![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 110. Go back in thread:
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 1, 2007, at 21:25:00
In reply to Re: what's the big deal? » Fallen4MyT, posted by karen_kay on January 1, 2007, at 10:03:07
I do not know who may think it is a big deal. I guess I see it as something that can use some change....I am not one to go in circles or back and forth on any one issue..I personally would like to see a limit on how MANY times a change could take place. I am not a very dramatic person, so when I speak I do not often use absolutes ...I guess one could say I am not a black and white kind of thinker and can be very gray.
> well, i did have a long, important post but somehow i hit a button and it was gone. i'll try again.....
>
> i'm assuming most of us here have psoted something we later regretted (be it personal info about ourselves or just posting something we wish we hadn't.). with this medium, all we have attached to us is our name and those words we write. why not be able to start anew after putting things here that we regret (be it drunk posting, misunderstandings, ect.)?
>
> this particular subject is something that comes up time after time (so i would guess it is kinda a big deal in babble land. perhaps i could be wrong, but this subject comes up quite often. i could be being overly dramatic and perhaps no one thinks it a big deal. either way, if my wording somehow offended you, then you need to deal with that. it's not anything i was saying to be offensive, but perhaps you took it that way? i honestly feel as if you are somewhat upset with me. am i wrong?)
>
> so, if someone feels outed, does it really matter too much what they did to feel that way anyway? i mean, isn't the point of this place to be supportive? and sometimes that can seem impossible if someone feels ignored. why not give them a chance to start over again, without also adding the burden of thinking that it's their fault.
>
>
>
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 1, 2007, at 21:31:38
In reply to Re: what's the big deal? » karen_kay, posted by GGGabbi on January 1, 2007, at 18:38:31
Lol I am one of those who have held to my name for years but I can see why one may want a name change once in a while. That is why I feel X amount of times a year would be best. Also IMO it would better serve the poster to work out the REASON they feel left out or whatever reason they changed.
> I can see why it would be disconcerting, but I don't think it's worth making another rule about.
> If someone is doing it with the motive to upset people then they'll just find another way.
> I think people are entitled to a fresh start, or two, or three.
> It's just one of those things.
>
> Also, because of the contrast I admire those who have been around and chosen hang onto their names no matter how many times they think they've made a "flaming @ss" of themselves :)
>
Posted by karen_kay on January 2, 2007, at 8:35:24
In reply to Re: what's the big deal? » karen_kay, posted by GGGabbi on January 1, 2007, at 18:38:31
every time i made a flaming butt of myself. i'd have changed it 3 times this week already!
and you miss gabbi, seem to change your name like i change my underpants. however, you never seem to make an *ss of yourself. could you teach me how? is the secret the name change? have a lovely day. and hope your new year is full of love, fun and name changes :)
Posted by GGGabbi on January 2, 2007, at 13:11:28
In reply to :) (nm) » GGGabbi, posted by Dinah on January 1, 2007, at 19:02:12
Posted by GGGabbi on January 2, 2007, at 13:23:10
In reply to yeah, imagine if i changed my name » GGGabbi, posted by karen_kay on January 2, 2007, at 8:35:24
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 3, 2007, at 3:05:38
In reply to Re: what's the big deal? » karen_kay, posted by GGGabbi on January 1, 2007, at 18:38:31
> I think people are entitled to a fresh start, or two, or three.
I like 3, too, would that be a reasonable cap?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on January 3, 2007, at 9:35:52
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Dr. Bob on January 3, 2007, at 3:05:38
> > I think people are entitled to a fresh start, or two, or three.
>
> I like 3, too, would that be a reasonable cap?
>
> BobYou really like that number, eh?
If you set a cap, I think that folks ought to be able to email you to request another change for special circumstances if they go over the cap. I don't know what those special circumstances might be, but I think you could decide on a reasonable solution if that comes up. I would have no problem with that remaining between you and the poster.
gg
Posted by All Done on January 3, 2007, at 9:58:18
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Dr. Bob on January 3, 2007, at 3:05:38
> I like 3, too, would that be a reasonable cap?
>
> BobDr. Bob,
Would you tell us why three?
