![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 117. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on November 22, 2009, at 17:27:29
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2009, at 16:52:56
If the revision is added to the thread without deleting the original, then how is it different from now?
And what earthly sense does it make to make it an option, unless it's an option to see the original rather than the revision. An option by poster to be able to revise? If someone doesn't wish to revise, they won't.
Are you trying to divert us from the last by offering a new outrage?
Posted by 10derHeart on November 22, 2009, at 18:14:13
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 22, 2009, at 17:27:29
I was asking myself exactly the same question.
Unfortunately. :-(
Posted by Nadezda on November 22, 2009, at 21:06:54
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2009, at 16:52:56
I'm not clear on what would result from this new option.
Would there be the full original post, with a link to the revised post, which would then amplify it and show that the poster had regrets or second thoughts?
Or would it, as the initial formulation seems to suggest, completely replace the original text with simply a link to a new text. This would show that there had been an original post, but not show what was in it. And if this is the case, where would this undeleted post reside? I don't understand where the original text would go if it's completely replace.
So if the second option is what you're suggesting, I don't quite follow it.
Nadezda
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 0:14:00
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 22, 2009, at 21:06:54
> How does it lessen bad feelings if only some people understand why they exist? It seems to me it would only lead to more bad feelings.
>
> It's another way to support bullying on Babble.> An option by poster to be able to revise? If someone doesn't wish to revise, they won't.
>
> Dinah> I'm not clear on what would result from this new option.
>
> would it, as the initial formulation seems to suggest, completely replace the original text with simply a link to a new text. This would show that there had been an original post, but not show what was in it. And if this is the case, where would this undeleted post reside? I don't understand where the original text would go if it's completely replace.
>
> NadezdaYes, the original text would be completely replaced with a link. It would be deleted from the original post (but saved by the server somewhere). Parts of it might or might not be included in the new post. The original post would stay where it was originally posted. The new post would be posted right after it.
For example, the original post is 1234.html and says:
> You're offensive!
The poster decides to rephrase that. They open the post, their cookies show they're the original poster, and they're offered the option to revise it. They wish to, so they do. In the meantime, 3 posts have been posted elsewhere. The original post, 1234.html, becomes:
> revised, see: 1238.html
The new post is 1238.html and says:
> I feel offended!
That's an I-statement, so hopefully that avoids bad feelings if the other poster hasn't seen the original post yet and lessens them if they have.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 6:46:09
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 0:14:00
And say they have, and they have bad feelings, and they respond to what was posted in a civil but distressed manner while the other poster changes what they posted.
Now the insulted poster looks like a vindictive idiot. And worse yet, other posters would be saying to the original uncivil poster "oh you poor dear, I have no idea why anyone would be upset with you just for saying that you were offended." And you'd likely find it uncivil to say "Well, I was upset because the original post said xxxx."
Unless of course the victim stayed quiet about the injury.
I don't suppose anything I say will be of the smallest interest to you. Other than perhaps to cause you to do what I find offensive as quickly as possible. But I do not agree with what you are proposing. And to propose it for the reason you are proposing it, I find totally shocking. So that people can be uncivil and then fix it?
And you honestly believe that if I have read uncivil words, I'll feel better about them if they've been amended? I would likely feel better about them if the original poster apologized. I would feel nothing but contempt added to anger if the original poster, on top of insulting me, was cowardly enough to do so in such a way that they did not at least have the integrity to stand by their words and accept the consequences. Anger I can get over. Contempt, not so easily.
And they get to avoid consequences from you as well, so long as they hide their behavior fast enough.
You think this would make me feel *better* about them, or about you?!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't speak for anyone else. But better is not what I would feel.
I hope that others would help me out by preserving, one way or another, any words spoken against me in this manner. I'm not crazy about incivility, but I feel even more negatively about sneaky incivility.
I can't believe you're even suggesting this. It's like incivility in babblemail, only even worse, since posters can report incivility in a babblemail and hope to have that incivility acted upon. And they can keep their babblemail as proof.
This could lead to the same sort of taunting your buttons led to. Slightly better perhaps, since supposedly there would be a notice that the post was edited. But still enough to torment.
And that's not even an unintended byproduct of your proposal. It's the intent!
What has happened to you Dr. Bob?
Posted by Nadezda on November 23, 2009, at 10:22:06
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 0:14:00
I don't think it's an entirely bad idea, if there's a time limit. This would only partly be addressed by having the revision need to be the next post-- ie that you couldn't revise if anyone had posted a response. That seems a good restriction, but not enough.
I can't see revision per se, as bullying or sneaky incivility. People say things they regret--
Sometimes I, like (I assume) others, am on the verge of posting impulsively, and think better of it. The knowledge that I"ll regret my post can be buried under layers of emotion, though. It often surfaces later, and I'm very relieved that I didn't post. However, I can equally imagine having posted and then really regretting it. I don't see this as sneakiness, meanness, or bullying, but a natural and universal tendency to be defensive or threatened by the words of others who view things very differently.
