![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 38. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
I've been here since 2001. In that time there occasionally arise issues regarding posting styles which some or many posters have found annoying. No matter how many posters find any particular posting style annoying, Dr. Bob has been clear. He is not going to sanction posters just because some or many people find their style annoying. Annoying is not uncivil. Annoying is also subjective. What one person finds annoying, another might find thoughtful or perceptive or incisive. But it wouldn't matter if every single poster on Babble found something annoying. Dr. Bob does not sanction for annoying, and never will.
Dr. Bob will also never screen posts for usefulness, good grammar, depth, meaningfulness, good spelling, or even whether or not the content is factually accurate. He relies on other posters to point out factual errors, in a civil and respectful manner.
I cannot even imagine a Babble where Dr. Bob sanctions someone for having posts that aren't worthwhile. For heavens sake, sanctioning uncivil posts causes enough trouble. Evaluating for usefulness is not something he's likely to do. And I don't think it's something we want him to do.
Yet I've also noticed over time that people posting in response to feeling annoyed is sanctioned. Because it's pretty hard to express annoyance without treading into incivility.
So here are the facts. Dr. Bob is not going to screen for the worth of posts, and he isn't going to screen for posts that some might find annoying. But he is going to screen for incivility.
It can be very therapeutic to talk about one's reactions to posts. But this is not the place to talk about negative reactions to posts. Any more than the family reunion is the place to talk about how annoying Uncle George is, when Uncle George is right in front of you. And when moreover, many of the people at the reunion think Uncle George is a perfectly nice guy and enjoy being with him.
The cycle can continue indefinitely, but it doesn't have to. I've also noted that once people really really accept that a posting behavior is not going to be Administratively sanctioned, they can learn to live with it, or ignore it, or whatever it is that they need to do.I want to be absolutely clear here. I am not talking about one poster, or even about a few posters. I am talking about a process that happens over and over again on Babble, and that claims casualties each time it happens. And it never ever achieves the apparent goal. Because Dr. Bob does not sanction annoying. He sanctions uncivil.
It doesn't need to happen, any more than some wars need to happen. I'd like it never to happen again.
Posted by Racer on July 27, 2008, at 13:04:37
In reply to Note regarding Admin policies, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
Posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 13:05:08
In reply to Note regarding Admin policies, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
> Yet I've also noticed over time that people posting in response to feeling annoyed is sanctioned. Because it's pretty hard to express annoyance without treading into incivility.
>Yeah, I've fallen into that trap. But what is more frustrating to me are the posters who get away with tone. It's cleverly concealed uncivil conduct. A particular sentence can be read with different tone, so someone can be sarcastic, condescending and rude and get away with it. Invariably when the poster uses a negative tone, the offended person responds and gets sanctioned. I've seen it countless times, even with people in positions of authority. Nothing can be done because the poster imploying tone uses ambibuous language while the responding party is usually clear in their anger. It's just another failing of Babblespeak, I guess. Sorry if I'm off topis Dinah but I think the site handles annoying syles better than it handles provocative tone.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 13:12:01
In reply to Re: Note regarding Admin policies, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 13:05:08
It might be a failing, but it might also be a strength. One things deputies confer about is to make sure we aren't reading intent into something. It's easy enough to read a post in a particular way, and it's helpful to be able to ask if if my reading is correct. Sometimes another reading may be just as valid. Dr. Bob prefers that we not use intent when evaluating for incivility, although he himself does so more often than we feel free to do.
It's happened to me on both sides. Sometimes people get really upset because they think I'm implying something that never entered my mind. And sometimes I get offended, but on further reflection or with a civility buddy who is detached from the situation, I realize I may be reading more into a post than was intended.
Like democracy, there are flaws in this system. But like democracy, it is my opinion that these flaws overall are more beneficial to the board than the flaws that would crop up if we tried to fix the current flaws.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 13:13:02
In reply to Excellent points, very well expressed - thank you (nm) » Dinah, posted by Racer on July 27, 2008, at 13:04:37
Posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 13:59:38
In reply to Note regarding Admin policies, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 14:26:53
In reply to Note regarding Admin policies, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
Way more effective than idealistic, and much less ambiguous "tone". An excellent model and excellent post.
Thanks,
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 14:52:35
In reply to Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 14:26:53
Dinah "Pragmatic"
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 16:31:35
In reply to thanks so much, Dinah - you write SO clearly (nm), posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 13:59:38
Posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
In reply to Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 14:26:53
> Way more effective than idealistic, and much less ambiguous "tone". An excellent model and excellent post.
>
> Thanks,
> ggThe use of quotation marks is unnecessary and exactly the kind of attitude to which I was referring gg. Its a style that someone could find provocative, annoying and uncivil, but probably not the adminstration.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:27:06
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
You're correct. As Dinah was saying, it wouldn't matter here if any deputies did or didn't find a certain use of quotation marks, or other things you and others (and no doubt some/all of us at times, too) describe as 'attitude' to be annoying, or even provocative.
The guidelines don't require anyone to not be annoying or provocative. We only try to do as Dr. Bob would if he were here, the best we can, and he just doesn't sanction for these things.
Thank goodness. Drawing those lines, making those distinctions would be......I can't even think of a description.
