my understanding that for a PDNP to be honored by Admin now, the situation must meet more requirements than previously. For example, that some kind of harrassment or badgering was taking place, or something blatantly unkind, thoughtless or uncivil was said. Otherwise, it was posited that PDNPs in themselves had the potential to be uncivil, if some kind of personal distaste only but no clear cause for the upset and request could be seen.
>
> Racer's question doesn't consist of any of that. If her feelings might be hurt by a possible interpretation of your words, why not just answer and tell her if her interpretation was correct or incorrect?confuzyq,
I am unsure as to what the new rules are. I have followed the procedure here as to what I see in the TOS/FAQ here and what I know concerning those procedures. If there are other rules outside of that, I am unaware of them.
You wrote,[...the samr kind of clarification that (I)...].
My post is about that I am responding to Dr. Hsiung's invitation for him to hear from others concerning the concept of,[...{good for} the community >as a whole<...] and I am also responding to greywolf's invitation for me to post how the phrase was used in the 12 that I listed. I am expanding that list to include Jesus of Nazareth, Jefferson Davis, John Grohol, and others listed in another thread.
As far as deputies are concerned, did not Jesus of Nazareth have deputies? Deputies are generally considered to be those chosen to do the wishes of another.
You see, I was a deputy. And what I could post here could be IMO of great importance to some. For you see, communities were started thousands of years ago when people made bricks. And these communities are with us today, some as secret societies.
I personally built a community with the principles of [...good for the community >as a whole<...]. But there are different applications by those in history that use tht concept. The keys are the two parts, one being{good for} and the other being >as a whole<. It is how those two parts are applied that is the diference that I could show by pointing out the diffeent uses of those two and the uses of deputies in historical communities that IMO people are generally aware of.
George W. Bush has deputies. Jefferson Davis had deputies. Dr. Martin Luther King jr had deputies.
I could show the difference between them, which is one of the things that I am responding to as per Dr. Hsiung writing that this is a goood topic for him to hear from others. He has clarified that to mean that he would like to hear what others think, not what others think that he means. I am posting what I think about his invitation, not what he means.
The part with Adolf Eichmann is something that I have requested that others here interested in this thread research on their own if thy like, for discussion purposes. This is because when one searches his name, they could very well possibly read his concept of,[...good for the community {as a whole}...].
Lou
Lou
Posted by confuzyq on August 6, 2007, at 23:00:22
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
> confuzyq,
> I am unsure as to what the new rules are. I have followed the procedure here as to what I see in the TOS/FAQ here and what I know concerning those procedures. If there are other rules outside of that, I am unaware of them.***** Formerly, people could make a PDNP request for any reason or even no reason. Now, Bob does want there to be a "visible" reason for why one felt slighted, attacked, harrassed, etc. enough to do that, and he will inform the requester of whether or not he will honor the PDNP request. What I don't see is where Racer's post to you meets any of that criteria. Or, that you used the PDNP as a "last resort," which is also mentioned in the FAQ.
http://dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
I believe part of the reason the PDNP revision came to be is that these requests occasionally appeared to be used as simply a way to, shall we say, express an opinion about a poster or make a direct statement to them that would not otherwise be considered acceptable. What could be more "expressive" than receiving a PDNP. Yet they were making it under the civility wire no matter what.
Previously, PDNPs could also be used as more or less a substitute for the "Ignore" feature that many forums have, and many wish existed here. But that wasn't the intended use for them either, and if we don't want to read someone's posts but they haven't done anything "prosecutable" to us, we have to take it upon ourselves to just not read them.
Since Racer did not attack, harrass or accuse you, I think maybe another policy was also overlooked here, the one which says that if you have an issue with someone's post, you need to use the "Notify" button instead.
> You wrote,[...the samr kind of clarification that (I)...].
> My post is about that I am responding to Dr. Hsiung's invitation for him to hear from others concerning the concept of,[...{good for} the community >as a whole<...] and I am also responding to greywolf's invitation....**** But that does not address the fact that Racer did not do anything offensive or harrassing here. And we can't ban others from a thread or conversation. That's come up before. It can be requested that only certain subjects be adhered to in the thread (which Racer was doing), but I doubt it would be considered civil to request that someone leave the thread. But even if so, it wouldn't need to be delivered with the big guns of a "PDNP." And Racer would have had no way of knowing that only Bob and Greywolf were welcome anyway.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2007, at 23:00:23
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
>
> > confuzyq,
> > I am unsure as to what the new rules are. I have followed the procedure here as to what I see in the TOS/FAQ here and what I know concerning those procedures. If there are other rules outside of that, I am unaware of them.
>
> ***** Formerly, people could make a PDNP request for any reason or even no reason. Now, Bob does want there to be a "visible" reason for why one felt slighted, attacked, harrassed, etc. enough to do that, and he will inform the requester of whether or not he will honor the PDNP request. What I don't see is where Racer's post to you meets any of that criteria. Or, that you used the PDNP as a "last resort," which is also mentioned in the FAQ.
>
> http://dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
>
> I believe part of the reason the PDNP revision came to be is that these requests occasionally appeared to be used as simply a way to, shall we say, express an opinion about a poster or make a direct statement to them that would not otherwise be considered acceptable. What could be more "expressive" than receiving a PDNP. Yet they were making it under the civility wire no matter what.
>
> Previously, PDNPs could also be used as more or less a substitute for the "Ignore" feature that many forums have, and many wish existed here. But that wasn't the intended use for them either, and if we don't want to read someone's posts but they haven't done anything "prosecutable" to us, we have to take it upon ourselves to just not read them.