So a time-limited chance to edit posts seems quite legitimate. Someone suggested an hour, but maybe a half hour would be better calibrated, since there's less opportunity for others to read the post, and then to find it's vanished. That does do odd things to one's sense of reality and is disruptive. So I'd prefer a limit of 20-30 minutes at most.
After that time frame, the post should stand, and an apology would make perfect sense. And of course, if someone responds, the post also should remain.
I can live with either system, and perhaps it should depend on how the community feels about it. There are many who haven't commented-- and perhaps their views could be solicited.
Nadezda
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 23, 2009, at 10:22:06
> And to propose it for the reason you are proposing it, I find totally shocking. So that people can be uncivil and then fix it?
>
> I hope that others would help me out by preserving, one way or another, any words spoken against me in this manner.
>
> Dinah> So a time-limited chance to edit posts seems quite legitimate. Someone suggested an hour, but maybe a half hour would be better calibrated, since there's less opportunity for others to read the post, and then to find it's vanished. That does do odd things to one's sense of reality and is disruptive. So I'd prefer a limit of 20-30 minutes at most.
>
> NadezdaRight, the idea is more fixing and less preserving.
I agree that a time limit makes sense, but I was thinking a longer one. Sometimes it helps to sleep on things, so maybe 24 hours?
The original post wouldn't just vanish. If someone read a post, came back later, and it was revised, how do you think that might that affect their sense of reality?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 11:11:47
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 23, 2009, at 10:22:06
Real words can't be taken back.
People have to live with the consequences of having spoken them.
How is it fair to send the words out, have them hit their mark and draw blood, then have them disappear after the damage is done. And how is that not cowardly? If words are regretted after they are out there, an honest apology suits as well. We all say things we regret. But pretending that you can take them back with no consequences ignores the consequences to the person targeted. How is that right? No consequences to the uncivil, consequences to the person targeted.
I would make sure to instantly reply, if only a no message, to such remarks to me. And to save any remarks I saw to others, so that nothing can be denied in future.
That's what apologies are for. Or the "confirm post" step.
I can see people having lots of fun in the middle of the night. And tempting it would be too.
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 11:18:38
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
And again, how is that fixing?
If I see incivility towards me (or towards someone else) that then disappears, does that make me feel better towards the uncivil? Or does it add to the insult?
I would hate anyone who did that to me, and hate Babble and you besides for allowing it done. While I wouldn't be inclined to hate either for mere incivility.
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 11:38:38
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
For the sake of everyone's sense of reality, if you're going to do this thing, why don't you leave the original post up too. Not on the main board perhaps, but a click away.
At the bottom of each revised post could be an icon link to "original post" so that if one wished to see what was revised, one could.
I'd rather you not do it at all. But I know how little that's worth.
At least this way, no one would think they're insane, no one would think anyone reacting to the original post was insane, and everyone could still see what happened.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 24, 2009, at 1:52:18
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 11:38:38
> Real words can't be taken back.
>
> How is it fair to send the words out, have them hit their mark and draw blood, then have them disappear after the damage is done.> If I see incivility towards me (or towards someone else) that then disappears, does that make me feel better towards the uncivil? Or does it add to the insult?
> why don't you leave the original post up too.
>
> At least this way, no one would think they're insane, no one would think anyone reacting to the original post was insane, and everyone could still see what happened.Real words can be retracted. My philosophy is to accept apologies, including retractions.
How would retracting something lead anyone to think anyone else was insane?
I can see that if a poster is out to draw blood, they could try to take advantage of the system. Are you feeling unsafe here? Is anybody else?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 7:13:12
In reply to Re: drawing blood, posted by Dr. Bob on November 24, 2009, at 1:52:18
Real words can't be changed after the fact. And you asked how reading one thing and coming back to find it had been altered might affect someone's sense of reality, or something like that. I answered.
So if it's retraction like the real world, why can't what was altered be available by a link? You can't change emails sent, or messages left, or words spoken. Retracting them formally does not alter the reality of what was done before.
Others would think someone is out of touch with reality if they respond to something that is no longer there. I explained that in an earlier post.
This has been a longstanding issue with me. You didn't even introduce it as a way to change errors in typing, or make factual corrections. You are introducing it as a way to deal with incivility. And I can't imagine how it's a useful way to deal with incivility. It's like a bullet made of ice. The evidence in the form of a bullet may disappear, but the damage is just as real.
If I feel unsafe at this moment, it's from an administrator who would propose that incivility is ok for 24 hours, as long as it is edited eventually. I don't even comprehend that as a possibility of being ok, unless you can also undo the hurt. If you wish to apply it solely to posts directed to you, that's fine. Or even posts that are insensitive to groups. But not to words directed towards an individual.
It is nothing at all like an apology. It is pretending after the fact that something didn't happen. It is trying to distort everyone's sense of reality into believing that what they see is not actually what they see.