I just know I couldn't begin to take it on. The discussing, weighing and often agonizing to be sure we do what Dr. Bob would likely do and what's best for the community under the current rules is quite sufficient. Not that I'm complaining - I know I am voluntarily a deputy.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:29:02
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » toph, posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:27:06
...if I misrepresented, misinterpreted, etc., your post in writing mine, *please* feel free to correct me.
You know I won't mind in the least :-)
Posted by Lemonaide on July 27, 2008, at 18:05:22
In reply to Note regarding Admin policies, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 12:45:01
Thank Dinah for writing this, it needed to be said.
I believe support can be shown in many ways, including someone posting to a thread, even if they don't have anything helpful or meaningful at the time, but just showing a presence can be comforting to many posters. I am noticing a drop off of hugs. (((hugs))) are sometimes used when one doesn't know what to say other than show they care.
Posts don't have to read if one finds them to be bothersome. A reader has a choice, if a reader reads a post they know will find annoying, then is it the poster's fault because one read the post?
I believe tolerance and kindness towards each other is something that Babble needs if it wants to thrive.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 18:51:58
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
> > Way more effective than idealistic, and much less ambiguous "tone". An excellent model and excellent post.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > gg
>
> The use of quotation marks is unnecessary and exactly the kind of attitude to which I was referring gg. Its a style that someone could find provocative, annoying and uncivil, but probably not the adminstration.Thanks for pointing that out so, well, pointedly. I still recall your earlier remarks on this topic, and I'm not disagreeing with you. Well, except for this part: the use of quotes was necessary for me, as I was quoting your word choice instead of using my own. In this case, it also indicates that I read your post. I had a reaction to it just as you appear to have had a reaction to mine.
I think the more interesting and perhaps, dare I say, pragmatic issue, instead of debating, discussing, characterizing, talking about, intimating, judging the behavior of others, is what will our behavior choice be? That's all we have under our own control, after all.
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 18:53:28
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
Toph, this *is* an example of what I was talking about. I suppose it could be read as attitude or sarcasm. But it can also be read exactly as it appears on its face. I have no reason to believe that gg meant it as anything but a very gracious statement to me. And perhaps an even more gracious acknowledgment on her part.
Or maybe even as a feeling of hurt at believing herself referred to as having tone? I think were I to use quotation marks, it would likely be a mark of the fact that I felt hurt.
If you aren't sure how to read it, perhaps you can very politely ask? You might find out that there is merely a misunderstanding.
As I've said, I've been on both sides of a misunderstanding. It isn't fun either way. People may think that the civility rules don't allow a frank discussion and reflection of what one person hears to make sure it is what the other person means to say. I don't think that's true. I've had misunderstandings that I've cleared up on board. It may be easier in chat, where it's real time, but it is possible on board. It just requires that we use a certain amount of restraint and tact.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 18:54:37
In reply to And Dinah...., posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:29:02
No correction needed, 10der. :)
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 19:01:04
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
Seeing another side, challenging or testing our thinking, feeling or experiencing something outside of our routine, looking through a different lens, changing our perspective...these are bad things? Oy, I feel my brain hardening and becoming a static entity.
Now, someone please bring me a bucket? ;)
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
In reply to And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 19:01:04
Well, perhaps my view is skewed because I really don't like to have to hand out PBC's. But I think I prefer nonprovocative methods of encouraging a change of perspective in this particular venue. The internet is just too two dimensional. It doesn't allow for any of the softening that a real life provocation might involve. A smile or body posture can really help in real life to indicate that no harm is meant. It's like with my dogs. Behavior that could provoke a tussle in other circumstances can be made playful by the play bow invitation.
And for me personally, a topic introduced provocatively is more likely to harden my heart and turn my mind than persuade.
Still, what's civil is civil.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 19:57:06
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:06:09
In reply to ''smoke and mirrors'' (nm), posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 19:57:06
I'm sorry. I don't quite understand. Were you trying to communicate something to me?
What is smoke and mirrors? It's a phrase used to refer to a magician's trick, isn't it? Do you see something in my post as a trick or sleight of hand?
I was being boringly earnest, I assure you. As is my boringly earnest custom.
Posted by zenhussy on July 27, 2008, at 20:09:20
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
>>>Still, what's civil is civil.<<<
perhaps what is civil here is merely Dr. Bob's definition of civil?
the definitions of civility experienced by this poster IRL and elsewhere online have been vastly different from this site's definitions.
civility is not a universal concept. if it were maybe there would be no more war.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:27
In reply to 'what's civil is civil' » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on July 27, 2008, at 20:09:20
Well, that's what I meant. What's allowable is allowable. I meant civil in the babble defined guideline sense.
Goodness only knows that I get annoyed at times. But not everything that annoys me is uncivil under Babble guidelines. And my best attempts to convince Dr. Bob that it should be fail as much as anyone's.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:45
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:06:09
> I'm sorry. I don't quite understand. Were you trying to communicate something to me?
>
> What is smoke and mirrors? It's a phrase used to refer to a magician's trick, isn't it? Do you see something in my post as a trick or sleight of hand?
>
> I was being boringly earnest, I assure you. As is my boringly earnest custom.
No, Dinah, I wasn't replying to you. There is no name on my heading. pat
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:16:16
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:45
Ah, ok.
I just noticed that it was in reply to my post (technically at least), and I didn't want to ignore you if you were talking to me.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:28:21
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:16:16
> Ah, ok.
>
> I just noticed that it was in reply to my post (technically at least), and I didn't want to ignore you if you were talking to me.
it is cool.
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.