![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 14:47:26
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 7:40:41
> > THAT A POST REMAINS UNSANCTIONED DOES NOT DE FACTO INDICATE THAT IT IS CIVIL.
> Friends,
> It is written here. [...that a post remains unsanctioned does not de facto {indicate} that it is civil.Yes. I believe I may have inadvertantly proposed a doctrine. Perhaps it should be included somewhere in the mission statement or FAQ of this website. Perhaps not. Perhaps a doctrine stating the opposite is indicated. I think this issue should be addressed, though.
> But, is there not some type of convention here that if Dr. Hsiung makes a pass and no sanction is made to a post, that some people could IMO think it is considered to be civil?
This is why it would be helpful for a doctrine to be formulated and included in the verbiage of the civility guidelines.
> And also, does not Dr. Hsiung write in his FAQ that he would like us to trust him that he is doing what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole?
> Also, there is the potential for some others,IMO, to consider that what is left unsanctioned is considered to be civil by the nature that uncivil posts are sanctioned. In other words, the owner/moderator does not put either {civil} or {uncivil} after each post. Could that not have the potential, IMO, for some others to think that posts left unsanctioned could be considerd by the administration to be civil?
> Then there is the aspect that requests for a determination as to the civility or not of a post are not answered by the administration. Could that not lead some others to think that those statements in question are civil?
Yes. Things become complicated without a stated doctrine.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 16:18:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 7:55:10
Sometimes a person can run a red light and not get caught. This doesn't mean that it is ok for the person to continue running red lights.
This had been addressed before - that if a fairly long amount of time has elapsed Dr. Bob won't go back and PBC a post. It doesn't mean that it is ok in the future.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 16:50:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response-what URLs can or can not be po, posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 6:51:58
Scott,
I've noticed that you've been quite generous with your time and wise with your words when offering explanations to others questions about the policies and practices here. I often find myself thinking, "Great explanation there. Wish I could be so articulate" when I read one.You're an asset to Babble. :)
gg
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 16:53:18
In reply to Thanks » SLS, posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 16:50:54
I've always thought that myself.
Scott is so terrific and level headed.
Posted by 10derHeart on September 13, 2006, at 22:07:13
In reply to Re: Thanks » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 16:53:18
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:13
In reply to Re: red light running » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 16:18:55
Friends,
It is written here,[...sometimes a person can run a red light and not get caught...time has elapsed DR. Hsiung will not go back...].
But let me tell you about an owner of an establishment here that had a racist sign in his window. He was told by the authorities to take it down. His argument to leave it there was that he had the sign there for a very long time and no one had protested. The courts gave him no favore for his argument and was convicted, and the sign was mandated to come down.
In another case here, another racist sign was in a resturant and the owner claimed the same , that he had it there for a long time and it would stay. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission said otherwise and the sign came down.
In a school case here, the 10 commandments were placed on the school lawn in violation of a US Supreme Court decision that the sign violated the first ammendment of establishment of religion. No one had protestd the sign for a very long time untill a resident did. The school's argument of the time issue fell on deaf ears and the sign was made to be removed. In a case in the South, a judge had a granite monument of the commandments in his court area, contrary to the establishment clause. He refused to remove it and was impeached.
When things are left to see, regardless as to how long they have been there, that does not give it licence to remain if it is in violation of public policy. This is different from someone running a red light and not get caught.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:34:11
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:13
Friends,
For a complete list of posts here that have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have racist content, that have not been sanctioned in accordance with the policy here, you could email me if you like at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 7:02:35
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:13
> When things are left to see, regardless as to how long they have been there, that does not give it licence to remain if it is in violation of public policy.
Perhaps there should be a statute of limitations. If a post remains unchallenged for a set period of time, it is to be left unsanctioned. I don't know. I haven't given it much thought.
- Scott
Posted by sunnydays on September 14, 2006, at 20:01:12
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:13
Well, I could also argue that in the past, illegal aliens that have been in the United States for a certain period time have been granted amnesty and there were no sanctions against them. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective, this site is not subject to precedent in US courts as this is not a court, but rather a site to offer advice and support. The main purpose of this site as I understand it is not to decide whether sanctions are right or wrong, but to support other people.
