![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 92. Go back in thread:
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 20:14:02
In reply to Re: finally... » cloudydaze, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 20:01:46
> Maybe not a single person queried would feel offended. Does that make it an acceptable behavior?
I hope you believe me that I am sincere in trying to understand what you are saying- if someone, say, uses a word or term technically "uncivil" on the site, but no one perceives it as "uncivil", no one is offended, and it was not meant "uncivily"- do you consider it to be an offense?
Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 20:24:19
In reply to Re: question/comment, posted by notfred on July 28, 2006, at 9:00:50
> > I respectfully disagree. Laima made some well thought out and fundamental points about how this board is run how it could better serve our needs.
> >
> > warm regards, Jake
> >
>
> But it will not matter, will it ?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/668867.htmlProbably not, from what I've observed.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 20:52:09
In reply to question » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 20:14:02
There's a balance to be maintained. Sometimes moderators get too caught up in enforcing the "rules" and lose the big picture. One should consider if the block or PBC will do more harm than good. Especially those trival offenses that no one cares about, and the block comes across as paternalistic.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:28:21
In reply to Re: question, posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 20:52:09
Interesting ideas.
> There's a balance to be maintained. Sometimes moderators get too caught up in enforcing the "rules" and lose the big picture.
So how exactly does one define what "the big picture" here is? And who gets to define it?
> One should consider if the block or PBC will do more harm than good. Especially those trival offenses that no one cares about, and the block comes across as paternalistic.
Who measures harm versus good? And how would you measure it? How do you know what anyone does or does not care about in order to decide that "no one cares" about something?
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:54:12
In reply to question » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 20:14:02
> I hope you believe me that I am sincere in trying to understand what you are saying- if someone, say, uses a word or term technically "uncivil" on the site, but no one perceives it as "uncivil", no one is offended, and it was not meant "uncivily"- do you consider it to be an offense?
Well, if it's "technically" uncivil, then it's established as uncivil by Dr. Bob, so there's no question. Whether anyone actually *is* offended is not the point. And there's really no way to know that no one is offended, because you can't prove a negative.
But my example was actually about behavior in real life. If someone is angry, and say you can understand why they are angry. Maybe you even feel angry, too. But they choose to, oh say maybe throw a heavy object at you. You're not hit. You understand the anger. You forgive the person. But is the behavior (the throwing of the heavy object) in and of itself acceptable behavior?
I would say no. I know it's not behavior that was acceptable to my parents (of course, that's a huge can o' worms all by itself). And I'll likely teach any kids I might have that such behavior is not acceptable to me. I'm sure that others have different opinions on this, though.
So I guess I don't see the *absolute* connection between behavior that is not consistent with the site's rules and whether anyone in particular was offended or hurt by that behavior.
I could be wrong, but that might be the best I can do at trying to answer your question. I appreciate that you asked me to explain and the dialog. It's got me thinking about some of the ways I was brought up and how it shows up in me today. :)
gg
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 22:05:11
In reply to Re: question » Jakeman, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:28:21
>Who measures harm versus good? And how would you measure it? How do you know what anyone does or does not care about in order to decide that "no one cares" about something?
What if...if someone is genuinely offended, they speak up? I imagine the offender might even be horrified and apologize profusely.
> So how exactly does one define what "the big picture" here is?
Doesn't it have to do with something like being nice and helpful for each other, sharing information and support, honestly, in the interest of strengthening each others' mental health?
> Who measures harm versus good? And how would you measure it? How do you know what anyone does or does not care about in order to decide that "no one cares" about something?
Again, can't we trust each other to speak up if we feel hurt, offended, or confused in those vaguer cases? Or do I just put too much hope and faith, naively, into believing in peoples' good intentions and abilities to talk and work matters out peacefully?
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 22:16:24
In reply to Re: question » laima, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:54:12
Thank you, gg, for your response.
I agree 100000000% about your example regarding violence and such. Nothing ambiguous there!
> Well, if it's "technically" uncivil, then it's established as uncivil by Dr. Bob, so there's no question.
Yes, can't argue.
> Whether anyone actually *is* offended is not the point. And there's really no way to know that no one is offended, because you can't prove a negative.
Here's where I get a little confused or even slightly disagree- while simultaneously respecting your view. The reason-I just keep wondering why not, in the more ambiguous cases, see if someone speaks up? I don't understand. The warnings almost appear pre-emptive sometimes.
