![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 32. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
I think they should be revoked and replaced by a general rule against spamming, or flooding a board with posts. That way if there is a seriously problematic situation, Dr. Bob could quietly request a change in posting behavior, with specific guidelines tailored to the situation.
Three is a very arbitrary number. I don't really like arbitrary in rules.
I know Dr. Bob likes straightforward rules, and I do understand his reasoning. But I just don't like this rule and never have. And I've never been convinced that the number of rules should be increased when a bit of discretion on the part of Dr. Bob would work just as well or better.
The rule could be that posters are required to comply with requests by Dr. Bob. No one would be blocked or sanctioned for behavior prior to the request.
Just my humble opinion. And I do realize there are valid arguments to the contrary.
Posted by SLS on July 8, 2008, at 13:16:09
In reply to Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
> And I do realize there are valid arguments to the contrary.
Yes, indeed.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by AbbieNormal on July 8, 2008, at 18:23:45
In reply to Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
I agree on getting rid of the 3 post rule. But I'm a little confused on the replacement.
How do you define Spam? I can't see Bob going with any vague rule. He'd want a formula! He might be more likely to go with a max # daily? But that seems to be prejudical against anyone with mania, for instance.
This is so hard. This is a mental health site. So, how can we dictate behavior for people who can be so symptomatic? Spam might be a symptom.
So, that poster should just quit being depressed. And that one should quit being anxious. And, that one should quit spamming....see what I mean?
Abbie, who doesn't have a better answer
Posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 18:50:28
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by AbbieNormal on July 8, 2008, at 18:23:45
I suppose what I'm objecting to is Dr. Bob's need for formulas. :) And his fondness of three. I think that particular rule is needlessly hurtful.
He says it's about sharing the boards, but I fail to see how posting four times in a row is failing to share the boards.
I realize that allowing Dr. Bob to use some judgment rather than have rules for everything requires us to trust him a bit. But one area where I trust Dr. Bob is to not misuse that sort of power. I have never ever seen him crack down on behavior because he found it annoying. I'm not even sure if he gets annoyed.
I dunno. Rules about generalizations for medications, rules about posting more than three times in a row... They may be designed to address problems that need to be addressed. But I'm not sure they represent the best way to address those problems. I think they have all sorts of unintended consequences.
Yet, I do understand Dr. Bob's desire to have clear cut rules because fairness can be such an important concern.
It's a hard thing. But I just wish a better solution could be reached.
Posted by SLS on July 9, 2008, at 6:27:35
In reply to Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
> Three is a very arbitrary number. I don't really like arbitrary in rules.
Actually, the number 3 was not arbitrary. I helped Dr. Bob arrive at that number based upon my counting consecutive posts on all the boards. 3 posts was by far the most common number. 4 was only infrequent.
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2008, at 7:41:08
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Dinah, posted by SLS on July 9, 2008, at 6:27:35
I remember that. You put a lot of effort and logic into your contributions to that discussion.
Still, I've never been fond of the rule because in my experience, it's not been enforced consistently. That's why as a deputy, I pretty much never enforced it myself and deferred those to Dr. Bob. I think I might have applied it one time in the year or so I was a dep.
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 9, 2008, at 7:47:17
In reply to Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
Friends,
It is written here concerning a rule of Robert Hsiung's. I am wondering if all of you know of what the origen of the rule was. Here is a link to a post by Mr. Hsiung and then another link to a post in a thread. I would like for those interested in this discussion to examine the posts in the thread and Mr.Hsiung's response , for I think that the infomation contained could give discussants a better idea of the issue presented by Dinah here now and that discussants could have IMO more infomation to include in their responses to Dinah's innitial post here.
Here is the link to Mr. Hsiung's post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/400804.html
Here is a link to a post in the thread in question:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/393934.html
If you read the posts in the thread and Mr. Hsiung's post here, I as for dialog puposes:
A. Did something good for the community as a whole come out of that I posted more than 3 consecutive posts?
B. Was any member prevented from participating in the thread because I posted more than 3 consecutive posts there?
C. Was any member prevented from posting in another thread because I posted more than 3 consecutive posts there?
D. Was any member made to feel bad because I posted more than 3 consecutive posts there? If so, who and why?
E. other good and just aspects for this discussion
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on July 9, 2008, at 7:56:04
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Dinah, posted by Lou PIlder on July 9, 2008, at 7:47:17
for myself, it was next to impossible to post or understand what was going on, when the entire page was filled with posts that wanted clarification/ of something that a poster said.
