Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 525168

Shown: posts 35 to 59 of 66. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the

Posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 0:27:35

In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 23:57:28

Alex » alexandra_k
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 19:37:23
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 17:58:19

Please don't post to me.
It's not animosity. It's fatigue. I get very tired of feeling I have to prove or explain that there is much thought put behind what I say and do and that I'm not asking for advice. If someone has a way of being that I admire, and qualities I would like to adopt, I take notice.

The request wasn’t in the header – and there was a comment to me AFTER the request was made (right of response???) – but yeah, it was a DNP request.

Re: I'm really sorry...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:13:11
In reply to Alex » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 19:37:23
...It comes of posting in a hurry because I have 5 minutes to get to class...
I should know better than that by now.
I didn't put that very well at all...
I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...
I am really sorry
I don't blame people for feeling a bit peeved with me.
Sorry.
Won't happen again...

And yes the line ‘I didn’t try to check my understanding of your POV first’ is directed. This is the post I regret.

Re: I'm really sorry... » alexandra_k
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 22:12:43
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 21:13:11
> ...It comes of posting in a hurry because I have 5 minutes to get to class...
>
> I should know better than that by now.
>
> I didn't put that very well at all...
> I didn't try to check my understanding of your POV first...
> I am really sorry
I appreciate your apology, but even if you had not understood my post, to say "I'm grateful for never having to resort to that" That's just not a way to have a friendly conversation with someone. In this context, It's not something I would ever say to anyone I had a modicum of respect for.
Imagine my saying to you "I'm so grateful I've never had to resort to referring to philosphy theories when I need to get my point across"
In other words:
Thank Heavens I've been saved from ever having to be that way! I'm so much better than that.
Fine, point out that you never tire of figuring out reasons for things, that's conversation.
I just can't fathom that even being busy would make someone say something like that.. unless it's what they really thinking and they were rushed to "make it nice" In which case, why bother responding at all if the post isn't hurting anyone, or directed toward you.

> I don't blame people for feeling a bit peeved with me.
>
> Sorry.
> Won't happen again...

And this is a post to me. Thus I have a right of response and here it is:

Re: I'm really sorry...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 22:57:38
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 22:12:43
> to say "I'm grateful for never having to resort to that" That's just not a way to have a friendly conversation with someone. In this context, It's not something I would ever say to anyone I had a modicum of respect for.
In the same way that by 'story' I mean 'narrative construction' by 'giving up' I meant it in the Dennetian sense...
Basically... I missed the joke. I didn't get that the post was a joke. I thought it was serious and that you were expressing your frustration.
There simply isn't enough time in the day to go around trying to make sense of everything...
And even if there was one could go crazy trying...
I didn't mean that quite the way it came out.
But I do see that it sounds very appalling indeed.
I am sorry.
I don't think I'm better than you or that my way is the only way.
Really.
I think I should give up about now.
Just remember...
That I do respect you
And I'm sorry for the way things turned out
When I reread that bit I could see how it would be most likely to be taken
And so I'm not suprised you took it the way you did.
I'm sorry.
And minnie too - my last post to you was similarly appalling.
Time to go home and curl up with "In Session" methinks...

Re: I'm really sorry... » alexandra_k
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 23:15:31
In reply to Re: I'm really sorry..., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 22:57:38

Actually my entire post was not a joke.. it was lighthearted, and I do get frustrated and often deal with it with humor. Many babblers would agree that there are times the blocking system seems to be unfair, or at least unpredictable this is probably because Dr. Bob himself is *not* a system .
So If I want to give up on figuring it out the minutia of reasoning behind every block feel free to be grateful that you don't have to stoop to that.
I would prefer to keep the Do not Post request.
I am sorry, for me too, but it seems we have an ongoing theme of misunderstanding and assumptions here and I find it incredibly draining.

And that was that. End of conversation and to the best of my knowledge I have not directed a post to Gabbi since.

I do wonder what the point of this dialogue is, however.
Would people prefer me to get another blocking?
Am I to become an example of the senseless and arbitrary and inconsistent nature of civility determinations yet again. At this point I would be happy to take a block if only people would get over the complaining. I have done things I regret here, yes. To have past regrets brought up doesn’t serve much purpose that I can see.
Good luck to you peoples.
I’m going to leave this now and try to get back into the spirit of the boards.
Or maybe I will get a blocking. I dunno. Well see.

 

Re: The point of the dialogue » alexandra_k

Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 8:16:00

In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the, posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 0:27:35

I can't speak for others. But it seems to me that since you were so obviously (to me, and I think you will agree) confused by what the heck DNP meant that you would by more sympathetic towards another poster who was also confused.