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 7:23:24
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by sunnydays on September 14, 2006, at 20:01:12
Friends,
It is written here,[...this site is not subject to precedent in U.S. courts...].
Really?
For a list of U.S. court decisions regarding internet sites, you could email me if you like.
It is written ,[...a site to offer {advice}...]
I ask:
Advice from who?
It is written here,[...the main purpose..to support other people..]
I ask:
Is it supportive of this site to leave posts unsanctioned that have statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
for a list of these posts, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 7:23:24
>
> It is written ,[...a site to offer {advice}...]
> I ask:
> Advice from who?Advice from other posters. Anyone on this site can offer advice to anyone else on this site, unless there's a DNP request in force.
> It is written here,[...the main purpose..to support other people..]
> I ask:
> Is it supportive of this site to leave posts unsanctioned that have statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?That depends, Lou. Splitting this into two issues, I guess it really depends.
But it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory. Remember, if you're the ONLY one who sees a problem with a post, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone else is blind. It might just mean that there really is nothing wrong with that post.
The other issue is that truly discriminatory posts are generally not supportive.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 13:26:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
Friends,
It is written here,[...it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory..]. Does this mean that;
Dr. Hsiung took a vote and the overwhelming majority voted to leave posts that have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings unsanctioned because those voters did not find them to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 13:33:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
Friends,
It is written here,[...it might mean...there is..nothing wrong with that post...]
If any reader here is interested in the posts that could be in question, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
> it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory.
FYI, the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or on the present.
Bob
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 19:53:13
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
Posted by Dinah on September 15, 2006, at 19:55:34
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
They seem to *be* the present and future.
I mean, I'm all for sticking to prior practice and all, but it's not like any of this is in the past.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2006, at 20:30:26
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
> whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or on the present.
more helpful for who?
for you?
for lou?
or are you trying to channel what is most helpful for the community as a whole?in the words of someone or other:
> It's a big step to connect the past with the present,
oh yes indeedie do.
to see the impact of the past on the present. you might have an easy job forgetting. not so for others, you know.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 23:35:06
In reply to I dunno, posted by Dinah on September 15, 2006, at 19:55:34
> it's not like any of this is in the past.
Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are there recent posts that should be sanctioned that aren't?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 16, 2006, at 0:16:36
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 23:35:06
I mean the side effects of their lack of sanction is not in the past. It is definitely in the present, and I foresee it going into the future.
While again, I don't like to see past practice violated, and it wouldn't seem fair really to the posters involved to actually sanction anyone, I must confess that sometimes I just wish you'd tag any of these posts that might have been missed, as opposed to ones that you actually think are civil. I don't know. I guess I'm just wishing for peace. But maybe peace doesn't come that way.
I haven't given it a huge amount of thought, and your consideration of my words should reflect that.
In other words, I don't really know what I'm saying.
Posted by Racer on September 16, 2006, at 0:41:53
In reply to Re: leaving posts unsanctioned » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 16, 2006, at 0:16:36
I don't know, either, but...
How about something like choosing an arbitrary date and saying "anything that happened before this date won't be considered, but everything after will be examined again." We could even vote on how far back we want to go. I'd suggest one year.
I'd also suggest that anyone who brings things up before that admittedly arbitrary date should be subject to a strong reminder that it is not allowed...
Just, you know, off the top of my pointy little head...
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 2:34:40
In reply to How about... » Dinah, posted by Racer on September 16, 2006, at 0:41:53
> I don't know, either, but...
Me neither, but...
> Just, you know, off the top of my pointy little head...
Me too.
What do you do with a poster whose 11 month old post has been identified as deserving a PBC for a minor, but obvious infraction, and who has been behaving civily ever since? Do you interrupt their posting continuity with a PBC? What about if it were an eggregious violation?
