![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 30 to 54 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:24:12
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:19:45
But there is already a rule in place to handle what you describe. Why put another rule in place that might be used in ways that aren't helpful to the board?
I wasn't describing you. I was describing behaviors I've seen on other boards that I wouldn't want to see here. And that's the truth. I haven't seen that behavior here, and wouldn't want to see it in future if a hijacking rule was in effect.
Personally I was always in favor of a "Hey, cut it out" rule rather than creating new rules to fit every possible contingency, since the new rules are often used more broadly than I like. I trust Dr. Bob to use it wisely. But Dr. Bob is opposed to that.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:30:23
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:19:45
And to be clear, I don't think I have any problem seeing distinctions. I see any number of distinctions in matters of civility. I just may not see them the same way you do.
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:45:00
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:20:28
> I think an originating poster can ask that certain types of posts not be made on any thread that poster originates. I think a Please be Sensitive would be upheld. This can also be used with repetitive responses on other threads as well, I think.
>
> Harassment might be if a poster follows another poster from thread to thread to make the same type of post. Although that would also fall under "Please be sensitive" if a request is made, I think.
>
> It's a fine balance between wanting to handle things ourselves and wanting Bob to get involved. I hate to see extra rules enacted. It won't help much anyway if Dr. Bob won't be around.
>
> Perhaps we could work some sort of Bat-signal with Dr. Bob, to let him know when urgent help is needed.and that`s the problem. none of this would be taking place- it wouldn`t have escalated or have gone on and on if Bob had followed his own rules.
I submitted multiple notifications.. never addressed
I emailed him... he never responded.
all the while, the 3 post rule was violated multiple times and my request for no anti_med posts was cleverly ignored.
Bob is the one who creates the need for members to use social pressure to moderate what he refuses to tend to.
I don`t necessarily want more rules, but if he won`t honor the ones he`s made, social pressure is all we have to work with. I think it`s fine for a poster to post their opinions, regardless of how much it may not make sense to most of us. But their right to express their opinion should not dominate someone else`s thread. It`s not civil and their disruptiveness and rudeness should not be protected, should it?
It worries me...
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 9:55:38
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:20:28
Hi Dinah.
> Harassment might be if a poster follows another poster from thread to thread
I disagree that harassment should be defined by and require that one be followed from thread to thread. I think harassment can occur along a single thread. Why wouldn't it?
"Please be sensitive"? There is no way that this suggestion would prevent a hijacking or a harassment or a pressuring by a persistent offending poster unless a block were used as a deterrent.
Handle things ourselves? There is no way that this suggestion would work because a persistent poster would not be discouraged from continuing their offending behavior. In addition, it is difficult to make such suggestions to the offending poster as they could claim that they feel accused or "put-down".How about posting generalizations and exaggerations? Why would these things no longer be proscribed such that they be sanctioned? It appears to me that there are several proscriptions that are being overlooked or removed from consideration.
1. Harassment.
2. Pressuring.
3. Generalization.
4. Exaggeration.
5. Posting the same material along different threads at the same time.
6. Failure to be sensitive.
7. Alluding to Nazis history and the Holocaust.To name a few.
This is a job for a moderator to deal with. I don't want to handle it myself. It takes up too much time and energy.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:55:48
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:45:00
The reason I volunteered to be a deputy all those years ago was because Dr. Bob was sometimes gone, a situation escalated, and instead of one person being dinged for incivility, many were.
Regardless of Dr. Bob's actions or inactions, he expects us to respond according to his civility rules.
As far as the ignoring of the request. I do see posts on another thread of yours, but also see that when the request for no anti med posts was brought to Lou's attention, he didn't make any more. I could be wrong, but that's beside the point.
If someone's violating the rules, they will receive consequences when Bob finally arrives. That applies to all involved. To be frank, what is the advantage in making Dr. Bob's reprimands two sided? Posting freely is the best revenge.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:57:40
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 9:55:38
Please be sensitive carries the same weight and consequences as a Please be civil. It can result in a block.
And it has, IMO, advantages over creating a lot of new rules.