Instead you say "DNP meand DNP"

So - to me there is a disconnect, which I don't understand. And I'm seeing a disconnect from someone who usually uses logic to understand things. Hence my surprise.

Are people trying to get you blocked? Was Emmy trying to get Larry blocked? I can't know either one of those answers, because I can't get inside the head of another. I can only form pseudo-judgememts based on what I see.

But I'll tell you, I am not trying to get you blocked. Just trying to point out what I see as an inconsistency.

 

Re: The point of the dialogue » AuntieMel

Posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 8:29:07

In reply to Re: The point of the dialogue » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 8:16:00

Yay! An inconsistency ((((AuntieMel))))
(I'm serious here 100% no sarcasm).

> I can't speak for others. But it seems to me that since you were so obviously (to me, and I think you will agree) confused by what the heck DNP meant that you would by more sympathetic towards another poster who was also confused.

I didn't think I was confused... Really. I didn't think I was confused. I made several mistakes. I see those now. I got blocked for something where I saw it one way - but once the other way was pointed out to me then I saw it the other way too. So I don't think it was that I was confused...

> So - to me there is a disconnect, which I don't understand. And I'm seeing a disconnect from someone who usually uses logic to understand things. Hence my surprise.

Hmm. '"Tries" to use logic may be more appropriate... ;-) I'm no logician. Besides which I find other people point out my inconsistencies fairly frequently. I don't mind that. In fact I appreciate it because you can't do anything about fixing it if you don't know the problem exists.

I think this is what people find suprising about me.
I find it suprising that other people find it suprising.
I make mistakes a lot.
I make logical errors a lot.
I make inconsistent claims a lot.
But I appreciate knowing that I'm doing these things (so long as it is pointed out in a civil way).

Really.

> Are people trying to get you blocked? Was Emmy trying to get Larry blocked? I can't know either one of those answers, because I can't get inside the head of another. I can only form pseudo-judgememts based on what I see.

Yeah. I don't believe posters are trying to get other posters blocked. But as has come up on the boards before mostly with respect to Lou: people get nervous when someone requests determination on their posts. People get nervous even when they are fairly sure they haven't done anything wrong. Because one never can be 100% sure and so one starts to worry...

And what do people say with regards to Lou's requests for determination? And what do they wish he would do instead?

> But I'll tell you, I am not trying to get you blocked. Just trying to point out what I see as an inconsistency.

Ok.
I believe you.
Could you have a go at pointing out the inconsistency again? I'm sorry but I can't see it yet.

 

Re: The point of the dialogue

Posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 8:32:06

In reply to Re: The point of the dialogue » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 8:29:07

Sorry - that should have read:

I think this is what people find suprising about me.
I find it suprising that other people find it suprising.

But I fully acknowledge that:

I make mistakes a lot.
I make logical errors a lot.
I make inconsistent claims a lot.
And I appreciate knowing that I'm doing these things (so long as it is pointed out in a civil way).

 

Re: The point of the dialogue---- AuntiMel » AuntieMel

Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 9:08:52

In reply to Re: The point of the dialogue » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 8:16:00

The request wasn’t in the header

that's not a rule that's been invoked or was even suggested at the time, and obviously the request was read. I had offered the suggestion of the subject header recently it's simply a suggestion made to Dr. Bob. like many other suggestions. It's not a loophole.


– and there was a comment to me AFTER the request was made (right of response???) – but yeah, it was a DNP request.

There were comments directed toward Larry too!
There is was no right of response in that situation, and if that *was* valid not one Dnp request toward me would be legitimate.

 

Re: Do not post in an email

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:20:49

In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » gabbii, posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 11:15:02

> the person could fill in a form showing the name of the person they are invoking the DNP on, the thread in question, and the reason the person wants the DNP? ... An email could then be sent to the person being DNP'ed letting them know about the request.

I like that. People might not check a separate DNP page. And the form could even post the actual DNP. I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though...

Bob

 

Re: The point of the dialogue---- AuntiMel » gabbii

Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 9:30:31

In reply to Re: The point of the dialogue---- AuntiMel » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 9:08:52

I think it's a good suggestion, too. As it is, a DNP can be buried so deep it would be easy to overlook.

Depending on how often a board is checked it is possible in the subject line, too, but it would be a lot less likely - so it would make sense to consider this for the future.

There is a problem with when to(ward) become to(). Obviously if there is a 'you' in the statement it is a 'to' but the others are grey.