Perhaps a challenge should occur more immediately during the discourse rather than as a scavenger hunt. Give someone 3 weeks to challenge the civility of a post. Then, a PBC would not seem so out of place temporally. Ah. No. That's no good. Some people are blocked from posting for longer than that, and can't defend themselves. Blocks don't extend for more than a year, though. Other posters might not be visiting so often. Still others might not come across an offending post for quite some time, as they had not been a participant in that thread. I guess 1 year does make sense. But what about maintaining continuity?
It is either 3 weeks or 1 year or infinite.
That's what I have it narrowed down to.
Probably 3 weeks if you are actually going to issue a PBC.
Probably 1 year if you are going to red-flag posts without issuing PBC beyond 3 weeks.
Probably infinite if you have developed OCD.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 3:12:45
In reply to Re: How about..., posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 2:34:40
Why not just tag a 'please be civil' onto them?
That way people hunting through the archives don't come away with the mistaken impression that it is considered acceptable to say those kinds of things on Babble.
That way current posters don't need to live in fear that they will be blocked for some post they posted 4 years ago.
I think there could be a problem in the sense that the floodgates may be open for people to protest past posts as well as current ones. But with limits on how often you are allowed to protest...
I just think it would be a nice way to make peace.
I think it could help the community.
I don't think anybody likes seeing people 'getting away' with x while other posters get sanctioned. Ignoring the problem... Doesn't make it go away...
You could say 'sorry I missed this before but (whatever bits aren't civil) aren't civil. And put a link into the faq. It wouldn't be that hard - would it?
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 3:41:30
In reply to Re: How about..., posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 3:12:45
> Why not just tag a 'please be civil' onto them?
Well, I didn't really think an actual red tag would be the best way to go. I guess the term I was looking for was "red flag". Sorry.
Currently, there are no limits for how many requests one can make if they are all accepted. This might present problems with volume of requests if the entire archive is subject to review. I guess it can be tried first. Gosh, what an expensive proposition this might be. I guess with the current volume of requests, it seems that administration has a sufficient budget.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 3:56:50
In reply to Re: How about... » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 3:41:30
> > Why not just tag a 'please be civil' onto them?
> Well, I didn't really think an actual red tag would be the best way to go. I guess the term I was looking for was "red flag". Sorry.oh no no no no no. i didn't mean a literal tag. sorry i wasn't clearer. i meant that bob could reply to the post (like he does now). his post would show up tagged on the bottom of the thread. that was what i meant...
> Currently, there are no limits for how many requests one can make if they are all accepted. This might present problems with volume of requests if the entire archive is subject to review.there haven't been that many oversights - have there? i guess rules have changed over time... people used to be allowed to swear it seems. i'm not sure how useful it would be to go back through that... maybe there could be something in the faq about how you used to be able to but then the rules changed and that would be a way out of doing the every individual post thing.
maybe bob could process them slowly... a few at a time or something like that.
i dunno.
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 7:44:10
In reply to Re: How about..., posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2006, at 3:56:50
> i meant that bob could reply to the post (like he does now). his post would show up tagged on the bottom of the thread. that was what i meant...
You mean bring the past into the present...
...with no limitation as to how far back in time a post was submitted.
That is precisely what I think should not be done. To "correct" the archives, if a regular PBC could not be inserted into the thread, then I would be in favor of either editing the subject header or editing the post and placing appropriate text at the top of the submission. Of course, this problem could be obviated if posts older than 3 weeks were simply left to the discretion of the head moderator for sanction, and posts older than 1 year not to be considered.
> > Currently, there are no limits for how many requests one can make if they are all accepted. This might present problems with volume of requests if the entire archive is subject to review.
> there haven't been that many oversights - have there? i guess rules have changed over time... people used to be allowed to swear it seems. i'm not sure how useful it would be to go back through that... maybe there could be something in the faq about how you used to be able to but then the rules changed and that would be a way out of doing the every individual post thing.
>
> maybe bob could process them slowly... a few at a time or something like that.
>
> i dunno.
Yeah. Headaches. Wow.3 weeks / 1 year
- Scott
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.