I would think the generalization rule would also apply, but Dr. Bob hasn't applied that recently.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:00:46
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:57:40
I can't see where anything I post has any effect whatsoever.
My sympathy is now decidedly split. I am a wee bit angry about that.
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:03:30
In reply to I give up, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:00:46
> I can't see where anything I post has any effect whatsoever.
>
> My sympathy is now decidedly split. I am a wee bit angry about that.Dinah, just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that your posts receive no attention and deliberation.
I'm sorry that you feel ignored and perhaps hurt. Your posts carry great weight with me, and I very rarely skip over them.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:11:32
In reply to Re: I give up » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:03:30
It's not that, Scott.
I just meant that they're not doing any good. They aren't effective. People don't agree with me. It's not that I'm hurt. I just don't see the point of expending effort and time where it has no effect. I can better husband my limited resources.
So I'll just wait for Dr. Bob to come along, and hope that he's as laid back as he has been lately. Because I think I'm more in agreement with Dr. Bob than I am with posters on this matter.
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:19:59
In reply to Re: I give up » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:11:32
At least the historical Bob.
Who knows what current edition Bob thinks. :)
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:21:42
In reply to Re: I give up » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:11:32
> It's not that, Scott.
>
> I just meant that they're not doing any good. They aren't effective. People don't agree with me. It's not that I'm hurt. I just don't see the point of expending effort and time where it has no effect.Join the club.
I don't feel that you really paid much attention to my last post. I could be wrong, of course.
"Dinah, just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that your posts receive no attention and deliberation."
People didn't agree with Charles Darwin at first.
> So I'll just wait for Dr. Bob to come along, and hope that he's as laid back as he has been lately. Because I think I'm more in agreement with Dr. Bob than I am with posters on this matter.
How can you be in agreement with someone who is absent and hasn't voiced an opinion?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:22:44
In reply to Re: I give up, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:19:59
> At least the historical Bob.
>
> Who knows what current edition Bob thinks. :)Oops - a cross-post.
I agree.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:25:30
In reply to Re: I give up » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:22:44
Sorry. I misspoke. It wasn't a cross-post.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 10:30:41
In reply to Re: I give up » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:21:42
It's sometimes hard for me to disengage, Scott. And I do have very limited resources right now. If I felt I was making, or could make, a material difference on a concrete level, I wouldn't mind the time and effort.
It's not personal. It's something I'm trying to do for myself. To not get sucked into Admin again. I haven't posted on Admin in a very long time before this. I rarely even read it.
I followed this over from the Meds board.
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 13:24:54
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Solstice, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 9:30:23
> And to be clear, I don't think I have any problem seeing distinctions.
Didn't mean it to sound like I thought you had a problem making distinctions.. that's why I said no one is 'either/or' - it's just that we each tend to lean more one way than the other.
> I see any number of distinctions in matters of civility. I just may not see them the same way you do.
And a lot of the time, the distinctions you make are very helpfully enlightening for me. You are very wise.. I love that about you.. it's powerfully attractive to me. but still.. I just want to be able to seek assistance without the concern I posted being overwhelmed and drowned in a sea of implications that I'm probably killing my child.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 13:32:11
In reply to Re: I give up » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 10:03:30
> > I can't see where anything I post has any effect whatsoever.
> >
> > My sympathy is now decidedly split. I am a wee bit angry about that.
>
> Dinah, just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that your posts receive no attention and deliberation.
>Ditto from me on this.
> I'm sorry that you feel ignored and perhaps hurt. Your posts carry great weight with me, and I very rarely skip over them.
>
Same here. Dinah - over the years, you have had a tremendous and positive impact on me. I may not respond to things in precisely the way you would have hoped, but you pretty much always impact me... for the better. Believe me, your words are not lost. maybe not translated in a Dinah replica.. but they are not lost :-)Solstice
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2012, at 16:09:50
In reply to Re: » gardenergirl, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 0:50:34
> >
> > > I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications.
> >
> > I was once told something along the lines that I would be responsible for starting the next Holocaust if I didn't carry out the demands then being made of me. It's exactly that type of escalation that signals to me that further dialog with someone who would make such a statement is of no value to me. I empathize with your predicament, Solstice.
