![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 19 to 43 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:53:49
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 15:39:15
> I know that administration is fully aware that many people here have had replies that made us extremely uncomfortable because we knew that a poster was intending for their post to be interpeted in a negative tone.
>
> I would pray that you are able to detect all of the above when the fur starts flying.
>
> PatIt might lead a poster to feel accused or put down to think that others interpret their motive to be to post in a negative tone. While you did not name any poster in particular, I'm going to ask you to please follow the spirit of the site guidelines.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by adelaide curtis on July 31, 2008, at 16:40:13
In reply to Please post in the spirit of site guidelines » adelaide curtis, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 14:38:29
I am allowed to "jump to conclusions" -you just do not want me to post them , here. :0)
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 16:46:33
In reply to Re: Please post in the spirit of site guidelines » Deputy Dinah, posted by adelaide curtis on July 31, 2008, at 16:40:13
Quite correct. Thank you.
Posted by Midnightblue on July 31, 2008, at 17:47:40
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
I think the thing that concerns me most, are the new guidelines for support. It sounds like if you can't agree with someone, then you shouldn't post to them at all.
There are times when a poster is suicidal, not taking medicine correctly, not eating properly, not thinking clearly, and some small measure of "tough love" is needed.
I'm not sure it is in the posters best interest to agree with them that mega doses of something (just because it feels good) is a good idea or confirm they don't need to call their doctor or go to the hospital when they are suicidal.
If I'm heading the wrong way down a one way street, I hope someone will stop me and not just nod and say, "nice to see you, so sorry you are having a bad day."
I already feel like I can't talk about my faith or give my political beliefs. Most of the time on Babble, I feel like I'm only giving about 25% of who I am. I think that is Babble's loss.
MidnightBlue
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 18:05:36
In reply to Re: Announcement of Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by Midnightblue on July 31, 2008, at 17:47:40
It certainly would be Babble's loss.
Midnight, we would never ask that people support a person to do anything that wasn't good for them. In saying that tough love wasn't appropriate for Babble, I didn't anything that would ordinarily be posted by you or by most Babblers familiar with Babble civility rules. I was talking about the fact that people who post something against the civility guidelines often point out that they are doing so in a form of tough love, and that is supportive. Dr. Bob acknowledges that there are times when support is intended, but that the form of support would not be appropriate for this site. I was acknowledging that someone doesn't have to have bad intent to be uncivil per site guidelines.
I'm having difficulty in expressing this properly, and I hope you continue to ask until you feel comfortable.
I don't think that any way you post now would be a problem in the future. Being supportive does not mean being in agreement with. It's possible to disagree in a civil way.
We're talking about fairly limited behaviors here.
Perhaps Dr. Bob has the right of it after all, and it's better not to say anything, just to do.
Religion and politics are tricky subjects to discuss on Babble. It's hard to talk about those topics while being respectful to those of different views. Some sites just disallow the discussion altogether. Dr. Bob allows it but with pretty strict guidelines.
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:04:30
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Justherself54, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:31:24
> > Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
>
> Yes, I think it would. But there is some interpretation required in detecting sarcasm. It's possible that there are times when the deputies' interpretation may differ from the interpretation of one or more posters. And if we're not certain, we may ask for clarification or a restatement.more and more confused about how we define the pattern that is being followed in some posts.
>
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:15:39
In reply to This is all a bit difficult, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:44:29
> to answer in the particular.
>
> The desire for Dr. Bob to wait to see if posters resolve something dates way back to when I felt forced to resign, and was resolved when Dr. Bob acknowledged we were posters as well as deputies and could report things ourselves. It's still a work in progress, and we're still trying to figure out exactly what he'd do in this situation or thatDo you think that there is the possibility that the posters will be using babblemail and it will then erupt on the board and cause more upset among the other posters?
This sounds very iffy.
I don't suppose that Bob would come on the board and add his two cents to this discussion?
>
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:24:33
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:15:39
> > to answer in the particular.
> >
> > The desire for Dr. Bob to wait to see if posters resolve something dates way back to when I felt forced to resign, and was resolved when Dr. Bob acknowledged we were posters as well as deputies and could report things ourselves. It's still a work in progress, and we're still trying to figure out exactly what he'd do in this situation or that
>
> Do you think that there is the possibility that the posters will be using babblemail and it will then erupt on the board and cause more upset among the other posters?This would be another area where this policy might apply. Things erupting on board does not sound in keeping with the civility guidelines. Dr. Bob is in favor of encouraging people to discuss things on board, but in accordance with the civility guidelines. Wherever a confrontation starts, posts should remain civil. And uncivil babblemails should be reported to Administration off board.
> This sounds very iffy.
Posters have been asking for this. I realize it might seem different when it actually happens.
> I don't suppose that Bob would come on the board and add his two cents to this discussion?I don't suppose he would. But hope springs eternal. I think you know how I feel about Dr. Bob's presence. And about deputorial presence for that matter. I'd rather no deputies be needed because Dr. Bob was here all the time. However, he asked me to do this because he didn't think he could get to it any time soon. It would have come better from him, I think. But we're what you've got.