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2008, at 10:33:28
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Dinah, posted by SLS on July 9, 2008, at 6:27:35
I'm sorry, Scott. I didn't mean to minimize your contribution to the number. I'm sure it was well thought out. (Although Dr. Bob subsequently appeared to develop a strong attraction to the number 3.)
What I meant more was that there is no reason why three is an ok number and posting four is "bad" in the sense of not sharing the boards. It may be less frequent, but I see no reason that it should be outlawed.
For example, higher up on this page is an instance where Dr. Bob asked for ideas. And a poster responded in brainstorming fashion, posting more than three posts in the process. To me, this is a good thing. Other posters could have posted if they wished. It's not like the board registers as "busy" while a post is being made, and a thread is tied up so that others can't post. And in fact if no one else posts to a thread asking for ideas, it seems more likely to me that someone responding might spark ideas in someone else and stimulate a discussion rather than silence one.
On another board, posting frequency was unusually low. Someone started new threads in what to me was a not excessive way. The threads received responses. There was *plenty* of time for other people to post new threads. No one else happened to have anything new to say. But that didn't mean they didn't want to have conversations on the board. But the poster got a notice from Dr. Bob to please share the boards.
I don't understand that thought process at all. It seems to me that it's good for a board to remain active. The posts did get responses, and the board remained healthier and stronger, IMO, for maintaining ongoing dialogues.
It reminds me of my house sometimes. For example, I bought a very small container of ice cream in an unusual flavor that sounded interesting. I ate a small amount, since I don't particularly care for ice cream. I mentioned to my family that it was available. Over the course of the next week or two I noticed now and then it was there, took a small amount, until finally it was gone. (It tasted like freezer by then.) As I scooped out the last bit, my family seemed aggrieved that I hadn't shared. Ummmm... Well, it was there until it went bad. There was an open expressed invitation for them to eat it. How was I not sharing?
Admittedly, I was posting pretty frequently when that rule was enacted. And I felt pretty hurt by both the rule and Dr. Bob's comments on the rule at the time. So that may influence my continued feelings about it.
Posted by Phillipa on July 9, 2008, at 10:44:54
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2008, at 10:33:28
What about when a poster posts a number of posts on a thread thanking each poster individually for their contribution. Sometimes some post much more than three as it was a long thread? Phillipa
Posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
In reply to Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
Let's not beat around the bush here. The 3 consecutive post rule was enacted at the urging of a few babblers to limit the number of consecutive posts by one or two particular posters. IMO It was not a rule designed for the good of the community as a whole. I am a bit concerned that we need to be so coddled, that we can't simply ignore posts that might potentially aggrevate us. I understand this is a board for crazy people (I say that with love), but just as we are asked to behave within certain guidelines, couldn't we also discipline ourselves to simply skip over posts that might annoy us. I think glaring subject lines like "PLEASE SHARE THE BOARD" have waaay more potential to create a negative atmosphere than does someone with a desire to articulate, posting prolifically. As always these are my opinions only. If I've made anyone feel bad or pissed off, I am truly sorry.
Peace Out
kid
Posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2008, at 14:19:44
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
I can certainly whip my scrolling finger in shape so that I won't accidentally injure myself if I have to scroll more than I currently do. Of course I'm prone to accidentally injuring myself, so I won't guarantee to be injury-free, but that's another issue. :)
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 9, 2008, at 15:17:22
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
> Let's not beat around the bush here. The 3 consecutive post rule was enacted at the urging of a few babblers to limit the number of consecutive posts by one or two particular posters. IMO It was not a rule designed for the good of the community as a whole. I am a bit concerned that we need to be so coddled, that we can't simply ignore posts that might potentially aggrevate us. I understand this is a board for crazy people (I say that with love), but just as we are asked to behave within certain guidelines, couldn't we also discipline ourselves to simply skip over posts that might annoy us. I think glaring subject lines like "PLEASE SHARE THE BOARD" have waaay more potential to create a negative atmosphere than does someone with a desire to articulate, posting prolifically. As always these are my opinions only. If I've made anyone feel bad or pissed off, I am truly sorry.
>
> Peace Out
> kidFriends,
The following link is to a post in a thread wher I used more than 3 consecutive posts.
I am asking that you click on the link and read the posts in the thread and then if you could reply to the following, I would appreciate it.
A. What was I able to have brought out in the poem?
B. How long, in number of posts by me, did it take for Mr. Hsiung and, I guess, others that were in the thread to see it?