Thanks,
Laurie
Posted by Dinah on January 3, 2007, at 10:24:02
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » Dr. Bob, posted by All Done on January 3, 2007, at 9:58:18
Clearly the man likes three. :)
Posted by muffled on January 3, 2007, at 13:14:31
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » All Done, posted by Dinah on January 3, 2007, at 10:24:02
I think its like ordering sliced meat at the deli....they ask you how many grams(oz?) you want. Well how the hell do I know? So I come up with a number and then they try to get as close to that number as possible. WHY? I dunno, but I guess you got to start with SOMEthing LOL!!!!
3 sounds as good as anything to me.
And Bobs proly thinking to himself....see I am empowering them !
Sure Bob.
Later,
Muffled
Posted by GGGabbi on January 3, 2007, at 18:40:01
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by muffled on January 3, 2007, at 13:14:31
Well, as far as I can see, it's just one more rule, if for some reason people are doing it for it's percieved effect on others, they'll keep doing it, now that there is a limit it will make it even more enticing. It's so easy to hide your IP or get a different one now, that I just can't see this rule affecting anything productive
If people feel close to other posters they'll let them know about a name change. Perhaps, inadvertantly, those who constantly change names are just making the fact that they aren't feeling close to people more honest and apparent.
You can't force a sense of community.
Posted by GGGabbi on January 3, 2007, at 19:05:17
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » muffled, posted by GGGabbi on January 3, 2007, at 18:40:01
Posted by Honore on January 3, 2007, at 20:13:40
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Dr. Bob on January 3, 2007, at 3:05:38
Three doesn't seem like a reasonable cap on name changes.
I haven't seen a compelling argument here for any cap. Some people might not be entirely comfortable at some moments that someone seems to know them, but that can be remedied by babblemail, if it really is a problem.
That seems like the only reason given so far.
People make name changes for many reasons, and I don't see the harm in it. Maybe some people have trouble finding a name they really seem comfortable in and they experiment a bit; maybe there's some interaction that didn't go in a comfortable way, and they want to reimagine their relationship with someone or some people; maybe they want to "start over" after posting things they regret.
Whatever the reasons, a cap of three seems unreasonably constraining, especially in view of the possiblity of simply coming not to like a name, which is chosen without knowing what it feels like to be named that.
I don't know, but this seems a rule looking for a rationale, rather than a rule that arises out of some pressing problem that calls for some regulation.
Honore
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 3, 2007, at 20:41:17
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Dr. Bob on January 3, 2007, at 3:05:38
> > I think people are entitled to a fresh start, or two, or three.
>
> I like 3, too, would that be a reasonable cap?
>
> BobHi Dr. Bob, I think it would be reasonable. I feel the poster who wrote about ordering meat at the deli had a point ...one has to have an amount or a number...so it is a start...
I am unclear on one thing, did you mean yearly? Personally to ME 3 times a year would be fair. It would give some a new start if they felt they needed it.
I do not think rules are bad in and of themselves.
Posted by 10derHeart on January 3, 2007, at 21:51:37
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Honore on January 3, 2007, at 20:13:40
That was well said, and although I'm not 100% decided yet, I think I agree with all you wrote.
I'd like to add to your list the reason that some posters use only public computers, or share with others even in families, and have serious IRL concerns when their name is discovered, or they believe it may be about to be. It becomes a safety issue right at that point.
If something as simple as a name change helps some so much that they wish/need/want to do it often, I have no problem with that. There have to be ways to cope with the disconcerting feelings that can result for the rest, guess we could just help each other find those ways.
Posted by GGGabbi on January 3, 2007, at 23:20:00
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » Honore, posted by 10derHeart on January 3, 2007, at 21:51:37
.
>
> I'd like to add to your list the reason that some posters use only public computers, or share with others even in families, and have serious IRL concerns when their name is discovered, or they believe it may be about to be. It becomes a safety issue right at that point.
>
> If something as simple as a name change helps some so much that they wish/need/want to do it often, I have no problem with that. There have to be ways to cope with the disconcerting feelings that can result for the rest, guess we could just help each other find those ways.that's exactly how I feel about it.
thanks for articulating it so well.
Posted by 10derHeart on January 3, 2007, at 23:29:01
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » 10derHeart, posted by GGGabbi on January 3, 2007, at 23:20:00
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 4, 2007, at 3:20:51
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 3, 2007, at 20:41:17
> I am unclear on one thing, did you mean yearly? Personally to ME 3 times a year would be fair.
3 total would be easier for the server...
Bob
Posted by All Done on January 4, 2007, at 10:09:28
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Dr. Bob on January 4, 2007, at 3:20:51
> > I am unclear on one thing, did you mean yearly? Personally to ME 3 times a year would be fair.
