![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 88. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on April 21, 2007, at 9:35:37
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » gardenergirl, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 8:24:10
> So are you saying that a thread HAS to be reported by someone in order for a deputy or Dr. Bob to do anything about it?
That's not at all what I'm saying. I was talking about a specific thread. I said that I don't know that anyone has reviewed the thread for civility, and I pointed out that no action now does not necessarily equal no action later. If you extrapolate to the general based on one specific data point, you run a higher risk of forming an incorrect heuristic.
>
> I thought that was just only PART of the system. I believe most deputies have read the posts without it being reported, and nothing happened.On what do you base this belief? You haven't asked me if I've read them, though I'm just one deputy. Have you asked any of the others? I don't know if any of the other deputies have or have not read the thread. Even if any have, none of us ever *have to* act on something. We can always choose to defer the matter to the other deputies and/or Dr. Bob for whatever reason. And we have done so in other situations for a variety of reasons. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#have-to
Thus, no action by a deputy does not equal the deputies have read it and decided it was okay.> So based on this, since you are the enforcers of babble , that it IS accepted here, because lack of any action seems to prove that to me.
I come to a different conclusion, though my thought process is based on a different data set. Remember, you can't prove a negative. You can always assume one, but that increases your chances for error.
Namaste
gg
Posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 9:49:19
In reply to I don't know that any have been reviewed, posted by gardenergirl on April 21, 2007, at 8:14:50
FWIW, which as always probably isn't much. And I hope that it doesn't just make things worse as it often does.
At the current time to my knowledge, animal cruelty jokes are not against the civility rules, and cannot be acted upon by deputies. Because we really don't have any power, we only have the authority to act on existing rules in the way we think Dr. Bob would.
It is possible to campaign for adding animal cruelty jokes to the civility guidelines. The campaign would need to be addressed to Dr. Bob, who is the only person with the power to make a rule change. The campaign would, of course, have to be civil under existing rules. And posts or posters should not be pointed out as examples, because that's what the report this post button is for.
As always with a new or newish rule, I must add that Dr. Bob will correct me if I'm incorrect in my interpretation about the new report this post function rule, and what is allowable to discuss on admin (in generalities) in light of the new rule. It might be wise to wait until he has a chance to do so.
This post is made with only the intent to be helpful as best I can and to clarify the rules as best I know them. There is no intent to do anything else whatsoever.
I'm sorry if my post, for whatever reason, does not accomplish its intended goals.
Posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 9:50:57
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » Happyflower, posted by gardenergirl on April 21, 2007, at 9:35:37
And as I said above, my interpretation is only that.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 21, 2007, at 9:57:18
In reply to Whoops. We crossposted. :) » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 9:50:57
No worries. You presented a constructive approach, probably a much better way to respond than a reactionary response (mine).
Yeah Dinah!
namaste
gg
Posted by karen_kay on April 21, 2007, at 10:00:07
In reply to Re: dear, rape triggers » karen_kay, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 8:41:21
are you doing ok dear?
i've been very lucky in life (i suppose) and survived what i have. i like to think i've come out on top, with my wonderful personality and all.
if someone were to post a joke about sexual abuse (incest whatever you want to call it) and i felt unable to read it, i just wouldn't.
that's pretty much my take on things.
but, i hope you're doing well dear. and i hope this isn't upsetting you. i know, i know, i'm certain it is. and i regret any part i've had in upsetting you. but, is babbleland to become vanillaland now?
i should be allowed to post just as much as anyone else. at least i think. and i shouldn't feel bad about what i post. blocked, if it's deemed uncivil? sure enough! but, i have enough anxiety to run all the cars in america on and this sure isn't helping it.
how about this joke dear......
what did one cow say to the other?
moooooooooo
that wasn't me being a bitch, that was a civil joke dear.
Posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:02:11
In reply to Whoops. We crossposted. :) » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 9:50:57
I feel we can't have a rule about everything that is concidered uncivil, the list would be so long nobody would have time to read it.
Joking about animal abuse or any abuse for that matter should in my view be a "given" in a mental health site. If it is against the law to engage in these behaviors, that might be a big tip off what is or not civil to joke about. These loop holes can cause an issue to esculate because poster are left to deal with it alone without any suport from a deputy.
I realize that if there has to be an exact rule before it is enforced, it gives deputies a huge loop hole not to respond. I believe there has been many "please be civil " warnings given to posters, where the rules of civility are IMPLIED, but not exactly stated as an EXACT rule, concerning an exact subject.
Posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:14:46
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » Happyflower, posted by gardenergirl on April 21, 2007, at 9:35:37
> > So are you saying that a thread HAS to be reported by someone in order for a deputy or Dr. Bob to do anything about it?
>
> That's not at all what I'm saying. I was talking about a specific thread. I said that I don't know that anyone has reviewed the thread for civility, and I pointed out that no action now does not necessarily equal no action laterIf deputies have responed on that thread is it wrong to assume they have reviewed it?