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:37:09
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:24:33
No offense was meant towards the deputies. If there was any, it was directed at our poohbah. :-)
It is what it is....Thanks, Pat
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:46:14
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:37:09
Thanks, Pat.
I didn't actually take any offense at anything you said.
Those remarks came straight from my heart.
No one (well, Deneb maybe) misses Dr. Bob's on board presence more than I do. I'll bet my fellow deputies agree.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 31, 2008, at 21:09:44
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:46:14
Posted by Zeba on July 31, 2008, at 22:39:19
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
How is one supposed to know what that means--the spirit vs. the letter of the law??? I have no idea what this will mean, and it seems to me that this will make things even more subjective and open to interpretation such that unpopular folk can get blocked more easily????? This does not feel good or seem to be a good solution to whatever problems there are.
I just don't understand what is/was the problem in the first place. Who cares how often someone posts or does not post. I think either is okay. I would think the only safe thing to do at this point would be to post just about myself and not comment on anything anyone else says for fear of being blocked. I guess it would be okay to answer a question. Oh well, need to go to bed as I have to get up early for therapy tomorrow.
Zeba
Posted by okydoky on July 31, 2008, at 22:53:48
In reply to Yes. I agree wholeheartedly (nm) » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on July 31, 2008, at 21:09:44
In the spirit of Dr Bobs changes in policy will we as a community now be examining the semantic meaning in the context with which the post is written as well as the pragmatic in order to conform to both the civility rule and the spirit with which it was written? Social convention or context was irrelevant in the application of the rule.
To put it crudely, what counts is not what is true or right (in some sense independent of the community of language users), but what you can get away with or get others to accept.
--------------------------------Wittgenstien
I feel there is no application toward meaningful purpose of the admin site in many instances. I feel that the civility rules are being enforced pragmatically.I mostly feel for a lot of potentially vulnerable people (we all are) getting riled up because they feel that they are being treated unjustly. Excuse me uncivilly. This is what bothers me but I do believe there is intention, it serves a purpose.
The feeling I came away with was that there was a tacit acceptance by some how the civility guidelines are applied practically and a frustration by others as language as a tool for meaning making and meaning exchange in this social context seems not to be amenable to any meaningful discussion as intent might be implied.
practical as opposed to idealistic <pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal withsocial morality K. B. Clark
---------------------------------Websters
.
Im starting to question my own use of the words I feel and my intention in the application of their use.Well maybe some of this is nonsense. I feel I tried.
Posted by Sigismund on July 31, 2008, at 23:26:18
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:46:14
I remember CS saying that part of a deputy's training back then was to assess posts for civility out of context.
Assessing intent is going to be subjective (but everything is) but taking context into account seems sensible.
Posted by Justherself54 on August 1, 2008, at 0:32:18
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by Sigismund on July 31, 2008, at 23:26:18
I think business will carry on an usual and a gentle reminder here and there can only help to keep things on track. I think if we could all speak to each other they way we would like to be spoken to, with respect...there would be far less admin sanctions.
It's the three word sarcastic zingers that could cause some problem..the tone is there but is there enough words to give a please post in the spirit, etc. For some reason these posts are the ones that bother me the most. I've seen threads on the med board that can get heated and where posters have apologized...I was happy to see that..
Enough rambling from me!
Posted by Daisym on August 1, 2008, at 1:17:36
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:24:33
Dinah,
Thanks for taking on this announcement. I must say that I don't understand how Bob has time to ask you to do this but not time to just write a post himself. That makes no sense.But as someone else said, it is what it is.
You have a generous spirit.
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2008, at 5:51:02
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by Daisym on August 1, 2008, at 1:17:36
Thank you, Daisy.
Don't ask me the ways of Bob. He was apparently on board last night. I am, of course, happy to see him.
Posted by Lemonaide on August 1, 2008, at 6:28:12
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
I thought I understood, but I think I am more confused as ever. Perhaps some made up examples to show the change?
Posted by okydoky on August 1, 2008, at 10:42:30
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by Justherself54 on August 1, 2008, at 0:32:18
In light of what Daisym and Justherself54 said:
I feel it is all a part of this experiment, a part which observes how or if we react.
I dont know if either of the two issues were by design or not.
I feel by posting here I have allowed myself to be an active participant in what I feel is a disrespectful use of behavioral science with respect to the participants. But perhaps it is for the greater good. And mostly perhaps no one really gives a hoot what I feel :)
I have used the medication board as a resource, and I am most thankful to those that have helped me and to the experiment that made it possible.I checked out information on group social dynamics or other applicable search terms on the internet. Here are a couple I feel had applicable information (I have no background or knowledge on the topic)
http://hsd.soc.cornell.edu/curricular/axelrod_evolution_cooperation.pdf
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Social_Psychology/Introduction (The concerns of social psychology, Research ethics, External links )The American Association for Technology in Psychiatry had their 2008 annual meeting in May. One workshop was COMPUTER-MEDIATED RELATIONSHIPS: BLOGS,
ONLINE COMMUNITIES, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS
American Association for Technology in Psychiatry
Chp.: Robert C. Hsiung, M.D.