> I could be wrong, but that might be the best I can do at trying to answer your question. I appreciate that you asked me to explain and the dialog. It's got me thinking about some of the ways I was brought up and how it shows up in me today. :)
Again, thank you, too: for sharing and for the dialog.
You have me thinking quite a bit as well.
Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 22:27:46
In reply to Re: question » Jakeman, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 21:28:21
>> So how exactly does one define what "the big >>picture" here is? And who gets to define it?
The big picture is mental health, wellness. I think that's on Bob's home page. It's defined by those who run this board. It requires reasonable judgement. BTW, I'm a moderater, i.e. regulator, for a government agency which has strict rules. But when the rules defeat the purpose of our intent, (to serve the public interest), we waive them.
> Who measures harm versus good? And how would >you measure it? How do you know what anyone >does or does not care about in order to decide >that "no one cares" about something?Again I say use common sense and judgement when measuring rather than being tied to set rules. I don't have time to search for all the numerous examples but I remember this one person who told a r*dneck joke. It was something like: "you might be a r*dneck if you go to the dump and take more than you took.." This person got blocked or PBC'ed.
No one said they were offended, but several posted their opposition to the block.
My main point is that we need to lighten up.
GG I understand your position and appreciate your volunteer efforts here to maintain civility. And please don't take exception if I don't continue this thread. I've got some work emails to deal with, some of them requesting a waiver from rules.
warm regards, Jake.
Posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 22:43:18
In reply to Re: question » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on July 28, 2006, at 22:27:46
That's interesting that the r*dneck word in my message was censored with an asterick. Some of us here in cajun country call each other coonasses. Is that uncivil? Lighten up.
~Jake
Posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:05:28
In reply to question/comment, posted by cloudydaze on July 26, 2006, at 1:42:27
> My theory is that it's rarely unawareness of what "civil" means that leads to uncivil posts. I think either (1) posters lose their cool, (2) they know they're being uncivil but feel it's justified (for example, as "tough love"), or (3) their primary intention is just to provoke.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/490.html
> I personally feel, and have said before, that your trigger finger is a bit quick. Maybe you need to take a deep breath before you admonish folks to see if what appears to be an issue really just dies.
>After not checking in for a while, it is in fact wonderful to see a problem arise and then just die or, even better, be resolved. But I think I'd rather be too quick than not quick enough. And it's a given that I'm going to be one or the other...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/467.html
>I agree, it's sad, but these boards can't be all things to all people. And it's not like there aren't alternative sources of support...
>Part of my idea is that if I have the hard heart, yours can all stay soft. :-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/91.html
>But those who contribute more may be treated more leniently, and those who contribute less, more strictly.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1168.html
>> I'm just curious why a 'newbie' would be treated more strict than lenient.... I mean, wouldn't you expect more from someone who's been around for awhile, knows the rules, and what kind of things that make you block people?
>That's an interesting way to look at it... I guess what it comes down to is that what's better for the community is a higher priority than what's more "fair" for individuals. Or at least that's been my philosophy so far...
Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 23:16:15
In reply to Re: conversations with bob..., posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:05:28
> My theory is that it's rarely unawareness of what "civil" means that leads to uncivil posts. I think either (1) posters lose their cool, (2) they know they're being uncivil but feel it's justified (for example, as "tough love"), or (3) their primary intention is just to provoke.
Respectfully, I utterly disagree. I think rather, people can mix up their normal, everyday "civility" with the "rules" meant to keep order on the board.
Posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:33:53
In reply to Re: conversations with bob... » Estella, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 23:16:15
> The dictionary definition is something like "conducive to civic harmony and welfare", but remember also the mission of this site, support and education, and the golden rule.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:50:50
In reply to Re: conversations with bob... » Estella, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 23:16:15
Sorry. I wasn't going to post.
I agree with you.
I don't think (very many) people are meaning to say that they think the boards would be better if we were allowed to be incivil in the sense of accusing / judging / attacking other people.
I think that what most people are saying is that people seem to get blocked for things that aren't incivil in the dictionary sense.