I proposed that the original post be available by a link. That would be closer to a formal retraction of words that can't be taken back. It's a way for administration to avoid acting on incivility, like an apology, and like urging others to convince people to apologize. But it would not mess with people's reality. The reality of what actually happened. *Again, this is particularly important because you introduce the measure as a way to deal with incivility.* I think a good many of us are familiar with spouses or parents or others who act one way in private and another in public. People who harm us then deny that it ever happened. People who try to tell us that whatever we think happened didn't really happen. If you haven't, then I'm glad for you, but you might try to understand how Babble has always been is reassuring and sane, as in congruent with reality. And how what you are proposing seems an awful lot like gaslighting.
But I believe I am wasting my metaphorical breath.
Do you think allowing more incivility is the way to draw people back? Despite what people say is the reason they left? Are you disregarding what people actually said because you don't like it? Are you trying to substitute small bits of this or that that people said for addressing what people have said is the problem?
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 9:07:32
In reply to Re: drawing blood » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 7:13:12
You seem to see this as a face saving alternative to an apology to those who do not wish to make the concession of apologizing.
I'm ok with that. I'm ok with considering a retraction as a statement that someone realizes they oughtn't to have posted something.
I'm certainly ok with people editing technical issues in their post. Putting in their real name, correcting medication names, grammar or spelling errors, or clarifying something that seems difficult to understand on re-reading.
What I'm not ok with is the tacit undoing of what was done. The changing of something that people have likely already seen, to make it seem like that reality never happened. Either cowardice in trying to pretend they never did something they did do, or bullying by taunting people with things that then disappear, or gaslighting people to be unsure of what reality is. Maybe not even deliberately to hurt. Reality was a moving target at times growing up, not because of malice, but because reality was a moving target to my mother. It is a crazymaking situation, it is not fair, it provides an environment that makes bullying easier.
Providing a link to the original would do away with the objections of those to whom gaslighting is objectionable, while providing the opportunity of posters to withdraw what they wrote by amending it or to clarify what they meant if they unintentionally wrote something ambiguous. Or to fix what they wrote if they didn't understand the civility guidelines. If the problem is personal information, posters could contact Administration as they do now to amend the original post.
The original post would not have to be on the main board. It could be a link at the bottom next to "Edited on (date and time)". You wouldn't even need to put a time limit on editing, or link the ability to whether someone else has replied.
The original would not appear on the main board, and would not be googleable. So if people wish to remove something personal from their googleable babble profile they can do so even years later. With the original linkable from the post that replaces it.
Thus remaining a place of sanity and reality, preserving the historical record, and providing people with some remedy for their concerns about google.
A win win win win situation.
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 9:13:38
In reply to An alternate proposal that I see as Win Win Win, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 9:07:32
Admin or other posters could even notify people privately about posts that are not direct attacks on others and suggest ways to amend them. That way those who feel humiliated at on board pbc's would be able to save face by amending their posts, and the original would still be there so that your goal of having actions be visible and teaching others what is and isn't ok on babble would still be met.
Posted by Nadezda on November 24, 2009, at 10:43:41
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
For me, the later erasure of a post that I'd read would raise confusion in my mind about whether I had read it-- or read it right. When I read something to which I have a strong emotional reaction, I may later question whether the person really said one or another thing that I remember as distressing. Referring to the original post assures that I can restore my sense of what I read-- and thus check my reaction ( to correct, change or confirm it).
I find this distinctly supportive of my sense of continuity and my ability to depend on either my perceptions, or on the record of what was written. This is the huge advantage, to me, of the non-editing protocol.
On the other hand, people can speak impulsively and then regret that they've posted their immediate reaction. So there's value in letting them revise, and giving them a chance to come to a more considered response.
These values are obviously in conflict and I suppose it's a question of which is more important. Or how to meet both needs of the community-- for a stable reality and a chance to be their best self, and to be protected from each other's--and their own-- momentary outbursts.
For me, 24 hours seems to much, mostly because it creates the time for many people to read the post, who aren't yet intimately connected to the conflict, but who may be drawn into the swirl of emotions--but who don't post. So the post could remain unanswered, even though many have read and reacted to it. This seems unhelpful, as it creates a confusion and contradictory experiences among potential responders-or even non-posting readers--about what was and wasn't said.
Maybe half an hour isn't long enough-- maybe an hour or even two would be more fair. However, I do think the cut-off should be well before twenty-four hours. That just gives too much opportunity for people, especially lurkers, to read the posts.
So I guess I think there could be some way of accommodating both needs, with revision within a deadline and/or response.
I'm not personally worried about bullying or gaslighting-- imo, anyone who's doing that could be identified and actions could be taken to protect everyone. And I also find myself believing that most, if not all, posters here really are struggling with many issues and, when hurtful things are said, people often don't do it with a bad heart, even if they're upset at the moment.
I also see that we don't really have any current deputies, and that this might permit babble to be self-sustaining, ie to function more smoothly with minimal moderation. So, perhaps it's a modus vivendi. Since people have said it would help them feel more safe, more in control, and less vulnerable to being banned, it again might prevent pbcs and blocks-- which, of course, have always been the greatest source of conflict here.
On one hand, this shouldn't be decided based on how one or two people personally feel about the process. A change of this magnitude requires consultation-- of the kind that was missing in the prior insertion of the twitter and facebook links. So bringing in the community-- whatever its potential for creating more uproar, which I think is substantial-- might be worth it in the long run.