>
> Since Racer did not attack, harrass or accuse you, I think maybe another policy was also overlooked here, the one which says that if you have an issue with someone's post, you need to use the "Notify" button instead.
>
> > You wrote,[...the samr kind of clarification that (I)...].
> > My post is about that I am responding to Dr. Hsiung's invitation for him to hear from others concerning the concept of,[...{good for} the community >as a whole<...] and I am also responding to greywolf's invitation....
>
> **** But that does not address the fact that Racer did not do anything offensive or harrassing here. And we can't ban others from a thread or conversation. That's come up before. It can be requested that only certain subjects be adhered to in the thread (which Racer was doing), but I doubt it would be considered civil to request that someone leave the thread. But even if so, it wouldn't need to be delivered with the big guns of a "PDNP." And Racer would have had no way of knowing that only Bob and Greywolf were welcome anyway.confuzyq,
You wrote,[...Since Racer did not...you need to...we can't ban...Racer would have no way of knowing that...].Friends,
My response to Dr. Hsiung and greywolf's invitations are responses that are open to all to reply or respond to. The PDNP does mean that the one can respond to the {aspects} of the thread and that they are welcome as all are in the thread. Can not responding to the {aspects} of a post be done without responding to the poster of the PDNP?
If anyone would like to see my side of this, they could email me if they like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2007, at 23:16:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to confuzyq-azawhol » Lou Pilder, posted by confuzyq on August 6, 2007, at 23:00:22
> http://dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
>
> I believe part of the reason the PDNP revision came to be is that these requests occasionally appeared to be used as simply a way to, shall we say, express an opinion about a poster or make a direct statement to them that would not otherwise be considered acceptable. What could be more "expressive" than receiving a PDNP. Yet they were making it under the civility wire no matter what.It's a work in progress...
And the next revision is that a poster can still request a PDP, but they should use the "notify administrators" button to do so, and if we're going to support it, we'll post it ourselves. I've updated the FAQ. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Racer on August 7, 2007, at 2:16:45
In reply to Lou's reply to confuzyq-respontoas » confuzyq, posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2007, at 23:00:23
It was brought to my attention that my post above was not especially civil -- at least in spirit, if not explicitly. I would therefore like to extend an apology to Lou, and to the board as a whole.
I'm very sorry that I posted what I did.
Racer
Posted by ConfuzyQ on August 7, 2007, at 9:40:25
In reply to I would like to apologize to Lou and to the board, posted by Racer on August 7, 2007, at 2:16:45
My, I guess reading the thread first might have given me more perspective on that! I really hadn't picked up on it from what I saw.
> It was brought to my attention that my post above was not especially civil -- at least in spirit, if not explicitly. I would therefore like to extend an apology to Lou, and to the board as a whole.
>
> I'm very sorry that I posted what I did.
>
> Racer
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2007, at 16:12:21
In reply to Re: another PDP revision, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2007, at 23:16:04
> > http://dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
> >
> > I believe part of the reason the PDNP revision came to be is that these requests occasionally appeared to be used as simply a way to, shall we say, express an opinion about a poster or make a direct statement to them that would not otherwise be considered acceptable. What could be more "expressive" than receiving a PDNP. Yet they were making it under the civility wire no matter what.
>
> It's a work in progress...
>
> And the next revision is that a poster can still request a PDP, but they should use the "notify administrators" button to do so, and if we're going to support it, we'll post it ourselves. I've updated the FAQ. Thanks,
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
You wrote concerning the TOS here in regards to your PDP rule,something like,[...we >will< either post that we agree or we >will< let you know why we do not agree...we also may post that the post is uncivil...].
In response to that, I have the following requests for clarification:
A. What could be a reasonable time to expect that you will do one or the other?
B. During that time, can the poster post to the person issuing the PDP?
C. What can the poster issuing the PDP do if you do not do either in , let's say, 2 days?
C. Is the {notify the administraors}feature to be used for all members in relation to a PDP? If not, what members are to be treated differently and how?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2007, at 1:40:14
In reply to I would like to apologize to Lou and to the board, posted by Racer on August 7, 2007, at 2:16:45
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2007, at 1:40:17
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post-onortheotr » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2007, at 16:12:21
> A. What could be a reasonable time to expect that you will do one or the other?
I'd say a couple days?
> B. During that time, can the poster post to the person issuing the PDP?
Since the request for the PDP won't be posted, the poster can post to the person while it's being considered, yes.
> C. What can the poster issuing the PDP do if you do not do either in , let's say, 2 days?
Please use the "notify administrators" button to notify us again.
> C. Is the {notify the administraors}feature to be used for all members in relation to a PDP?
Yes. Since notifications go to the deputies, please be civil if they involve them.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2007, at 20:04:57
In reply to Re: Lou's response, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2007, at 1:40:17
> > A. What could be a reasonable time to expect that you will do one or the other?
>
> I'd say a couple days?
>
> > B. During that time, can the poster post to the person issuing the PDP?
>
> Since the request for the PDP won't be posted, the poster can post to the person while it's being considered, yes.
>
> > C. What can the poster issuing the PDP do if you do not do either in , let's say, 2 days?
>
> Please use the "notify administrators" button to notify us again.
>
> > C. Is the {notify the administraors}feature to be used for all members in relation to a PDP?
>
> Yes. Since notifications go to the deputies, please be civil if they involve them.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
There is now a change in the procedure for your [...please do not post to me...] rule here. Now the {notify} feature is used instead of posting to the member to please not post to the one requesting such.
Could you clarify if this includes outstanding requests that have not been acted on as of yet that were requested before you posted this new procedure?
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.