And, yes, there were comments directed 'at' Larry, if not 'to' him.

More shades of grey than the human retina can discern.

 

Re: back up a minute redux » Dr. Bob

Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:05:03

In reply to Re: Do not post in an email, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:20:49

"I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though..."

Didn't you just ask Jay what his reason was???

My head is spinning.

 

Re: Do not post in an email » Dr. Bob

Posted by thuso on July 11, 2005, at 10:25:33

In reply to Re: Do not post in an email, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 9:20:49

> I like that. People might not check a separate DNP page. And the form could even post the actual DNP. I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though...
>
> Bob

The only reason I mentioned a place for the person to say why they are invoking the DNP is because it seems that's a big controversy right now. By adding the reason, you or a deputy would be able to review the request to determine if the DNP really is appropriate. It doesn't seem like DNP's are handed out like candy, so it shouldn't be too much extra effort and it may help stop another huge debate like this one. I haven't been here long, but I'd already seen a few DNP's where there doesn't seem to be (on the surface) a valid reason and then a day later the DNP is rescinded. This could keep that from happening. That's the only purpose for that added that part.

 

Re: back up a minute

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 10:45:56

In reply to Re: back up a minute redux » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 10:05:03

> "I don't know about automatically asking for a reason, though..."
>
> Didn't you just ask Jay what his reason was???

Yes, but I don't automatically do so:

> If it's not clear to me why their post makes you feel harassed, I may ask.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed

Bob

 

Re: the mud thickens » Dr. Bob

Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 12:00:58

In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 10:45:56

Ok, so it's not automatic. But you did just ask Jay. And you did just ask Gabbi.

And now you point to the FAQ about using DNP in the case of harassment.

----------------------------

But you also say the DNP against Larry was valid, even thought there was no harassment.

And this was supposedly because it was discussed in May:

> My understanding is the don't post to me option implies nothing more than a desire to disengage

I think wanting to disengage would be a reasonable way of generalizing that policy:


http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/503044.html

=================================================

but then again, you said this:

-------------

> > Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.

Right, in that sense.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/505945.html

---------

and that was what Larry got blocked for doing.

I'm still having trouble sorting this out.

And I still don't understand why he got blocked *after* Dinah told him to quit and he did quit. It seems like double jeopardy to me.

my brain hurts.

 

Re: Do not post in an email

Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 14:23:35

In reply to Re: Do not post in an email » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on July 11, 2005, at 10:25:33

So just to be clear...we do not have a "no fault" DNP option? There has to be a reason? Maybe a web form could have a pulldown menu or check box feature with a few options for general reasons...aka harrassment, trigger, etc.

gg

 

Re: the mud thickens

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34

In reply to Re: the mud thickens » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 12:00:58

> But you also say the DNP against Larry was valid, even thought there was no harassment.

Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/519681.html

Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.

> > > Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.
>
> and that was what Larry got blocked for doing.

No, I did consider some of it to have been posted to her:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/512411.html

> And I still don't understand why he got blocked *after* Dinah told him to quit and he did quit. It seems like double jeopardy to me.

I can see that, but I thought of it as reviewing a decision by a deputy:

> > Dr. Bob, is of course, the final arbiter of rules, and you should contact him about any questions you might have, or to override any deputy decisions.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511949.html

> my brain hurts.

Sorry about that. There sure has been a lot of hurt lately.

Bob

 

Re: sputter, sputter » Dr. Bob

Posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 16:49:01

In reply to Re: the mud thickens, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34

>>Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:
>>Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.

2 questions:

1) so is harassment necessary for a DNP?
2) just for my curiosity, and I'm not saying you or Emmy are wrong, but which one could have felt like harassment?

And a comment:
>>Sorry about that. There sure has been a lot of hurt lately.

I'm not hurt.

 

Re: Mud Wrestling » Dr. Bob

Posted by Ron Hill on July 11, 2005, at 19:38:41

In reply to Re: the mud thickens, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 14:47:34

> Well, I do think Emmy was within her rights to ask Larry not to post to her:

> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/519681.html

> Meaning, I think she could've felt harassed by that post of his.

> Bob

Help me out here. I can't find the specific location of Lar's harassing sentence, phrase, or word in "that post of his" (whichever one you are referring to).

I'm a pretty simple-minded kinda guy, so if it's okay with you, I'd like to take a systematic and sequential approach in our hunt for the specific element(s) of Larry's alleged harassing speech.

