![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 15:06:01
Friend Bob
Was there not a recent ruling concerning the civility of trying to put restrictions on the type of replies one recieves to a particular post?
Perhaps you might refresh our memories?
Posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 15:34:18
In reply to Ruling on trying to restrict others contributions?, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 15:06:01
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060911/msgs/687723.html
Perhaps we should add to FAQ
We might make a new rule that
say no more than 3 requests to limit thread topic per poster if and only if said poster has posted more than 37 posts without such a request since the last total lunar eclipse visible in Chicago Illinois USA and that there would be no more than 2 no off topic requests per board in any one calender month and that the poster should announce in the 1st post the invocation of the no off topic postings request and that all subsequent posters to the thread be required to acknowledge that request before posting to said thread and that the no off topic posting request could not be revoked without express permission of each poster unless a poster refused to acknowledge the permission to revoke off topic request within a period of time which equals the time since that poster registered on babble multiplied by the number of posts that poster had made on all boards divided by the total number of posts made on the thread in question before the revocation request was posted. This would clarify things I think.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 16:57:54
In reply to Thus spake Bob.............................., posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 15:34:18
Friends,
It is written here that Dr. Hsiung responded to a member's post that wrote,[...no more replies...] with that he thinks that it is more welcoming to not use that phrase.
I agree with Dr. Hsiung in that for someone to write that {no more} replies be posted could be an inappropriate phrase to write.
But there are other possibilities that could occur that could have a want for another to ask that others keep in mind what the innitiator of the thread's intended destination is so that the thread does not go off-plan to another destination, (hijacking the thread), for I think that it is more civl to start a new thread if the topic is one that could cause the innitiator's destination to be turned in a different direction.
I think that it could be more welcoming here if threads were not {hijacked}, but I do not know of any statement in the FAQ here about it specifically.
On another note, I think that in the example given in this thread that it could be more welcoming, as Dr. Hsiung writes, if there was a section in the FAQ here specifically to define what constitutes {hijacking} in this forum.
If I was asked how I would make a rule that could be {well-defined and applied equally} to define {hijacking}, the following;
Hijacking occurs when:
A. Another poster attempts to {shift the focus}to another topic that is a new destination from the innitiator of the thread's destination
B. Another poster belittles the innitiator of the thread so that now the focus is on the poster rather than the poster's intended destination
C. Another poster posts accusative content so as to cause the initiator to defend him/herself from the accusation so that there is a delay in the progress to the destination.
D. Another poster posts irrelevant material that has the potential to {cloud} the issues {smoke-screening}.
E. Another poster posts what could constitute {scapegoating}, so that others could be hampered to post because they could feel that now the subject could be to the poster's intent.{witch-hunting}
F.other relevant examples
Lou
Posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:41:47
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 16:57:54
> Friends,
> It is written here that Dr. Hsiung responded to a member's post that wrote,[...no more replies...] with that he thinks that it is more welcoming to not use that phrase.
> I agree with Dr. Hsiung in that for someone to write that {no more} replies be posted could be an inappropriate phrase to write.
> But there are other possibilities that could occur that could have a want for another to ask that others keep in mind what the innitiator of the thread's intended destination is so that the thread does not go off-plan to another destination, (hijacking the thread), for I think that it is more civl to start a new thread if the topic is one that could cause the innitiator's destination to be turned in a different direction.
> I think that it could be more welcoming here if threads were not {hijacked}, but I do not know of any statement in the FAQ here about it specifically.
> On another note, I think that in the example given in this thread that it could be more welcoming, as Dr. Hsiung writes, if there was a section in the FAQ here specifically to define what constitutes {hijacking} in this forum.
> If I was asked how I would make a rule that could be {well-defined and applied equally} to define {hijacking}, the following;
> Hijacking occurs when:
> A. Another poster attempts to {shift the focus}to another topic that is a new destination from the innitiator of the thread's destination
> B. Another poster belittles the innitiator of the thread so that now the focus is on the poster rather than the poster's intended destination
> C. Another poster posts accusative content so as to cause the initiator to defend him/herself from the accusation so that there is a delay in the progress to the destination.
> D. Another poster posts irrelevant material that has the potential to {cloud} the issues {smoke-screening}.
> E. Another poster posts what could constitute {scapegoating}, so that others could be hampered to post because they could feel that now the subject could be to the poster's intent.{witch-hunting}
> F.other relevant examples
> Lou
>
>
>Lou I believe B, C, and E would be outlawed under the civility guidelines.
A and D involve making negative judgements about another poster's motives or intentions and could possibly lead him/her to feel put down so that would violate the civility guidelines to accuse another poster of this behaviour wouldn't it?
Would you like the deputies to pass judgement on relevance or would that be left to the initiator of the post? There are boards which consider the thread to be the property of the initiator and his judgement prevails but that would be a departure for Babble wouldn't it? On the other hand nobody but the initiator would know what the subject was in his mind so how could the deputies adequately judge? I suppose they could redirect posts within the board. Would that be something to be handled with Bob's new complaint forms? Would a request to redirect off topic posts count as one of the three requests to check a post or would there be a new limit for those requests?
But the term Hijacking has a bit of an accusatory ring to it doesn't it? Perhaps that could be rephrased.