>
> 3 total would be easier for the server...
>
> BobDr. Bob,
Three total...ever?
I'm still curious as to your reasoning behind picking three. Is it as everyone else has said? You just like the number?
I tend to agree with Honore, Gabbi, and 10derHeart. Personally, I don't agree with any cap, but I'm wondering though, if this is still a decision that's up for discussion. I'd rather not spend my time and effort posting about it if it's a done deal and it's hard to tell with you sometimes. :)
BTW, I hope you're having a lovely new year, but if this is the only part of my post you respond to, I might have to scream. ;)
Thanks,
Laurie
Posted by gardenergirl on January 4, 2007, at 12:52:39
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Honore on January 3, 2007, at 20:13:40
I agree with you.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2007, at 4:30:28
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » Dr. Bob, posted by All Done on January 4, 2007, at 10:09:28
> > 3 total would be easier for the server...
>
> Three total...ever?Well, 3 starting from whenever the policy takes effect?
> I'm still curious as to your reasoning behind picking three. Is it as everyone else has said? You just like the number?
It was Gabbi's suggestion. :-) Would 5 be better? 3 might be easier to remember, since other policies use 3...
> I'm wondering though, if this is still a decision that's up for discussion.
It's still up for discussion. Everything's always up for discussion. :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 6, 2007, at 9:59:53
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2007, at 4:30:28
I don't see any particular need for a rule. And there are perfectly valid reasons for a name change. I can certainly take responsibility and handle my discomfort on those occasions where I am pretty sure I know someone, but I don't know who it is.
And sometimes name changes have nothing to do with changing identity. They're things like clearskies changing based on a change in state that she hopes will stick (which was my favorite name change reason ever), or someone having problems posting under their old name and wishing to get to Admin to inform you.
I think I'd be more in favor of something that allows you, Dr. Bob, to keep easier track of who's who. If not charging people, then maybe requiring that they sign up with a real email address, not a yahoo or gmail one. I think that's what Psychcentral was doing when I registered. I don't know how it worked out. That's still not perfect since email providers change and people move.
Posted by ClearSkies on January 7, 2007, at 0:01:26
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 6, 2007, at 9:59:53
You have no idea what that means to me!!!!!!
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 7, 2007, at 0:19:16
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2007, at 4:30:28
3 Is fine so is 5. I wonder and feel that no matter what number you choose some will have issues with it and some won't.
You could pick a number out of a hat.
I do like your reasoning on so many other things having a 3 figure to them thus it may be easier to remember for posters. I, myself would be more in favor of 3 times a year but 3 times ever could work.
I do not personally see if someone chose a name they were not fond of later how this rule could harm them in that they would be able to adjust it to one they like within 3 attempts. If someone were stalked I can see an exception made time number 4.
Some change their names MANY MANY times within a year ( I cannot post who as that may lead someone to feel put down and accused).. but I have seen this. They make it clear they are NOT being stalked, their family has NOT FOUND them....they answer to their real name...so why would someone change their name so often? I feel those types of name changes are the issue here. I wonder if it's a lot of busy work for you Dr Bob...do you think it COULD BE attention seeking?
Some sites do NOT allow you to change your name at all ...it's a rare exception to be able to do that.I can see why.
> > > 3 total would be easier for the server...
> >
> > Three total...ever?
>
> Well, 3 starting from whenever the policy takes effect?
>
> > I'm still curious as to your reasoning behind picking three. Is it as everyone else has said? You just like the number?
>
> It was Gabbi's suggestion. :-) Would 5 be better? 3 might be easier to remember, since other policies use 3...
>
> > I'm wondering though, if this is still a decision that's up for discussion.
>
> It's still up for discussion. Everything's always up for discussion. :-)
>
> Bob
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 7, 2007, at 0:20:29
In reply to Re: cap on Name changes » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on January 3, 2007, at 9:35:52
I like this idea GG
> > > I think people are entitled to a fresh start, or two, or three.
> >
> > I like 3, too, would that be a reasonable cap?
> >
> > Bob
>
> You really like that number, eh?
>
> If you set a cap, I think that folks ought to be able to email you to request another change for special circumstances if they go over the cap. I don't know what those special circumstances might be, but I think you could decide on a reasonable solution if that comes up. I would have no problem with that remaining between you and the poster.
>
> gg
>
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.