Posted by Deneb on July 28, 2006, at 23:52:05
In reply to Re: conversations with bob..., posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:05:28
> > My theory is that it's rarely unawareness of what "civil" means that leads to uncivil posts. I think either (1) posters lose their cool, (2) they know they're being uncivil but feel it's justified (for example, as "tough love"), or (3) their primary intention is just to provoke.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/490.htmlDr. Bob, I don't think what you said above was civil. It's not always civil to express what you think. If you think one of the reasons why people are uncivil is because they intend to provoke, I don't think that is a civil thing to say. What if you said, "I think you are being uncivil to hurt others". Would that be civil? That's basically what you are saying though, isn't it? I don't know anymore Bob, is it civil? What if you said, "I think you are provoking people into anger on purpose". Would that be civil?
> >But those who contribute more may be treated more leniently, and those who contribute less, more strictly.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1168.htmlDr. Bob, I have a problem with that. I think everyone should be treated the same way, no matter what they have contributed. Different rules for different people?
> >That's an interesting way to look at it... I guess what it comes down to is that what's better for the community is a higher priority than what's more "fair" for individuals. Or at least that's been my philosophy so far...
Oh, I see...harmony above all else eh? What is your idea of what an ideal community is? Do you think being unfair to individuals is better for the community?
<shakes head> Oh Bob, you disappoint me.
Deneb*
Posted by laima on July 29, 2006, at 0:56:12
In reply to Re: conversations with bob... » laima, posted by Estella on July 28, 2006, at 23:50:50
Oh-Thank you for clarifying. I was confused, and appreciate your explaination.
Warmly,Laima
> Sorry. I wasn't going to post.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I don't think (very many) people are meaning to say that they think the boards would be better if we were allowed to be incivil in the sense of accusing / judging / attacking other people.
>
> I think that what most people are saying is that people seem to get blocked for things that aren't incivil in the dictionary sense.
>
>
Posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 2:53:56
In reply to Re: finally... » cloudydaze, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 20:01:46
> > > If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger, does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger?
***no, of course you don't overlook problematic behavoir....but what is the definition of "problematic"? One person's definition is different from the next - get where I'm going with this?
>>> What if they do something such as breaking a valued object, hitting someone, or yelling obscenities and insults to someone? Does that go unremarked because you can understand their anger or even if not, because you can see they are "in a state"?
***yelling obscenities and acts of violence are much different than someone posting something that *they* think is completely civil. The difference is motive. If you yell obscenities or act violently, you are trying to hurt someone. It is intentional. I'm not entirely convinced that a lot of people on this site who get blocked or warned are intentionally trying to hurt someone. I think that if we know that someone is "in a state" we shouldn't jump to conclusions about their intentions. I know i've had lapses in good judgement before, due to being "in a state". I wonder if this site is trying to cenvey the message that you shouldn't post while you're "in a state" - if that's the case, then I think the posts would decrease dramatically....because I think that people would want to post more if they were overcome with emotion - whether it be anger, sadness, panic, whatever...
> > >
>
> You're not accountable for other's feelings. In the case I write about above, I asked about accountability for the *behaviors* associated with the anger, not the *feeling* of anger. Should a behavior such as shouting obscenties or insults at someone be considered acceptable behavior?***no, but then again I haven't seen many posts where people are "shouting" obscenities at each other....
>>Isn't this behavior separate from how anyone might respond to it, either IRL or here on the board? Maybe not a single person queried would feel offended. Does that make it an acceptable behavior?
***By definition, yes. Technically if it's not rejected, it's accepted. Does that mean it would be acceptable somewhere else? Not necessarily. "Acceptable behavoir" is not set in stone. It varies from place to place, culture to culture, and even person to person. For example, a lot people think that eating beef is a perfectly fine behavoir. Hindus, on the other hand, do not consider eating beef an acceptable behavoir. They find it offensive. So is eating cows acceptable or not? Depends on who you ask.
>
> That's what I'm asking. I can't argue or judge anyone's feelings. They are not mine to assess. But behavior is separate from feelings. Related in many cases. But a separate construct.***here lies the problem. Is posting about behavior or feelings? Technically, posting is a behavior, yes, but it's not quite the same as a direct physical behavoir toward another person. A computer is caught in the middle. Communication is different online. There is only written thoughts/feelings, not physical events. And written things are a lot easier to misinterpret than visual cues. Unless you actually see the malicious look in someone's eye while they are posting, how can you be sure what their intent was?
There is a lot of room for misinterpretation and bias here.
I like what laima said about people speaking up when they are offended. I would like to know if I offend someone! I think that people should speak up, and be trusted to speak up. That would be a good rule - if you're offended, speak up. But of course be "civil".