Participants: Steven Daviss, M.D., Jerald Block, M.DBut you have to pay to belong to read it. Has anyone on the site read it? I feel it would be interesting for us. I see DR Bob posts on the site what and where his talks are but not their content.
If you actually read this whole thing, thanks. I apologize for not being concise in my writing.
A kind and caring Community. I thank all of you.
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2008, at 13:53:51
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by okydoky on August 1, 2008, at 10:42:30
Several years ago, after perhaps the first of Dr. Bob's long and unexplained absence from the boards, I told him that people were sure he was disappearing so that he could examine the effects of his absence. That we were sure we were lab rats in an experiment.
He asked me if I thought people felt more secure to think that he was watching and experimenting, rather than that he just wasn't watching at all. That he just wasn't there.
I was impressed. It was not particularly Bob-like at the time to say anything so shrinky, but I thought maybe he was on to something there.
I just thought I'd pass it along, in case anyone else found it as helpful a question as I did.
Posted by muffled on August 1, 2008, at 16:58:36
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2008, at 13:53:51
> He asked me if I thought people felt more secure to think that he was watching and experimenting, rather than that he just wasn't watching at all. That he just wasn't there.
>
> I was impressed. It was not particularly Bob-like at the time to say anything so shrinky, but I thought maybe he was on to something there.*Dinah, you a sweet cake.
Bob's...well...say no more.But that statement seems SO Boblike to my interpretation of it.
Cuz, what would make me secure?:
1. Bob to f*ck w/my head in the name of science? Watching to see how I react to pain stimulus? Like a lab rat? C-O-L-D.
2. Bob to go away and just be gone and not torment me with false hopes?
Hmmmmm.
I pick #2
I'd rather he just be gone. I'm not into letting him torment me.
I am a rational human being, NOT a rat.
I'm not sure he knows that.
Certainly I think the average lab rat is communicated to more than babblers are from Bob.
I wish Bob would at least bother to actually communicate.
But he doesn't.
Not even in the name of politeness.
So, thats Bob. He's human and has failings, so do I.
Unfortunately I can't tolerate his failings cuz they hurt me and others, and I hate to see it.
Too bad, so sad.
I wish all babblers well.
Hurts my heart.
:-(
Take care,
M
Posted by okydoky on August 1, 2008, at 17:17:30
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2008, at 13:53:51
You said:
> Several years ago, after perhaps the first of Dr. Bob's long and unexplained absence from the boards, I told him that people were sure he was disappearing so that he could examine the effects of his absence. That we were sure we were lab rats in an experiment.
>He asked me if I thought people felt more secure to think that he was watching and experimenting, rather than that he just wasn't watching at all. That he just wasn't there.
>I just thought I'd pass it along, in case anyone else found it as helpful a question as I did.Who are you referring to that people... and . ..we were sure?
Were you satisfied with receiving a question that was not supportive of your observation that people were sure he was disappearing so that he could examine the effects of his absence. That we were sure we were lab rats in an experiment?
His question to you dealt with another subject matter altogether.
I wont repeat it, it is posted above.
I feel like the question to the observation was obfuscation.
Thank you for being so helpful.
oky
Posted by okydoky on August 1, 2008, at 17:34:02
In reply to Indeed, posted by muffled on August 1, 2008, at 16:58:36
>2. Bob to go away and just be gone and not torment me with false hopes?
Not seeing Dr Bob on the board does not imply he is not:
>Watching to see how I react to pain stimulus? Like a lab rat? C-O-L-D.What do you think?
oky
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2008, at 18:36:06
In reply to What relevance does this have » Dinah, posted by okydoky on August 1, 2008, at 17:17:30
I considered the question to be more than sufficient answer. One, moreover, that is supported by my own subsequent observations both as poster and deputy.
I offered it to others for them to interpret as they wish because Dr. Bob may well be right. Perhaps it lends a certain sense of safety to Babblers to believe that he is out there, watching all. An all knowing, all powerful figure. I've acknowledged the wish myself.
But on the other hand, perhaps it's not as obvious an answer to others because it was intended for me, and he knew me well enough to know that I would find it an answer. In which case I apologize for being more confusing than I intended.
However, I think that would probably be a near delusional assumption of familiarity on Dr. Bob's part. :)
Is it really cryptic to others? I didn't mean it to be.
Perhaps one day I'll search the archives and try to interpret it. But perhaps not. A few illusions on my part do no harm.
Posted by okydoky on August 1, 2008, at 18:53:03
In reply to Re: What relevance does this have » okydoky, posted by Dinah on August 1, 2008, at 18:36:06
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.