On the other hand, if there is a lot of disagreement about how to proceed, it could cause further ruptures. Making important changes without letting people at least know in advance to prepare, or to challenge the direction we're taking, seems unwise. So maybe if you decide to make the change, you could present it for discussion and reflection while presenting it as something you do intend to do, as opposed to a mere suggestion.
One other important thing-- I do strongly stress that if you do make a change, it would be best to explain in greater detail than you have a habit of doing, why you're doing it, and the effects you hope to achieve. Perhaps a session on the chat one evening for interested parties to talk with you in person would be productive-- and would give people the sense that you're acting in their and babble's best interest, not arbitrarily imposing rules from above. It may seem impossible to meet the objections and satisfy everyone-- or most people-- and I can see how it might seem useless to try. So I'm not really sure how to proceed, except that I do think a more detailed explanation of some sort is really necessary.
Nadezda
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 12:54:32
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 24, 2009, at 10:43:41
My suggestion does the same thing, while preserving the ability to test reality.
If the objections are the PBC's, it would do the job just as well. Perhaps even better.
Why the investment in having the original post disappear entirely? One thing that always set Babble apart from its competition is that threads don't get disappeared and posts don't change. For some people that's good, some people that's bad. But why take away the one place where people who find it a good thing can be in peace, at least on that point?
The posts won't be on the main board, people can still avoid a PBC, and it can even be used by those concerned about privacy and google. And it's not crazymaking. Whether people who post something, regret it, and change it after others have seen it are trying to be crazymaking or not, it is still crazymaking. Or maybe I am the crazy one for feeling that way.
What harm can it do to leave a link to the original?
I don't actually think much of a place where an administrator presents things as a fait accompli. It's not all that different from doing it before announcing it, but with the added disadvantage of frustration in having a chance to speak but no chance to be heard and have things change.
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 14:29:35
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 24, 2009, at 10:43:41
And while I had hoped to be back as deputy long before now (although I have no idea how Dr. Bob feels about that at this point), I don't think a small number of active deputies makes this a good time to make it easier for there to be sources of hurt.
I can't imagine that people would think harder rather than less about posting something unkind if they know they can disappear it if they do it fast enough. When people are angry they do tend to act in ways they wouldn't otherwise. Myself included. But surely more often if it wasn't as visible and public as it is now. People rarely break the law in full view of newspaper reporters.
Many babblers tell me of Babblemail civility violations that wouldn't have happened on board. In fact, I think it might be a larger problem than we acknowledge. But if they could be made on board and quickly amended, would people be as reluctant to do it?
I don't think lack of admin support is an argument for this.
But I seem to be the only one who cares about this, so... whatever.
I did like my compromise though...
Posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 15:23:20
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 14:29:35
Where I post, posts can be edited up to 40 mins after posting.
It says on the post if it has been edited, but the old post don't show. Just the new post.
You have up to 30 mins to delete a post. I think it just dissapears.
There is email notification of posts which includes the text of the post. So if you do delete/edit on an existing thread, your original post will still be in others email who have posted to that thread.At first, I admit, I was kind of fussed to see edits etc.
But then I became accustomed to them and trusted why they edited. I generally have only used the edit function for when I have accidentally sent a post B4 I'd thot it thru or finished correcting it.
Also, this site is a mental health site, and has many w/dissociative issues, so the edit, delete function is much appreciated.Oddly, civillity does not seem to be an issue on this site. At least not on the boards I frequent. People self regulate. If they feel they have overstepped, they apologize. Or the thread just kinda falls lower on the list, and eventually is deleted.
I think people on that site DO tend to be very careful of triggering and hurtful words. And as a result, post carefully, and are also very careful about what they post etc. So there is less 'depth' in some ways I suppose.
There is a board where posters can post just to each other, and maybe they are more open there, I think they are, but I don't go to that area.They have a chat function as well, but its pretty primitive, but I think some posters have connected there as well, to exchange emails etc.
I have no idea what the dynamic is at babble that seem to cause bullying behaviors etc. I think they must have been mostly off board, cuz I dunno bout that much.
People , when they get closer to each other WILL clash sometimes. My oldT allus said that we often (usu inadvertently) hurt those that are closest to us, cuz the trust is there, and so is then, the oppotunity for there to be hurt. We wouldn't likely hurt much if we didn't care.
BUT, usu people who care bout each other will attempt to make amends once they are calmer (if they CAN, they can't if blocked...).
So I dunno.
Just putting in my 2 cents worth from what another site does is all.
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 16:51:17
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 15:23:20
It's possible I'm paranoid.
But I also think it's shocking that a site administrator would suggest that someone can be uncivil as long as they pretend they never were. I think the very idea is shocking.
I also have been here long enough to see Babble not as a small group of posters who all like each other and want the best for each other. People find Babble by Google, not by referral. Or they did at any rate. At times, it has been far less than a Utopian society. Maybe Babble has changed into a small intimate group where that sort of thing would never be an issue. But if it has, why would anyone need to retcon their remarks?
