![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by rskontos on December 22, 2007, at 13:24:02
On the social board, I was wondering if the do not post more than 3 threads was the same. And could you define, the playing around scenario. Thanks rsk
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 0:56:58
In reply to Question regarding post rules, posted by rskontos on December 22, 2007, at 13:24:02
> On the social board, I was wondering if the do not post more than 3 threads was the same.
Yes. Writing is the only board where Dr. Bob has historically allowed it to be completely relaxed, AFAIK.
>And could you define, the playing around scenario.
Ahhh...you mean in the FAQ:
"Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social.?" Right?
That's kind of hard - for me at least, to precisely define. I'd almost need to find an example, and I'm not sure if I can do that. I think the overall intent of the rule was not to have any one poster, or perhaps several more 'long time and confident group of posters' - to appear to monopolize a board or thread, since some newer or more reserved folks might feel overwhelmed and like it wasn't okay to join in.
OTOH, I think Dr. Bob didn't want this rule to be so hard and fast or rigid that on some cases one poster couldn't creatively say, use single words to write something vertically.... (that might need more than 3 posts) or, once I recall an ongoing story many posters wrote by adding parts to it, where maybe one poster added to it more than 3 times in a row, just to keep it going. I'm trying to describe those more humorous or unusual postings [again, it's tough to paint a word picture of 'playing around' till it happens!] wouldn't be required to comply with this rule under the 'playing around' exception - for what appears as a one-time thing for the purpose of the creative look of consecutive posts/threads, or to complete a joke, story....rather than a poster just "taking over" a thread or board and posting many times with no apparent room/time for others. [Not that posters mean to do that at all, it's more the possible *appearance* of multiple, repetitive postings to less confident posters.]
That's the best I can do......sorry I know it's 'bout as clear as a muddy stream.... Perhaps another deputy will rescue me?
Just a cautionary reminder (and you probably don't even need it) if you have a specific concern about a poster/threads started anywhere on Babble, you will probably want to use the Notify the Admin... button instead of posting that question or further clarification here :-)
Respectfully trying to help....
-- 10derHeart
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 6:37:33
In reply to Re: Question regarding post rules » rskontos, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 0:56:58
> > On the social board, I was wondering if the do not post more than 3 threads was the same.
>
> Yes. Writing is the only board where Dr. Bob has historically allowed it to be completely relaxed, AFAIK.
>
> >And could you define, the playing around scenario.
>
> Ahhh...you mean in the FAQ:
>
> "Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social.?" Right?
>
> That's kind of hard - for me at least, to precisely define. I'd almost need to find an example, and I'm not sure if I can do that. I think the overall intent of the rule was not to have any one poster, or perhaps several more 'long time and confident group of posters' - to appear to monopolize a board or thread, since some newer or more reserved folks might feel overwhelmed and like it wasn't okay to join in.
>
> OTOH, I think Dr. Bob didn't want this rule to be so hard and fast or rigid that on some cases one poster couldn't creatively say, use single words to write something vertically.... (that might need more than 3 posts) or, once I recall an ongoing story many posters wrote by adding parts to it, where maybe one poster added to it more than 3 times in a row, just to keep it going. I'm trying to describe those more humorous or unusual postings [again, it's tough to paint a word picture of 'playing around' till it happens!] wouldn't be required to comply with this rule under the 'playing around' exception - for what appears as a one-time thing for the purpose of the creative look of consecutive posts/threads, or to complete a joke, story....rather than a poster just "taking over" a thread or board and posting many times with no apparent room/time for others. [Not that posters mean to do that at all, it's more the possible *appearance* of multiple, repetitive postings to less confident posters.]
>
> That's the best I can do......sorry I know it's 'bout as clear as a muddy stream.... Perhaps another deputy will rescue me?
>
> Just a cautionary reminder (and you probably don't even need it) if you have a specific concern about a poster/threads started anywhere on Babble, you will probably want to use the Notify the Admin... button instead of posting that question or further clarification here :-)
>
> Respectfully trying to help....
>
> -- 10derHeart
>
> Deputy 10derheart,
You wrote,[...intent of the rule...not to have a member..{appear} to >monopolize< a thread...some newer or more reserved folks {might} [feel] overwhelmed and like it wasn't OK to join in...].
I ask; Then could not it be that there could be members that are new or reserved that could feel OK to join in, let's say at the 4th post or 7th post? If so, could not those that might feel overwhelmed about seeing a name more than 3 times without another member's name in between ignore the thread and find another thread to join and those that want to wait untill they have enough infomation to join in have the opportunity to see what the member has to post and that member be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts so that those that are do not {feel} that it is not OK for them to join in n have the opportunity to read what the member could offer to them in terms of education and support?
Lou
Posted by rskontos on December 23, 2007, at 9:37:08
In reply to Re: Question regarding post rules » rskontos, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 0:56:58
Deputy 10derHeart is it 3 posts or 3 threads which I am thinking is two separate things too. thanks rsk
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 11:16:17
In reply to Re: Question regarding post rules » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by rskontos on December 23, 2007, at 9:37:08
It is both. From the FAQ:
"Please share this site with others by not starting more than 3 consecutive threads on the same board or posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread."
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#three
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 11:23:32
In reply to Lou's response to deputy's post-mshrm » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 6:37:33
Sure, Lou ( and nice to see you back, BTW) all those things your wrote "could be." However, Dr. Bob decided Babble needed the rule when he created it and now we have it.