> >
> > gg
>
>
> Thanks gg.. it means a lot to me to know that you 'get it.' And.. until now, there hasn't been a need to dialogue.. and I haven't. But now, it's like if I want to get help from the community while I go through this difficult situation with my daughter's medication, I have to proactively protect the flow of information to me. It has been very discouraging for it to be so hard, when things are very difficult in my world right now.
>
> It's really a shame that behavior that is disruptive to the purpose of the forum is not being addressed by administration.
>
> SolsticeFriends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following post from hhere. If you could, then I thhink tthat you could have a better understnding of some of tthe issuess here and post accordingly.
Lou
To see the post in question:
A. Go to the bottom of this page to the search box
B. Type in:
[Racer, admin, 528411]
usually first.
Posted by sigismund on February 27, 2012, at 16:12:34
In reply to Lou's request--luzdhefenz, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2012, at 16:09:50
Is there a reason for not providing a direct link, Lou?
Posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 16:28:03
In reply to Re: Lou's request--luzdhefenz » Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on February 27, 2012, at 16:12:34
> Is there a reason for not providing a direct link, Lou?
I believe that this is a clever work-around to avoid posting direct links to posts that are to be used when questioning their civility. Doing so is considered uncivil. Also, direct links to uncivil websites are proscribed. However, suggesting keywords for search engines is not (yet).
I could be wrong about some of this.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2012, at 16:37:13
In reply to Re: » Solstice, posted by gardenergirl on February 27, 2012, at 0:17:02
>
> > I would absolutely Not be responsible for anyone's death if they failed to receive information as a result of rules that are put in place to protect my thread from being swallowed up by warnings of death and life-ruination if my child takes medications.
>
> I was once told something along the lines that I would be responsible for starting the next Holocaust if I didn't carry out the demands then being made of me. It's exactly that type of escalation that signals to me that further dialog with someone who would make such a statement is of no value to me. I empathize with your predicament, Solstice.
>
> ggFriends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you view the following pos.
Lou
To see the post in question:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page
B. Type in:
[gardenergirl, admin,527627]
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2012, at 16:49:29
In reply to Re: Scott's response to Solstice - Hijacking Threads » Dinah, posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 9:19:45
> > I'd hate to see a policy about hijacking threads.
> >
> > I've seen website where any deviation from concentration on the originating poster is considered a hijacking. Where originating posters jealously guard their thread like a mama bird with just one chick. Where threads aren't allowed to develop as conversations, and the site doesn't feel much like a community at all.
> >
> > I don't like it.
>
>
> There is a big difference between a thread developing and morphing into things other than the original subject, and hijacking. A thread that evolves into other things happens fairly naturally, and is participated in by the group of people involved in the discussion. The thread originator may or may not be participating as well, but their original purpose has run its course. Hijacking is all about the hijacker. That's where it is rude and uncivil. The hijacker is focused on substituting the original subject with their own agenda, which is usually in opposition to the original poster's subject. People can increase their power by just overwhelming the original poster.
>
> I don't think being assertive about not wanting a thread I initiated where I am earnestly seeking information due to a medical crisis in my family is the equivalent of a mama bird jealously guarding a thread. I just didn't want my need to be sidelined by outrageous claims that imply I am killing my daughter. A poster with the characteristics of that mama bird would need to be reigned in just like a hijacker needs to be reigned in.
>
> My therapist told me once about what she called "Sharpeners and Levelers." Fascinating way to look at group dynamics. Anyway, she said I am a 'Sharpener.' Dinah, you seem to be a 'Leveler.' It's characteristic of a 'Sharpener' to see clear distinctions between things, whereas 'Levelers' tend to be more focused on the common ground between things. People are not necessarily one or the other - they just tend to lean more toward being a 'Sharpener' or a 'Leveler.' The world functions best with both :-) One is not more important than the other - and they both keep each other in balance. You keep my sharpening in check, but I have learned to be comfortable with the value of my sharpening, and I see danger in allowing a hijacker to become dominant in threads. That's not a 'conversation'... it's someone who has taken control and has sidelined the person who started a thread to get help on a mental health board.