I'm not imagining this use of editing from among a host of totally innocuous uses. It's how Dr. Bob presented it to us on this go around. As a way for people to avoid the consequences of being uncivil. I find that shocking. If no one on earth ever used the function, I still find it shocking.
He calls it something else. Retracting their remarks? Again, retracting to me does not require pretending they were never made. He should call it what it is.
And I NEVER liked the idea of disappearing posts or changing them. Never ever ever. Because it would make me insane. Maybe that's because I am insane.
Posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 17:03:00
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 16:51:17
Dinah sweat pea, you are not insane :)
I was just saying how it is on another site in order to show a different perspective.
Sadly, I no longer consider myself a babbler, but just wanted to be helpful if possible.
Bob will do what Bob will do. What he does no longer has any impact on me.(mostly not anyways, I still feel badly for his impact on others however...)
I don't feel he will change.
I only pop in to check on what few babblers from my era are left.
Please take care Dinah.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by muffled on November 24, 2009, at 15:23:20
> It is nothing at all like an apology. It is pretending after the fact that something didn't happen. It is trying to distort everyone's sense of reality into believing that what they see is not actually what they see.
>
> I proposed that the original post be available by a link. That would be closer to a formal retraction of words that can't be taken back. It's a way for administration to avoid acting on incivility, like an apology, and like urging others to convince people to apologize. But it would not mess with people's reality. The reality of what actually happened. *Again, this is particularly important because you introduce the measure as a way to deal with incivility.* I think a good many of us are familiar with spouses or parents or others who act one way in private and another in public. People who harm us then deny that it ever happened. People who try to tell us that whatever we think happened didn't really happen.> You seem to see this as a face saving alternative to an apology to those who do not wish to make the concession of apologizing.
>
> I'm ok with that. I'm ok with considering a retraction as a statement that someone realizes they oughtn't to have posted something.
>
> I'm certainly ok with people editing technical issues in their post. Putting in their real name, correcting medication names, grammar or spelling errors, or clarifying something that seems difficult to understand on re-reading.> Admin or other posters could even notify people privately about posts that are not direct attacks on others and suggest ways to amend them. That way those who feel humiliated at on board pbc's would be able to save face by amending their posts
>
> Dinah> Referring to the original post assures that I can restore my sense of what I read-- and thus check my reaction ( to correct, change or confirm it).
>
> I find this distinctly supportive of my sense of continuity and my ability to depend on either my perceptions, or on the record of what was written. This is the huge advantage, to me, of the non-editing protocol.
>
> On the other hand, people can speak impulsively and then regret that they've posted their immediate reaction. So there's value in letting them revise, and giving them a chance to come to a more considered response.
>
> These values are obviously in conflict and I suppose it's a question of which is more important. Or how to meet both needs of the community-- for a stable reality and a chance to be their best self, and to be protected from each other's--and their own-- momentary outbursts.
>
> I'm not personally worried about bullying or gaslighting-- imo, anyone who's doing that could be identified and actions could be taken to protect everyone. And I also find myself believing that most, if not all, posters here really are struggling with many issues and, when hurtful things are said, people often don't do it with a bad heart, even if they're upset at the moment.
>
> I also see that we don't really have any current deputies, and that this might permit babble to be self-sustaining, ie to function more smoothly with minimal moderation. So, perhaps it's a modus vivendi. Since people have said it would help them feel more safe, more in control, and less vulnerable to being banned, it again might prevent pbcs and blocks-- which, of course, have always been the greatest source of conflict here.
>
> Nadezda> At first, I admit, I was kind of fussed to see edits etc.
> But then I became accustomed to them and trusted why they edited. I generally have only used the edit function for when I have accidentally sent a post B4 I'd thot it thru or finished correcting it.
> Also, this site is a mental health site, and has many w/dissociative issues, so the edit, delete function is much appreciated.
>
> muffledDinah, thanks for explaining more. I think I see now, one concern is that people might deny what they originally posted. My intent isn't of course to facilitate denial, but I see how that could happen. And how it would be crazy-making. And how keeping the original text available would protect against that.
Since this is a support group, I do think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for revising. But as a backup, deputies and I could access the copy of the original saved by the server (it would be available to us, but not to everyone) and see if false information was posted about it, which would be considered uncivil. (At the same time, it would also be considered uncivil for other posters to post anything that could lead the original poster to feel accused or put down.)
I think that would be a reasonable way to rebalance how the needs of this community are met. Babble might be more self-sustaining, and if necessary, administrative actions could still be taken.
--
> For me, 24 hours seems to much, mostly because it creates the time for many people to read the post, who aren't yet intimately connected to the conflict, but who may be drawn into the swirl of emotions--but who don't post. So the post could remain unanswered, even though many have read and reacted to it. This seems unhelpful, as it creates a confusion and contradictory experiences among potential responders-or even non-posting readers--about what was and wasn't said.
>
> NadezdaThat's true, those who didn't see the original would have an experience different from those who did. To some extent, those who didn't would need to try to accept not knowing something. OTOH, the more people who did see it, the easier it should be to find out, so maybe there's the possibility of *less* confusion, too?