I don't mind someone telling me that my post is offensive - they could even tell me I'm offensive. Better to know, than to go around offending others...
Posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 3:06:27
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 2:53:56
Would like to say I hope I haven't offended anyone.
Again, I feel anxious about having opened my virtual mouth at all.
I hereby apologize for any comments that I have made that have offended or hurt anyone, for that was not my intention.
I realize that I brought up religion/culture in my last post...what I mentioned was merely an example from what I learned in my Philosophy classes - world religions, and ethics and morals. Very awesome classes. Hope I didn't misrepresent myself in any way. My intention was to point out that "acceptable behavior" is not universal.
According to my ethics and morals class, most moral codes spring from religion, so they are bound to be diverse, as religion is.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2006, at 3:57:17
In reply to Re: question » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 22:16:24
> What's the goal? Humilate the real sufferer, or reward the person mildly or righteously offended by what might even be a rather trivial rule infraction?
The goal is civility. Which facilitates support. Unfortunately, people may sometimes feel humiliated, but that's not the goal.
> there appear to be discussions about some genuine, obvious offenses, but also a few that appear dubious, trivial- or just plain confusing.
It sounds like we agree that lines need to be drawn. But where exactly to draw them is a different issue, and reasonable people can disagree.
> What's to stop, theoretically speaking, someone from zipping all over the site, being offended by everything, and turning everyone in? They'd get a lot of attention, I gather.
They probably would. It's not in the FAQ yet, but there's a 3-objection rule:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407882.html
> I am concerned that some people, who might post a plea for help or while obviously in trouble, might ... attract enourmous attention about whether or not there was a real infraction of rules ... and meanwhile, the original poster's core concern gets ignored
I agree, that's why those discussions are redirected here -- and why it's important not to get so preoccupied with rules that we forget about support.
> Perhaps there could be an area for dicier discussions, "use at your own risk", where people promise to be on their best behavior, yet acknowledge someone could end up offended?
>
> -But no, it's not my site-This site isn't, but that dicier site could be... :-)
> I just still wish that there was more flexability, that so many people weren't afraid to write stuff out of fear of accidently causing offense or breaking a rule
> The warnings almost appear pre-emptive sometimes.
What would more flexibility be based on? The thing about flexibility is that it can be seen as unfair.
I think fear is an important, but distinct, issue. But if someone's never been warned, the most that can happen is they'll be warned (to attempt to preempt a block). And if they've been warned, but never blocked, the most that can happen is they'll be blocked from posting for a week. If they've already been blocked repeatedly, it's true, more is at stake. One way to look at it is:
> > Part of learning how to deal with others might just be for people to be uncivil, have that pointed out by Dr. Bob and other members, and then work on appropriate alternate behaviors, and then keep posting. I have seen that happen many times here. There is the possibility for growth in this setting, kind of like group therapy, and I think people should take advantage of that.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020325/msgs/21311.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilThanks for contributing to this discussion,
Bob
Posted by Estella on July 30, 2006, at 8:18:44
In reply to Re: rules, posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2006, at 3:57:17
> The goal is civility. Which facilitates support.
Is that intended as a definition of civility? If you blocked a person and the block didn't facilitate support then would you conclude that you shouldn't have blocked that person?
> It sounds like we agree that lines need to be drawn. But where exactly to draw them is a different issue, and reasonable people can disagree.
Yeah. I'm not sure that much progress is made on drawing them differently... Except that people do seem to repeatedly say that:
1) You seem to be too quick to block posters when they haven't accused / attacked / judged another poster and they would be willing to rephrase on the boards (which may well indicate that they didn't mean to cause offence).
2) You seem to block people for exhorbatent lengths of time when they haven't accused / attacked / judged another poster and they would be willing to rephrase on the boards (which may well indicate that they didn't mean to cause offence).
As a result of that... Other posters seem to be uncivil (typically towards you but also towards other posters). Also the blocked poster seems to be more likely to be uncivil (typically towards you but also towards other posters) upon return.
As such... 1 and 2 seem to decrease the support on these boards.
> > I am concerned that some people, who might post a plea for help or while obviously in trouble, might ... attract enourmous attention about whether or not there was a real infraction of rules ... and meanwhile, the original poster's core concern gets ignoredI think that does happen. Not just on admin. I think that posting a ********trigger******** on someone elses thread (without offering words of support) is a similar issue...