I understand that you would prefer to control the topics addressed in your threads. Maybe there is some way to do it if it means a lot to you.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 20:59:46
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:41:47
zazenducky,
You wrote,[...control the topics..in your thread...some way to do it...].
I responded to Dr. Hsiung's statement to the poster that asked,[...no more replies...].
I agree with Dr. Hsiung about that in relation to his writing that it would be more welcoming to not use that phrase.
The topic as I see it is an administrative one in relation to the innitiators of a thread in relation to if they have some type of control of the content.
The usual and commonly refered to word ,"hijacking" in internet parlance refers to the control being directed to a different destination that was intended by the innitiator of the thread. In this case here, the poster could have been trying to direct the thread to {close} or be {locked} or {halted} by writing {...no more replies...}.
Now the poster that wanted {no more replies} was not IMO being uncivil, and Dr. Hsiung did not write that the poster was uncivil, but on the other hand, the poster's plea to have {...no more replies...} was a request for others to not do something that they are permitted to do and could constitute "hijacking" if the definition was that the post caused the thread to go in a different direction as in this case, to close {...no more replies...}.
In the issue here about {control} of the topic by the innitiator, I would like to see a section in the FAQ defining "hijacking" in this forum and when a new thread could be started verses posting what could constitute "hijacking" here.
I do not think that it is uncivil to post what could direct the innitiator's plan, and would only see it reasonable that a post that has the potential to be considered to constitute "hijacking", have the poster start a new thread. This could mean that the post is redacted from the thread and placed on the end of that board as a new thread. In the case at hand, if this was policy here, the post with [...no more replies...] would betaken out and placed at the bottom of the page as a new thread and others could comment on the aspect of {no more replies} while the others continued inthe discussion of the original thread.
In summery, your question to me about a way to control the content of the thread by the innitiator, IMO could be done as I have written here. I do not think that it is uncivil to post what is not relevant to the innitiator's direction, but OTOH, I think that more support could be obtained if the diverting post was redacted and placed to start a new thread.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2006, at 7:18:52
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:41:47
zazenducky,
You wrote that the civility rules here would cause B, C and E to be sanctioned. I agree, but what I am proposing is that those type of posts could have the potential IMO to divert what the innitiator wanted to write about to something else, and that those type of posts could be redacted from the thread and placed at the bottom of the page to start a new thread. The administration could sanction that post and others could discuss that and the poster's statement in a separate thread and the original thread, then, would not have that post that could cause diversion in it.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2006, at 7:37:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:41:47
zazenducky,
You wrote,[...pass judgment on relevance...]
I am proposing that there be in the FAQ here a well-defined way to determine if a statement is to be redacted from a thread as having the potential to divert the innitiator's topic to another destination. This is commonally refered to as "highjacking" in internet parlance.
Your question as to the determination of relevance could be handled, if I was the administrator, by listing in the FAQ the criteria that determines if a statement is relevant or not.
Once the list is incorporated in the FAQ, then those criteria could be what determines if a statement is relevant to the discussion or not.
I do not think that a personal attack upon the innitiator of the thread is relevant. Nor do I think that if the >subject< is changed, that that could be relevant. In the case at hand, DR. Hsiung highlighted the poster's statement [...no more replies...]. I think that that statement could divert the thread to {stop}, which could be IMO a form of "highjacking" as in this case the poster would cause his/her own thread to stop moving completly if there were [...no more replies...], {"crash"?} So I would like to include DR. Hsiung's case in point in that FAQ about statements that could have the potential of diverting threads.
If you or anyone else would like to see posts here that illistrate my proposal, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2006, at 8:07:57
In reply to Lou's reply to zazenducky » zazenducky, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2006, at 7:37:41
While I agree that "hijacking" of threads can and does happen, we also see dialogs and topics evolve in threads. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. I've also seen the issue of "hijacking" handled among the thread participants very well. Often someone will realize that the thread has gone off topic and that this might not be supportive of the original poster. Then you might see an apology to the person and an effort to redirect the topic back to the original poster's need. Sometimes the original poster comments on the change of topic. I've seen this done in a civil manner and also a not so civil manner. But that usually is sufficient to get the thread back "on topic".
I think this often gets handled very well within the community, and I would be opposed to codifying what is and is not appropriately "on topic" and "off topic."
gg
Posted by zazenducky on October 9, 2006, at 10:17:49
In reply to Topics on threads can evolve, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2006, at 8:07:57
> While I agree that "hijacking" of threads can and does happen,
>>yes this is what we are addressing here
we also see dialogs and topics evolve in threads. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing.>>I don't either--it's something I enjoy about babble
I've also seen the issue of "hijacking" handled among the thread participants very well. Often someone will realize that the thread has gone off topic and that this might not be supportive of the original poster. Then you might see an apology to the person and an effort to redirect the topic back to the original poster's need. Sometimes the original poster comments on the change of topic. I've seen this done in a civil manner and also a not so civil manner. But that usually is sufficient to get the thread back "on topic".
>>Yes we are addressing the times when it is not handled well and the posters attempts are not sufficient.
Posted by Declan on October 13, 2006, at 2:50:15
In reply to Topics on threads can evolve, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2006, at 8:07:57
Sometimes people are just maladroit but with no offense meant. There have been times I've done it.
After a bit you realise that there is a reasonable etiquette about it, just like conversations IRL.
This is the end of the 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.