--
> bringing in the community-- whatever its potential for creating more uproar, which I think is substantial-- might be worth it in the long run.
I agree, and that's why I started this discussion.
> One other important thing-- I do strongly stress that if you do make a change, it would be best to explain in greater detail than you have a habit of doing, why you're doing it, and the effects you hope to achieve. Perhaps a session on the chat one evening for interested parties to talk with you in person would be productive-- and would give people the sense that you're acting in their and babble's best interest, not arbitrarily imposing rules from above.
>
> NadezdaI agree, and I'm trying to explain now. I'd be open to a chat, too, but people would have to be available at that particular time, and it wouldn't automatically be recorded like this thread.
I hope you all had a good Thanksgiving. Sorry about not replying sooner. I'm thankful for your trust and patience,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 8:15:44
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
It's not just outright denial, Dr. Bob. It's the tacit denial of editing a post. Editing a post *is* denial. It's not retraction. Retraction is what they do in newspapers. But they don't go collect all the original newspapers and replace them. They can't. Words can't be unsaid.
If you haven't read the original fine. But if you had, and then the particulars of the post are changed - even if it's not a question of incivility - "reality" has changed. And if some people have read it, and others haven't, then different people have different realities. I thought Babble was the place where everything was transparent, and everyone's reality was as much the same as site rules could make it? Public PBC's and blocks, never removing a post, etc. If you wish to change that, maybe you could start with one of the other elements of transparency, like public PBC's that likely actually cause more distress than this.
It's not an issue in technical corrections. But it is an issue in anything else, especially civility, but anything else really. Once anyone has read the post, editing it tampers with the reader's sense of reality.
At another site, which does allow editing, I end up saving posts every time I read them, because I never know if they'll change afterward.
Maybe it's me. I have OCD, which has been known as the doubting disease. And I was raised in a home where reality was at issue. But surely many of us were raised in homes (or married into homes) where reality was an issue.
Having the original available is fine for deputies, but I don't think it's fair for only deputies to have the ability to see that.
What is the issue of having the original linkable? Why would anyone object to that?
If someone regrets what they posted, they could indicate that regret by withdrawing or changing what they said. Isn't that sufficient? Why is it so bad to have what they actually said still available? It seems a reasonable compromise to me.
Thank you for trying to understand. But maybe you could go a bit further and try to understand more fully.
Could you please explain to me
1) Why having the original available by link would be so awful.
2) Why it would improve on board relations to have people saying something then tacitly denying it after it's had a chance to be seen. Wouldn't that just make other posters more angry at the use of board rules to be uncivil on top of the incivility itself? Can you imagine in some of the exchanges where people already perceive that people are treading close to the line, if editing subsequently took place? Is my memory just longer than yours? I just totally don't understand in any way why this would increase board harmony. Could you give a few examples?
I'm guessing this isn't really open to debate or compromise, and all I'm doing is upsetting myself more. I've prepared a folder on my computer for all the saving I'm going to have to do. And I've even thought of a few fun games I could play. But I don't think it's ultimately in the board's best interests. As for me personally, all I can say is you can consider it the "therapist job stability and retirement provision" rule.
Posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 9:43:09
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
> Since this is a support group, I do think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for revising. But as a backup, deputies and I could access the copy of the original saved by the server (it would be available to us, but not to everyone) and see if false information was posted about it, which would be considered uncivil. (At the same time, it would also be considered uncivil for other posters to post anything that could lead the original poster to feel accused or put down.)
You yourself have said that we shouldn't feel too safe here. That was one of the "advantages" of the Twitter and Facebook options - to remind us.
So if I'm to understand you, no one would receive any admin action no matter what they posted as long as they revised it within twentyfour hours no matter how many people read the post.
Would it be frozen for editing if someone replied? It would then at least be a game of chicken, since posters would always run the risk of having the first person to read it reply.
If I understand correctly again, denying you wrote something would be uncivil. But since pointing out that someone said something would also be uncivil, that wouldn't really be an issue. No one would have to deny it.
If I quote the original post in my reply, including the incivility so that people would know what I was replying to, would that be uncivil?
How could a poster civilly point out that the original said something very different. Or offer to make the original available by email. It's not private communications. It was posted on the internet.
> That's true, those who didn't see the original would have an experience different from those who did. To some extent, those who didn't would need to try to accept not knowing something. OTOH, the more people who did see it, the easier it should be to find out, so maybe there's the possibility of *less* confusion, too?
So you're saying that there would be less confusion if more people knew the original reality. Yet you are also in favor of disappearing the original reality and replacing it with multiple realities? You think it would be good for babble's stability to have the haves and the have nots of information?
> I agree, and I'm trying to explain now. I'd be open to a chat, too, but people would have to be available at that particular time, and it wouldn't automatically be recorded like this thread.
Does this mean that this is a done deal, something you have already decided to do, and nothing we say will influence you to change course, or at least to compromise?