I believe he feels it's best for the community as a whole to limit these things to three in a row. Perhaps he'll be willing to engage in dialog about that rule again now or in the future - and you or others could try to convince him to change it? :-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 12:00:40
In reply to yes, but it's Dr. Bob's call, ultimately » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 11:23:32
> Sure, Lou ( and nice to see you back, BTW) all those things your wrote "could be." However, Dr. Bob decided Babble needed the rule when he created it and now we have it.
>
> I believe he feels it's best for the community as a whole to limit these things to three in a row. Perhaps he'll be willing to engage in dialog about that rule again now or in the future - and you or others could try to convince him to change it? :-)Deputy 10derheart,
You wrote,[...all those things you wrote could be...he needed the rule...best for the community as a whole...]
I ask,
A. Do you know what is shown here to indicate that he {needed} the rule? If you do, could you post it here now? If not,could you post why not here?
B. You believe that he thinks that the rule is best for the commmunity as a whole. Do you believe that the rule is best for the community as a whole? If so, are you aware of the historical parallels to that type of rule? And also, how could the rule be best for the community as a whole if there is a way to take three posts that do not have another member's name in between, and consolodate them into one post? Is there not a way to do that?
You see, if you wanted to, could you not take the three posts and combine them with the name of the member only once? Or could not the administration show how the members could do that on their own? What do you mean by a {need} here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 13:45:58
In reply to Lou's reply to deputy 10der-ultmot? » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 12:00:40
> > Sure, Lou ( and nice to see you back, BTW) all those things your wrote "could be." However, Dr. Bob decided Babble needed the rule when he created it and now we have it.
> >
> > I believe he feels it's best for the community as a whole to limit these things to three in a row. Perhaps he'll be willing to engage in dialog about that rule again now or in the future - and you or others could try to convince him to change it? :-)
>
> Deputy 10derheart,
> You wrote,[...all those things you wrote could be...he needed the rule...best for the community as a whole...]
> I ask,
> A. Do you know what is shown here to indicate that he {needed} the rule? If you do, could you post it here now? If not,could you post why not here?
> B. You believe that he thinks that the rule is best for the commmunity as a whole. Do you believe that the rule is best for the community as a whole? If so, are you aware of the historical parallels to that type of rule? And also, how could the rule be best for the community as a whole if there is a way to take three posts that do not have another member's name in between, and consolodate them into one post? Is there not a way to do that?
> You see, if you wanted to, could you not take the three posts and combine them with the name of the member only once? Or could not the administration show how the members could do that on their own? What do you mean by a {need} here?
> Lou
>
>
Deputy 10derheart,
You wrote,[...best for the community...to limit...to 3 in a row...]
Let us look at what can be seen here about this rule made here. Could not one here have an affiliate of theirs to post a post that did not have a message in it after the member's name can be seen three times without another member's name in between, just to satisfy the rule? If so, then is it not the {appearance} of the member's name more than 3 times without another member's name in between, the issue concerning the rule's reason to be made?
You see, I could have someone do that for me, but I have opted not to do that for reasons that I can discuss by email to those that would like.
But there is a {need} now by me to post about a member's post concerning what the bible says or does not say about suicide. If what I could post could have the potential to save a life from a suicide in using, let's say, 7 posts without another member's name in between, would I not be considered by the administartion here to be uncivil? If so, why? I would be offering support and education. If the rule prevents me from offering what I could to have the potential IMO to save a life, then is the rule in your opinion consistant with the mission of the forum as being supportive and promoting of education? If so, could you post here how that could be so?
Lou
Posted by rskontos on December 23, 2007, at 14:04:00
In reply to Re: Question regarding post rules » rskontos, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 11:16:17
And if on two different boards this does occurence and Dr. Bob and the deputies let it go, does this mean the content was deemed to be as the statement goes "Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social" even if it's not necessarily the social board. I am not saying this to get any other Babbler in trouble just trying to understand myself. To get clarification. I didn't want to use the administration button at the bottom to notify I preferred to try it this way first to get some understanding. I hope this is acceptable.
Thanks for all your replies and Lou's. rsk
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 15:15:23
In reply to Re: Question regarding post rules » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by rskontos on December 23, 2007, at 14:04:00
> And if on two different boards this does occurence and Dr. Bob and the deputies let it go, does this mean the content was deemed to be as the statement goes "Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social" even if it's not necessarily the social board.
Maybe, but not necessarily. Even with Dr. Bob and several deputies, we don't come close to seeing all things on all boards. It could mean:
... none of us saw it, or saw it and forgot, or saw it and were too busy to do anything, or saw it and were unsure if the rule should be applied so are waiting to discuss with others or Dr. Bob, who all may be unavailable..... So, although this thread is fine, the best way, if you're seeing something as opposed to posing a theoretical question, is to please use the Notify button.
>> I am not saying this to get any other Babbler in trouble just trying to understand myself.
I didn't think that. And maybe a request/reminder from admin about the rules isn't trouble, just one more kind of education?
> Thanks for all your replies and Lou's.
You're entirely welcome :-)
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 15:20:32
In reply to Lou's reply to deputy 10der-howso?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 13:45:58
Sorry, but I choose to leave any further discussion of the 3-post rule to Dr. Bob.
I'm sure some previous debate/discussion threads on this topic can be found in the archives as well.
Posted by rskontos on December 23, 2007, at 15:33:45
In reply to Re: Question regarding post rules » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by rskontos on December 23, 2007, at 14:04:00
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.