. If you extrapolate to the general based on one specific data point, you run a higher risk of forming an incorrect heuristic.
This is why I asked you about it, to clarify what you meant.
> > I thought that was just only PART of the system. I believe most deputies have read the posts without it being reported, and nothing happened.
>
> On what do you base this belief? You haven't asked me if I've read them, though I'm just one deputy. Have you asked any of the others? I don't know if any of the other deputies have or have not read the thread. Even if any have, none of us ever *have to* act on something. We can always choose to defer the matter to the other deputies and/or Dr. Bob for whatever reason. And we have done so in other situations for a variety of reasons. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#have-toOkay this tells me a lot. I think the "don't have to" causes a lot esculation in problems because we count on deputies to act on it, if they can choose not to act on it, we don't know the reasons, what if it is because they like the poster, and don't want to hurt them with an action. What if they don't like the poster, and they really want to "stick it to them" because they personally don't like the poster. This "don't have to respond" leaves the actions of deputies open to their subjective views and not based on objective basis. There is especially true when they hold a duel role here.
>
> > So based on this, since you are the enforcers of babble , that it IS accepted here, because lack of any action seems to prove that to me.
>
> I come to a different conclusion, though my thought process is based on a different data set. Remember, you can't prove a negative. You can always assume one, but that increases your chances for error.
>
> Namaste
>
> gg
>
>
Posted by kninelover on April 21, 2007, at 10:33:21
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » gardenergirl, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:14:46
a deputy can ignor an uncivil post...("does not have to act on.."
a deputy can block who she/he wants to?
how can we tell when a deputy is being a deputy?
Posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 10:40:58
In reply to confused... » Happyflower, posted by kninelover on April 21, 2007, at 10:33:21
Posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:44:34
In reply to you never did answer....incest trigger » Happyflower, posted by karen_kay on April 21, 2007, at 10:00:07
> are you doing ok dear?
I am okay, just trying to explain things. I am sad you are not as well. This isn't an issue about you, it is more of an issue of what is allowed on this site.
if someone were to post a joke about sexual abuse (incest whatever you want to call it) and i felt unable to read it, i just wouldn't.I understand what you mean, but you are strong person, what about the ones who are not able to resist. Not everyone here is sound mentally to handle the fallout of being triggered reading something that even with a trigger warning, they still might read it. So it come down to what SHOULD be allowed on a mental health site. I think a mental health site should be extra sensitive to abuse issues, joking about those issues can cause a lot of anguish for some. A trigger warning isn't enough I believe.
Some might not even know they will be triggered by a certain subject but are. So isn't it best not to allow jokes about sensitive issues of abuse?
, is babbleland to become vanillaland now?
As a matter of fact, I think babblelands should be more vanilla like.
> i should be allowed to post just as much as anyone else. at least i think. and i shouldn't feel bad about what i post. blocked, if it's deemed uncivil? sure enough! but, i have enough anxiety to run all the cars in america on and this sure isn't helping it.Well as the rules stand, you can post just about anything. But in doing so, you also have to take the responsiblity that goes along with it.
This is why I avoid sensitive jokes no matter who I talk to online or offline, because the potential for hurt and being offensive is high.
Some topics are risker than others. It is a choice we make, especially if there is not rules against certain topics, but we are still responsible for what we say. Is it worth it to take a that risk that might have a higher potential to hurt others?
Posted by kninelover on April 21, 2007, at 10:49:27
In reply to Re: confused... » kninelover, posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 10:40:58
sorry d ,
i was looking for an answer in a written post , not a link :)
Posted by notfred on April 21, 2007, at 11:42:41
In reply to Re: confused... » Dinah, posted by kninelover on April 21, 2007, at 10:49:27
> sorry d ,
> i was looking for an answer in a written post , not a link :)Scroll down a bit and each of your questions were answered.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 21, 2007, at 11:52:16
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » gardenergirl, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:14:46
> If deputies have responed on that thread is it wrong to assume they have reviewed it?It would not necessarily be accurate to assume that. I don't always read entire threads before I respond to a specific post, whether as a deputy or as a poster. I know of instances when other deputies have not read entire threads before responding to a specific post. I can understand how one might assume we have, but I know in my case, for a variety of reasons I might not.
>>
> Okay this tells me a lot. I think the "don't have to" causes a lot esculation in problems because we count on deputies to act on it, if they can choose not to act on it, we don't know the reasons, what if it is because they like the poster, and don't want to hurt them with an action. What if they don't like the poster, and they really want to "stick it to them" because they personally don't like the poster. This "don't have to respond" leaves the actions of deputies open to their subjective views and not based on objective basis. There is especially true when they hold a duel role here.That has always been in place. Clearly it leaves making assumptions about deputy behavior open to subjective beliefs. And if one is primed for whatever reason to assume negative motives, one will be more likely to see them, and vice versa.