There are other problems that have cropped up elsewhere with editing, but there's no point even discussing them if this is something you are going to do, and we can like it or lump it.
Why do I feel like this is "next time"?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2009, at 0:23:38
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 9:43:09
> It's not just outright denial, Dr. Bob. It's the tacit denial of editing a post. Editing a post *is* denial.
>
> If you haven't read the original fine. But if you had, and then the particulars of the post are changed - even if it's not a question of incivility - "reality" has changed. And if some people have read it, and others haven't, then different people have different realities. I thought Babble was the place where everything was transparent, and everyone's reality was as much the same as site rules could make it?
>
> 1) Why having the original available by link would be so awful.
>
> 2) I just totally don't understand in any way why this would increase board harmony. Could you give a few examples?
>
> I'm guessing this isn't really open to debate or compromise, and all I'm doing is upsetting myself more.> So if I'm to understand you, no one would receive any admin action no matter what they posted as long as they revised it within twentyfour hours no matter how many people read the post.
>
> Would it be frozen for editing if someone replied? It would then at least be a game of chicken, since posters would always run the risk of having the first person to read it reply.
>
> If I understand correctly again, denying you wrote something would be uncivil. But since pointing out that someone said something would also be uncivil, that wouldn't really be an issue. No one would have to deny it.
>
> If I quote the original post in my reply, including the incivility so that people would know what I was replying to, would that be uncivil?
>
> How could a poster civilly point out that the original said something very different. Or offer to make the original available by email.
>
> Does this mean that this is a done deal, something you have already decided to do, and nothing we say will influence you to change course, or at least to compromise?I don't see revising as denying. Revise: 1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript>. Deny: 1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>.
I think we're both in favor of allowing revisions and only differ on deleting the original. The advantage of deleting the original is that it might avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings. The example I gave before was changing:
> You're offensive!
to:
> I feel offended!
The latter is an I-statement, so hopefully it would avoid bad feelings if the other poster hasn't seen the original and lessen them if they have.
My philosophy already is to accept apologies, including retractions. And as you said yourself, revising could be a face saving alternative to an explicit apology and an implicit acknowledgement that what was originally posted oughtn't to have been. But the poster might not necessarily have the full 24 hours (or however long) to revise because (1) their post might be replied to and (2) administrative action might be taken sooner.
Yes, a post would be "frozen" if someone replied. Repeating something uncivil by quoting it already is considered uncivil. A poster could civilly point out that the original was very different by saying:
> The original was very different.
or even:
> The original was very different, and I felt very offended!
If someone revised something, I don't think I'd consider it sensitive to their feelings to post an offer to make the original available.
Yes, deleting the original could change someone's reality: their reality one time might be the original post and their reality a later time might be the corrected or improved post. In effect, they would be asked to accept that change.
Yes, those who did and didn't see the original would have different realities. But people here already have different realities because of private communications.
Is it just that a reader might have to deal with a changed reality, or is it also that the poster should be taken to task if their original post was uncivil?
I think it's clear that this is open to debate, and limiting revisions to a certain time period and making denials actionable are already changes in course.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2009, at 2:10:36
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2009, at 0:23:38
First of all, are your RSS feeds just links? Or do they contain the body of the post? Once they're sent, is the original post sent?
> I don't see revising as denying. Revise: 1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript>. Deny: 1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>.
That's what the confirm this post step is for. You might revise a manuscript before publishing it. After it's published, even if you revise a later edition, the original is available to anyone who cares to look. After you publish, you print corrections or revisions that are additions to the manuscript. Is this not so?
One suggestion I've heard is to hold posts that can be revised in limbo, so that they can be revised before they are posted. Sort of like confirm, but with a longer cooling off period. That would be a good use for having a setting to be able to edit. To send the posts to a waiting period where they can later be edited before posting.
> I think we're both in favor of allowing revisions and only differ on deleting the original.
To be clear, I still have objections to you as administrator proposing revisions as a way to disappear incivility. I'd have been far less offended about this whole matter if you hadn't introduced it as a civility matter.
Moreover, trying to minimize damage and make the best of the inevitable is not actually agreement. It is compromise.
> The advantage of deleting the original is that it might avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings.
It might possibly avoid bad feelings if the other poster (and no one who knows the other poster) hasn't seen the original. Although honestly Dr. Bob, if you saw a post from someone who maybe didn't care for you overmuch in general, and that post sounded angry and offended, and you'd seen it had been edited, wouldn't it be just as likely that you would think that what had been edited out was pretty bad? Worse even than what might have actually been there? Well, you might not care, but I'd be incensed and certainly not have the reaction you propose. I'd wonder precisely what had been revised.
If I did see the post, I'd forgive incivility way sooner than I'd forgive disappearing incivility. And I'd think differently about posters who would do that, and I'd hate to feel differently about the posters.
> The example I gave before was changing:
>
> > You're offensive!
>
> to:
>
> > I feel offended!
>
> The latter is an I-statement, so hopefully it would avoid bad feelings if the other poster hasn't seen the original and lessen them if they have.You gave an example that could be conceivably considered poor wording.