>
> Solstice
>
>
> Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you view the following post.
Louu
To see this post,
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/967900.html>
Posted by gardenergirl on February 27, 2012, at 16:54:34
In reply to Lou's request-Luzdhefenz-boathsydznow, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2012, at 16:49:29
Lou,
I respectfully request that you try to just say what it is that you want us to consider, rather than providing search terms and links. I've looked at the posts you linked to and gave search terms for, and I don't get it. I realize that it may be difficult for you, but please try. My brain is not up to solving puzzles, searching for deeper meanings, and/or reading others' minds.gg
Posted by sigismund on February 27, 2012, at 18:31:10
In reply to Re: I'm not sure, but... » sigismund, posted by SLS on February 27, 2012, at 16:28:03
If I could read something uncivil by going through that labourious process it would be worth it, but to read something that is not itself uncivil but linking it is is not :)
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 18:32:37
In reply to Lou's request-Luzdhefenz-protek, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2012, at 16:37:13
I did what Lou suggests here, and looked at the post. But I clicked on 'show all.' So if you look at the post he wants you to look at here, be sure and go to the post that follows it. In this post from 2005, Racer is very articulate in describing the same difficulties with disruptive behavior that I've had trouble with during the last week. We're talking seven years ago. wow.
Sol
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you view the following pos.
> Lou
> To see the post in question:
> A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page
> B. Type in:
> [gardenergirl, admin,527627]
Posted by Solstice on February 27, 2012, at 19:13:26
In reply to Re:, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2012, at 8:13:40
> There are already rules in place, and I've described them. Admittedly a more active administrative presence, at times, would be welcome.
>
> I think once matters start to get complicated, with violations on more than one side, it's harder for Dr. Bob to find the time to deal with it. That's just my observation based on seeing him come deal with minor matters while leaving an all out board war untouched.
>
> I get it too. Or at least I did originally. After a while, the pendulum on the board starts to swing, and with it my sympathy.
>
> I think any comparison to Nazis, any suggestion that one's actions on Babble could lead to death to millions of Jews, or any assertations that any complaints about any one person are the result of that person's ethnic origin (in the absence of any evidence that this is the case) is on the face of it uncivil and accusatory and should be dealt with under existing Babble rules.
But it is not (dealt with). It is repeatedly allowed to flourish. And all I can say with respect to my experience in coming to the med board absolutely desperate with concern about my child, is that the hijacking and the content of the hijacking had me in tears as I tried to pick through the posts to find the ones that applied to the subject of my thread.
>
> But it also upsets me when people act together towards one poster. And I tend to lose any sympathy I had for the original cause when it continues too long or becomes spread over many threads. Particularly when it deals with behaviors Dr. Bob has already explicitly approved. And I don't think Dr. Bob is wrong.
I do not mean anyone harm. I didnt post my medication concern in order to disrupt anyone. I just needed help. And all the while that I was trying to get help, I was under siege. It should not be like that here.I don't think people here acted together toward one poster, as much as it was multiple people objecting to a particular behavior that at this time only one poster exhibits.. and exhibits on a frequent basis.I initially felt very alone.. like I was under siege while trying to get information about medications and bipolar that would help me navigate my daughters medical crisis. I used the notification buttons to no avail. I emailed Bob to no avail. And whats important to say here is that what helped me survive that situation were the people here.. well respected people.. who came to my aid.. who did what they could to stand with me.. which left me feeling surrounded by the warmth of friends.. which made me feel somewhat protected in the midst of what felt to me like an assault (the hijacking and its implications that I am probably killing my child or causing her life-ruination).
And I want to say that Scott is absolutely right. These things should be dealt with by Bob. But he doesnt. It requires tremendous effort on the part of Babblers to exert enough social pressure to contain disruptive behavior. And I just cant tell you how grateful I am that some people here invested their time and energy into standing with me as I tried to keep my head above water.. even at the cost of putting themselves at risk for being considered 'uncivil' in their efforts to call attention to the escalation of behavior that clearly violated existing rules.
My deeply felt gratitude to all of those who cared..
Solstice
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.