> What would more flexibility be based on? The thing about flexibility is that it can be seen as unfair.
Rigidity can also be seen as unfair. Not only unfair, but stubborn as well ;-) One way of being flexible would be to relax 1 or 2 uniformly across the board (as much as humanly possible).
> > > Part of learning how to deal with others might just be for people to be uncivil, have that pointed out by Dr. Bob and other members, and then work on appropriate alternate behaviors, and then keep posting.After being blocked for up to one year? Longer blocks... Probably decrease the liklihood of that. When work to perform appropriate alternative behaviours results in blockings of up to one year... I think people are more likely to come to believe they can't do whatever it is that is required. Maybe you think those people should be excluded from babble society. I guess you do think that or you wouldn't block them. I think you exclude a lot of people who would remain and be good sources of support but for your overly harsh blocking system...
Posted by laima on July 30, 2006, at 8:57:52
In reply to Re: rules, posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2006, at 3:57:17
Thank you for your explainations, and for tolerating the discussion on this thread.
I am gathering, managing order on an enourmous site like this, full of so many diverse people with differing views, must be a huge and difficult job-not as simple as I, for example, initially imagined.
Posted by Dinah on July 30, 2006, at 9:05:35
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 2:53:56
> I like what laima said about people speaking up when they are offended. I would like to know if I offend someone! I think that people should speak up, and be trusted to speak up. That would be a good rule - if you're offended, speak up. But of course be "civil".
You might like that. Not everyone does, and not everyone responds in a positive manner. Sometimes it leads to escalating situations in which more and more posters are drawn in, and the board erupts.
Moreover, trying to stay civil when you are trying to express that you are offended and in response to someone's less than pleased reaction to that can be quite difficult.
You may not agree, and that's fine. But if you assume that if no one says they are offended, it means no one is offended, well... that is not my own experience here as a poster or as a deputy.
Neither is an anywhere near majority response of being pleased when someone tells someone else they are offended at their post.
Posted by laima on July 30, 2006, at 9:33:26
In reply to Re: finally... » cloudydaze, posted by Dinah on July 30, 2006, at 9:05:35
I just saw this- when I wrote "speak up", I certainly didn't intend for it to sound like make a fuss, start a fight, or anything like that.Maybe more something along the lines of "I was offended by xyz. ", or something like, "I was offended by xyz, perhaps I misread, can you clarify?", "I am concerned by your word xyz because...", or contacting administration to express. Perhaps there is a confidential way to do the latter, if someone doesn't wish to post publically?.
But I don't wish to go in circles, perhaps even aggrevating each other over this- just wanted to clarify what I meant by term "speak up". When I think about it, I wonder if it might conceivabley have, in some usage or readings, wild sounding "rally-rousing" connotations that I didn't intend.
> > I like what laima said about people speaking up when they are offended. I would like to know if I offend someone! I think that people should speak up, and be trusted to speak up. That would be a good rule - if you're offended, speak up. But of course be "civil"....but thank you cloudydaze- I agree with you, too.
Posted by Dinah on July 30, 2006, at 11:41:49
In reply to Re: finally... » Dinah, posted by laima on July 30, 2006, at 9:33:26
Ok then.
I was distressed by the phrase "real sufferer" as it seemed to me to imply that there are those who really suffer and those who aren't really suffering, and that the distinction can be made by a person's behavior. I think there are real Richard Cory's out there. People who you would never know by looking at them were really suffering. But who are. I don't think Dr. Bob should try to determine who's really suffering and who isn't, because I don't think that Dr. Bob should judge that someone isn't really suffering. How many of us here have had our suffering dismissed as not being "real"?
I was distressed by the term "trivial offenses". There may be times when I don't understand why someone is upset by something that I wouldn't be upset about. There are times when I think that there *must* be some sort of misunderstanding. But I hope I never consider someeone's feeling of offense as "trivial" because that's a value judgement. I don't feel I have any right to decide what's "trivial" in someone's life. People have experiences that make them sensitive to certain things that might be trivial to someone else but are certainly not trivial to them.
Sometimes those things are not uncivil. In which case the poster could try to explain to Dr. Bob why they were offended and why rules should be changed. I think that lately there has been some really good and instructive discussions about triggers and trigger warnings.
But to consider anyone's concern "trivial"... It's not something I would do.
If I misunderstood the uses of "real" or "trivial", I would be happy to find out I was incorrect.