Would it be different if it was changing
"F*ck you, Dr. Bob."
to
"Bless you, Dr. Bob."
Would you feel a lessening of bad feelings if you saw it changed that way? Or maybe don't use you. Do you think posters would feel a lessening of bad feelings?
On the positive side, I suppose, it would give people a chance to vent towards you without leaving others afraid of getting a faceful of cat.
> My philosophy already is to accept apologies, including retractions. And as you said yourself, revising could be a face saving alternative to an explicit apology and an implicit acknowledgement that what was originally posted oughtn't to have been. But the poster might not necessarily have the full 24 hours (or however long) to revise because (1) their post might be replied to and (2) administrative action might be taken sooner.
If I see a post written to me that is uncivil, I'll reply to it. I hope anyone who cares about my sanity will do the same for posts written about me. Edited posts are blank slates, in a way, to be interpreted in all manner of ways. Believe me, I can imagine much worse than is likely to be true. Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'm guessing I'm not.
> Yes, a post would be "frozen" if someone replied. Repeating something uncivil by quoting it already is considered uncivil. A poster could civilly point out that the original was very different by saying:
>
> > The original was very different.
>
> or even:
>
> > The original was very different, and I felt very offended!Thank you. I'll remember that.
> If someone revised something, I don't think I'd consider it sensitive to their feelings to post an offer to make the original available.Well, no real need for it to be on board.
> Yes, deleting the original could change someone's reality: their reality one time might be the original post and their reality a later time might be the corrected or improved post. In effect, they would be asked to accept that change.
I need one reality. The reality is that a post was posted and an edit made. The reality is both posts.
It's not even just incivility, Dr. Bob. I actually pay attention to what people write. If somebody writes something and later it's gone or changed, it would be crazymaking. The internet is a place where it's all too easy to lose your sense of reality. But at least at Babble posts don't go changing. What's there is there.
> Yes, those who did and didn't see the original would have different realities. But people here already have different realities because of private communications.
They may have incomplete realities, but that's not the same as having different realities. If you need me to explain further I can.
> Is it just that a reader might have to deal with a changed reality, or is it also that the poster should be taken to task if their original post was uncivil?
It's a lot of things, Dr. Bob. On some levels I feel very offended, on other levels I find it groundwork for insanity. I don't consider taking posters to task as an issue at all, since I am not opposed to your allowing people to use this feature to avoid administrative action. What is an issue is that posting uncivil things, along the lines of attacks, not poor wording, reveals something about a poster. So does manning up and apologizing, or expressing regret. And so does pretending that it never happened and changing a post. It's not a question of PBC's. It's a question of character, and of understanding what to expect from each other. Yes, I suppose I do think it is better for all Babblers to have a shared reality - to the extent that it is possible given the different perceptions, characteristic ways of viewing the world, and life experiences we all of us bring to any table.
But even more important to me is the issue of reality. And that's not even a question of civility. If I read something, then go back and it says something different, it would be crazymaking for me. Even if it had nothing to do with incivility but was an integral part of the topic at hand. I often read a post then go away and eat breakfast or something while I think about it, then come back to reply. How crazymaking would it be for there to be a different post when I came back to reply? I'd routinely wonder if I was going crazy. Reality would be a moving target. You want people to accept that, but why? Why, when the alternative is so easy? Just take the original post off the main board, but make it linkable.
Also, Dr. Bob, the things that made Babble the very mature and interesting place that it is aren't unrelated to its structure. Babble is a better place, IMO, for encouraging people to think before they post. We sometimes take leaps of faith on, say, Psychology. And sometimes we hit that confirm button and are filled with sudden fear as well as tentative hope. Babble would be a far poorer place without some of the vulnerability that arises from the nature of how Babble has been. At least the annoyance of having people coyly retract their question after it is answered would not be an issue since it would be frozen once someone responded. I'd have to start quoting the post I'm responding to far more than I do now, if I respond in any depth. I'd hate to have the original change while I'm crafting an answer. I'd again feel like I was insane.People with OCD touch things to make check reality. Right now, the post is there to touch at any time. If the posts start changing...
> I think it's clear that this is open to debate, and limiting revisions to a certain time period and making denials actionable are already changes in course.
>
> BobMy suggestion was actually to allow revisions to be made at any time, so that people who fear they have posted something personal they don't want turning up on google search could amend their post. And that the original not be googleable. Perhaps some limit on older posts might have to be made so that Babble wasn't gutted.
But Dr. Bob, as far as I know, people have been more upset about personal information being googleable than they are about being able to edit posts in a very tiny window of opportunity. My proposal would help more people, not less. And the original posts would still be there, but not be googleable. You could link them right next to the "Edited" notation. Again, why is that a problem?
I've also made suggestions about long blocks, which I also think is a larger issue than being able to edit posts in a short time frame.
So, allowing edits to be made indefinitely and keeping the original post by link would address a number of concerns and maybe help make people feel safe again. How many people does disappearing the original post in that very small time frame help? Why the investment in disappearing the original post from an administrator who made preserving what actually happens a major cornerstone of this site?
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.