Counting on a deputy for support requires, in part, trusting the deputy to perform their role with integrity and ethics. Given this community and the current operating conditions, I can see how it might be quite difficult, maybe even impossible in some cases, to grant that trust.
Posted by Declan on April 21, 2007, at 19:29:41
In reply to dear, » Happyflower, posted by karen_kay on April 21, 2007, at 7:36:03
"Don't Worry. He Won't Get Far On Foot" is by a US quadraplegic comedian.
Some people wouldn't have found it funny.
I did.
Posted by zazenducke on April 21, 2007, at 19:38:04
In reply to Different Strokes for Different Folks, posted by Declan on April 21, 2007, at 19:29:41
Posted by Racer on April 21, 2007, at 20:04:08
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » gardenergirl, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 8:24:10
>
> I thought that was just only PART of the system. I believe most deputies have read the posts without it being reported, and nothing happened.For the record, I haven't had time to read the boards lately, and have only read those posts which have been reported as possibly uncivil. If a post has not been reported, it's safe to say I probably haven't read it. I am one deputy out of five, and as such I can safely say that at least 20% of deputies have not read whatever posts you're discussing here.
I'm sorry you're offended by something, Happyflower, but I feel a bit blindsided right now. I can't promise I would have taken any administrative action on the posts in question, since I don't know what's in them, but I can say that I would have looked at them, and at least discussed them with the other deputies.
Racer, posting as Racer
Posted by greywolf on April 21, 2007, at 20:08:12
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed, posted by Racer on April 21, 2007, at 20:04:08
I'd comment, but I don't have a dog in this fight.
Posted by zazenducke on April 21, 2007, at 20:47:50
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed, posted by greywolf on April 21, 2007, at 20:08:12
I am often tempted myself
I would not want anyone on this thread to feel unsupported. I'm sure you wouldn't either. Really.
> I'd comment, but I don't have a dog in this fight.
>
>
Posted by verne on April 21, 2007, at 21:02:41
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed, posted by Racer on April 21, 2007, at 20:04:08
If you don't have a "dog in the fight" why enter the fray with the quip, that you don't have a "dog in the fight"?
Verne
Posted by fayeroe on April 21, 2007, at 22:22:43
In reply to I feel animal cruelity jokes shouldn't be allowed, posted by Happyflower on April 20, 2007, at 13:15:03
Happyflower, I am coming to this late but I want you to know that I've just read this entire thread and I understand completely what you are asking for here.
I am very active in animal rights and, in fact, testified for two hours recently in a dogfighting case.
I'm sorry that this turned into whatever it turned into. it sure ain't purty........pat
Posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 22:26:10
In reply to Re: I feel animal cruelity jokes shouldn't be allowed » Happyflower, posted by fayeroe on April 21, 2007, at 22:22:43
Thanks fayeroe,
I am surprised you got through all of the mud! ;-)
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 14:48:50
In reply to Re: ((((((Happyflower)))))) » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 9:19:16
Jackson, he is alive as far as I know.
Posted by sunnydays on April 22, 2007, at 22:10:32
In reply to Re: you never did answer....incest trigger » karen_kay, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:44:34
It's always an option to start your own site with your own rules. I see nothing wrong with the jokes that were posted, personally. I have suffered quite a lot of abuse, and I seriously think that a trigger warning should be enough. We cannot protect everyone in the world from everything. Sometimes people have to take hold of their own responsibility to protect themselves. Whether this is a mental health site or not, mentally ill people are not incapable of taking action to protect themselves, in the large majority of cases, especially if all they have to do is not read a post. This site works well for a lot of people. Social is a board for more joking around and stuff. I wouldn't expect jokes about abuse on the psychology board, but on the social board I see it much more as an anything goes situation. Again, you can start your own site if you don't like the rules here. I for one am perfectly satisfied with the rules here. I am not fragile, even though I have been abused, and I do not need babysitting, even when I have been at my worst and suicidal, I could still have handled anything that was posted here.
sunnydays
Posted by fayeroe on April 22, 2007, at 23:06:29
In reply to Re: you never did answer...abuse trigger » Happyflower, posted by sunnydays on April 22, 2007, at 22:10:32
that's all well and good, but i did not think that KK would post something like she did. i saw one little part and quickly closed it. i just finished with a huge animal abuse case and i don't want to read jokes about it here.
and i don't intend to start my own website.
Posted by one woman cine on April 23, 2007, at 7:12:28
In reply to I feel animal cruelity jokes shouldn't be allowed, posted by Happyflower on April 20, 2007, at 13:15:03
knowing winks and allusions to sex with ones' therapist? Trumpet jokes and the like?
Everyone has different comfort levels and feels various things are inappropriate. It would be wonderful if folks could just respect others people's comfort zone.
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen 100% of the time.
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.