So let's start with the DNP posted in the April Fool's Day thread:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478960.html

<start post reprint>

Do not post to me again (nm) » Larry Hoover
Posted by TofuEmmy on April 2, 2005, at 13:33:38
In reply to Re: Good gravy, let it rest. » TofuEmmy, posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 13:22:47

<end post reprint>


The above DNP was issued in response to the following post from Larry:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478945.html

<start post reprint>

Re: Good gravy, let it rest. » TofuEmmy
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 2, 2005, at 13:22:47
In reply to Good gravy, let it rest. (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by TofuEmmy on April 2, 2005, at 13:02:35
The help I will. I started a new thread, as Doc John terminated the last one by disabling the reply button.
http://forums.psychcentral.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=135684&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

<end post reprint>


Dr. Bob, please identify the specific sentence, phase, or word in Larry’s 4/2/05 post that meets the definition of harassment. For your convenience, I have included below the dictionary entry for the word “harass”.

Once I hear back from you on this specific DNP, we can then systematically move to the next one.

-- Ron


ha•rass P Pronunciation Key (h -r s , h r s)
tr.v. ha•rassed, ha•rass•ing, ha•rass•es

1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

Harrassment

Posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:03:47

In reply to Re: Mud Wrestling » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on July 11, 2005, at 19:38:41

If you asked someone not to post to you in good faith that your request was legitimate, wouldn't you feel harrassed if the person continued to post to you and perhaps even emailed or babblemailed you? I don't know about what might or might not have happened off board, but I do think that the cumulative effect of someone responding, even in their own good faith, after you asked them not to would feel harrassing to me.

gg

 

Re: Harrassment » gardenergirl

Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 22:46:46

In reply to Harrassment, posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:03:47

> If you asked someone not to post to you in good faith that your request was legitimate, wouldn't you feel harrassed if the person continued to post to you and perhaps even emailed or babblemailed you? I don't know about what might or might not have happened off board, but I do think that the cumulative effect of someone responding, even in their own good faith, after you asked them not to would feel harrassing to me.
>
> gg

It has to me, even to my own surprise at times,
The content is really irrelevant. When it's ignored I feel as if the depth of my feelings, the reason I placed the D.N.P in the first place, is (are?) being dismissed because of their assessment of the situation, and that.. well let's say it doesn't breed good feelings.

 

Re: back up a minute

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:12:53

In reply to Re: sputter, sputter » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on July 11, 2005, at 16:49:01

> 1) so is harassment necessary for a DNP?

In this case, feeling harassed is, yes.

> 2) just for my curiosity, and I'm not saying you or Emmy are wrong, but which one could have felt like harassment?

Which post? The one Ron linked to:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478945.html

Bob

 

Re: Harrassment...clarification

Posted by gardenergirl on July 12, 2005, at 6:52:17

In reply to Harrassment, posted by gardenergirl on July 11, 2005, at 21:03:47

> If you asked someone not to post to you in good faith that your request was legitimate, wouldn't you feel harrassed if the person continued to post to you and perhaps even emailed or babblemailed you?

Just to clarify, I am not aware of any emails or babblemails in this specific situation. Just suggesting that those might also be part of a cummulative effect in general.

gg

 

Re: back up a minute » Dr. Bob

Posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 16:20:24

In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:12:53


> > 1) so is harassment necessary for a DNP?
>
> In this case, feeling harassed is, yes.

why only in this case? how are we supposed to know what the rules are if you make them up on a case-by-case basis?

 

Re: back up a minute

Posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 17:06:51

In reply to Re: back up a minute » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 16:20:24

If you could see me, you'd see the look on my face is that of a dog who heard a weird noise..

This is making less and less sense as it goes along..

 

Re: back up a minute » gabbii

Posted by gardenergirl on July 12, 2005, at 17:44:11

In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 17:06:51

Sung to the tune of Howdy Doody:

It's Crazy Making time!
It's Crazy Making time!

lalala la lala

and so on....

sigh

gg

 

Re: bingo again! (nm) » crushedout

Posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 17:58:51

In reply to Re: back up a minute » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 16:20:24

 

Re: back up a minute » gabbii

Posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 18:00:59

In reply to Re: back up a minute, posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 17:06:51

Well, notice harassment still isn't necessary.

"Feeling" harassed is.

So it's still pretty much open.

 

Re: back up a minute » AuntieMel

Posted by gabbii on July 12, 2005, at 18:40:03

In reply to Re: back up a minute » gabbii, posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 18:00:59

I'm so lost right now I don't know whether that clears things up or confuses me more..
But I do think feeling harassed is quite legitimate. I have triggers that would never fall into any l harrassment category


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.