Posted by laima on July 30, 2006, at 13:12:56
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by Dinah on July 30, 2006, at 11:41:49
Dear Dinah,I must've clumsily used words which can be interpretted in, I'm not even sure how to phrase, slightly different ways? Different shades? Something like that. But I agree, you bring up and lucidly explain some very valid points, and I'll be thinking about what you've written.
In response to your questions:
> I was distressed by the phrase "real sufferer" as it seemed to me to imply that there are those who really suffer and those who aren't really suffering,
-I see your point, and apologize. A poor choice of words on my part. I attempted to distinguish, for hypothetical example, someone in a state of great distress who posts a plea which includes some offensive language or accusations- perhaps out of carelessness or perhaps out of utter frustration, or other reason--from someone-who might also, of course, be suffering,-who reads the post, and experiences a mild reaction of "oh- that's a rule infraction", or "oh- I don't like it-that person sounds like a (whatever)", - but maybe the matter isn't terribley important to them? Does that make any sense?
> I was distressed by the term "trivial offenses".
-Here again, I apologize for causing distress.
I attempted to make a distinction between someone who intends to hurt others, from someone who, for example, accidently gaffs or simply didn't know a word or phrase that they used was considered offensive by people outside of their own circles.
I see your point, that such an error could still end up really hurting another person.
Sincerely,Laima
Posted by cloudydaze on July 30, 2006, at 18:28:14
In reply to Re: finally... » cloudydaze, posted by Dinah on July 30, 2006, at 9:05:35
> > I like what laima said about people speaking up when they are offended. I would like to know if I offend someone! I think that people should speak up, and be trusted to speak up. That would be a good rule - if you're offended, speak up. But of course be "civil".
>
> You might like that. Not everyone does, and not everyone responds in a positive manner. Sometimes it leads to escalating situations in which more and more posters are drawn in, and the board erupts.***Could someone who was offended, say, report it to you, another deputy, or dr bob?
But they are supposed to respond in a positive manner, are they not? Isn't this the whole idea? Wow, it seems like we're being so "protected" from each other, even though it may be entirely unnecessary. Has anyone ever asked posters how they'd feel if they were trusted to report things that offended them? I wonder if I'm the only one who feels that this might work...
I'm not saying scrap the system, I'm suggesting we encourage the "growth" or improvement of it....and the babble community.
I think that it is so sheltered here...maybe relaxing the reins a little would allow for us to grow as people? I understand that Dr bob wants this to be an encouraging environment, but I think it could be more so. I don't find it encouraging right now...to me it feels like I have "big brother" breathing down my neck.
>
> Moreover, trying to stay civil when you are trying to express that you are offended and in response to someone's less than pleased reaction to that can be quite difficult.***yes it can be difficult. Should we be sheltered from all things difficult? I think not. I think that people should practice responding in a "civil" manner to things they might not find so "civil" - it's good practice for real life issues. People in real life are not always "civil" to one another. Here at Babble, things are more civil than real life, but I'd rather not have it forceably civil to the point of being insincere. I think doing this is counterproductive. I don't know about anyone else, but when I reach out for advice or support, I want to feel like people mean what they say - I'd rather have them say something a bit provacative to me then to have them say something nice that they don't mean.
>
> You may not agree, and that's fine. But if you assume that if no one says they are offended, it means no one is offended, well... that is not my own experience here as a poster or as a deputy.
>***I do not, and that's fine with me too :)
I do think that people need a bit more responsibility than they are sometimes given (and a bit more credit, too).> Neither is an anywhere near majority response of being pleased when someone tells someone else they are offended at their post.
***huh?
Not sure what you are getting at here. Were you referring to what I said about wanting to know if someone is offended? I never said I'd be "pleased" that someone was offended, however, I would like to know who was offended and why, so I can prevent it from happening in the future. We all need to practice communicating with each other. If a deputy jumps in and says "such and such was uncivil" it is much less useful and helpful to me than if the offended said "such and such offended me". I would not take offense to someone who is offended. Rather, I would try to clarify my words and intentions, and clear up any misunderstandings (which gets harder to do if someone jumps into the conversation). Sometimes, deputies or Dr bob jumping in and making remarks triggers uncivil behavior. IMO There are a few conversations I followed that seemed to be going just fine until it was interrupted, and people got steamed. I wonder if Dr bob thinks that people can't (or shouldn't) work out their own problems sometimes....
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.