C. Was anyone prohibited from posting because I posted more than 3 consecutive posts?
D. Could the Jewish community's representatives, if they receive this thread, commend me for my work on this forum?
E. In your opinions, is it easy to uncover some things such as what is depicted about the God that the Jews worship and give service to?
F. If it is not an easy task to point out the things that I pointed out in the thread in question, then in your opinion, what could be a purpose of the 3 consecutive post rule?
G. If someone is angry or such because I posted more than 3 consecutive posts here in the thread in question, what, in your opinions, could be a basis, or a foundation for their anger?
H. If there is a reason to make it uncivil to me to post more than 3 consecutive posts to bring out what I brought out in the thread in question about Judaism, that Mr. Hsiung did point out, why would that reason trump my efforts to have IMO equality for the Jews shown here?
Here is the link to one post of the thread to bring up the thread in question
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/391926.html
Lou
Posted by Toph on July 9, 2008, at 16:03:10
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
I got all hung up in this multiple posting problem back in the day so I thought I'd chime in. My first instinct was to say that we are so constrained by civility restrictions that the community could not work with the problem itself. I and others were punished when attempting to interact with these posters. Then I read Kid's recommendation, and like duh, why can't I just ignore stuff that bugs me? I can better overlook annoyances here now, but that is probably a function of being so less invested in this place than I was four years ago. I also speculated that maybe Bob instituted this rule after he seemingly defending a poster's right to post at will for so long because he felt remorse for having to punish so many Babblers who struggled with this posting style. The rule did feel so unBoblike.
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 5:23:02
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » kid47, posted by Toph on July 9, 2008, at 16:03:10
I imagine an experiment could hurt enough to reinstiture the 3 consecutive post limit, if that is what is really needed to remember why we had it instituted in the first place.
Yes, a rule can be necessitated by the behavior of a single poster. If you can figure out which poster I had in mind, then kudos to you.
It is what it is.
Actually, I would love to see the board fill up with the name of this poster littered everwhere. I would find it quite amusing at this point. People quite often get what they wish for.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 5:54:10
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » kid47, posted by Lou PIlder on July 9, 2008, at 15:17:22
I, for one, appreciate your not having changed the subject line.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by fayeroe on July 10, 2008, at 8:46:52
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 5:54:10
One foolproof way to deal with this is to cancel email notifications on this thread.
Posted by fayeroe on July 10, 2008, at 8:46:57
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 5:54:10
One foolproof way to deal with this is to cancel email notifications on this thread.
Posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
In reply to Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 10, 2008, at 13:47:35
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
> I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Friends,
I would like to offer a link to a post in a thread here so that you could have more infomation concerning aspects of this thread. If you could click on the link, then I think that you could have a better understanding of the issues here and be better able to post accordidingly.
Here is the link to one post of the thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin.20021128/msgs/8805.html
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 10, 2008, at 13:50:50
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Toph, posted by Lou PIlder on July 10, 2008, at 13:47:35
> > I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
>
> Friends,
> I would like to offer a link to a post in a thread here so that you could have more infomation concerning aspects of this thread. If you could click on the link, then I think that you could have a better understanding of the issues here and be better able to post accordidingly.
> Here is the link to one post of the thread.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin.20021128/msgs/8805.html
> LouFriends,
Here is the corrected link
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8805.html
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 15:09:28
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » SLS, posted by fayeroe on July 10, 2008, at 8:46:52
> One foolproof way to deal with this is to cancel email notifications on this thread.
What number are we up to so far?
It is possible that you are underestimating the ingenuity of a fool.
Call me a fool.
- Scott
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 10, 2008, at 15:17:53
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
> I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Friends,
I would like for to offer the following link to a post that also could IMO bring more clarity into the this discussion and IMO help pthers to have a better idea of the issues in this thread to respond accordingly.
Here is a link to one post in the thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/677945.html
Lou
Posted by 64bowtie on July 10, 2008, at 17:25:07
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
To your point, Kid, I know some folks have passed over almost all of my posts, but here I am, not in pain about it, just continuing to post, accepting their behavior as plausible or probable... I feel I'd have to wear a "Dunce Cap" if I didn't bear witness to the greater good that has come my way since my entre' to Babble back in November of 2002...
I guess I've had a head start, since I "got over myself" 20 odd years ago...
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on July 10, 2008, at 17:36:27
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2008, at 14:19:44
GG,
Remind your hubby the next time you "go clumsy", I still think you're cute, clumsy and all......
Rod
PS: Focus on May 15, 2009, ooohhhmm, ooohhhmm, ooohhhmm
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.