![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by Justherself54 on July 31, 2008, at 15:15:34
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Dinah, posted by Toph on July 31, 2008, at 15:07:36
Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 15:19:41
In reply to Please post in the spirit of site guidelines » adelaide curtis, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 14:38:29
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:27:42
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Dinah, posted by Toph on July 31, 2008, at 15:07:36
> So, am I correct that something uncivil may be posted and seen by an administrator but if no one presses the Notify button there may be no intervention?
With or without the new rule, I'd say that might depend on several things, including degree of incivility. But I'd say that if we think it might be worked out between posters, we'd prefer it to be and Dr. Bob would prefer that we wait to see if it is. Also, deputies are also posters, so we can report something ourselves, as posters.
> And under the new policy, a poster may post something that another poster finds objectionable, but if the two come to some amicable conclusion or if the offended party accepts the apology of the offeding party there may also be no intervention by the administration?
I would say that is true. And preferable.
> What if during the last scenario above a third party presses the Notify button, will the admintrators have to react to the third party notification or will they wait to see if the problem interaction resolves itself?One advantage of the slower response time that comes from having three deputies rather than one is that time to resolve often comes about naturally. In cases of frank and unquestionable incivility there is of course no question. But in cases of borderline incivility, I think we would probably prefer to wait to see if posters can resolve it themselves. Or to wait to see if the recipient of the post complains. This is what Dr. Bob prefers, although I personally see a few drawbacks. This doesn't mean that third parties shouldn't report. Of course they should. But I guess we're still working on figuring out when to act immediately and when to wait a bit. Some things we think might turn out badly end up turning out very well. But not always. We're trying to balance all of Dr. Bob's objectives.
Those are all very good questions, and I'm sorry I don't have clearer answers. I hope at least I have been able to explain some of the thinking that goes into our choices.
I'm never sure whether my preferred transparency or Dr. Bob's blank slate are more helpful on the Administrative board.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:31:24
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Toph, posted by Justherself54 on July 31, 2008, at 15:15:34
> Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
Yes, I think it would. But there is some interpretation required in detecting sarcasm. It's possible that there are times when the deputies' interpretation may differ from the interpretation of one or more posters. And if we're not certain, we may ask for clarification or a restatement.
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 15:39:15
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Justherself54, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:31:24
> > Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
>
> Yes, I think it would. But there is some interpretation required in detecting sarcasm. It's possible that there are times when the deputies' interpretation may differ from the interpretation of one or more posters. And if we're not certain, we may ask for clarification or a restatement.
>
I would also add being condescending, arrogant and rude.I know that administration is fully aware that many people here have had replies that made us extremely uncomfortable because we knew that a poster was intending for their post to be interpeted in a negative tone.
I would pray that you are able to detect all of the above when the fur starts flying.
Pat
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:44:29
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
to answer in the particular.
The desire for Dr. Bob to wait to see if posters resolve something dates way back to when I felt forced to resign, and was resolved when Dr. Bob acknowledged we were posters as well as deputies and could report things ourselves. It's still a work in progress, and we're still trying to figure out exactly what he'd do in this situation or that.
This is also a work in progress. We'll check our understanding of it against Dr. Bob's and adjust accordingly.
I didn't want to scare anyone with thoughts that we're going to do some sort of draconian crackdown because that isn't true. We're trying to be respectful and sensitive to the needs and concerns of the posters. We are posters ourselves, after all.
And I absolutely do not want to imply in any way that this is directed at any poster or group of posters. It absolutely is not. It is just a small change in policy.
After I've said so many times that deputies have to stick to the letter of the law, it didn't feel right to make a change in this without trying to explain it first.
After we've allowed an awful lot of incivility against deputies, it wouldn't feel right to start applying the civility rules without explaining first.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:53:49
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 15:39:15
> I know that administration is fully aware that many people here have had replies that made us extremely uncomfortable because we knew that a poster was intending for their post to be interpeted in a negative tone.
>
> I would pray that you are able to detect all of the above when the fur starts flying.
>
> PatIt might lead a poster to feel accused or put down to think that others interpret their motive to be to post in a negative tone. While you did not name any poster in particular, I'm going to ask you to please follow the spirit of the site guidelines.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by adelaide curtis on July 31, 2008, at 16:40:13
In reply to Please post in the spirit of site guidelines » adelaide curtis, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 14:38:29
I am allowed to "jump to conclusions" -you just do not want me to post them , here. :0)
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 16:46:33
In reply to Re: Please post in the spirit of site guidelines » Deputy Dinah, posted by adelaide curtis on July 31, 2008, at 16:40:13
Quite correct. Thank you.
Posted by Midnightblue on July 31, 2008, at 17:47:40
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
I think the thing that concerns me most, are the new guidelines for support. It sounds like if you can't agree with someone, then you shouldn't post to them at all.
There are times when a poster is suicidal, not taking medicine correctly, not eating properly, not thinking clearly, and some small measure of "tough love" is needed.
I'm not sure it is in the posters best interest to agree with them that mega doses of something (just because it feels good) is a good idea or confirm they don't need to call their doctor or go to the hospital when they are suicidal.
If I'm heading the wrong way down a one way street, I hope someone will stop me and not just nod and say, "nice to see you, so sorry you are having a bad day."
I already feel like I can't talk about my faith or give my political beliefs. Most of the time on Babble, I feel like I'm only giving about 25% of who I am. I think that is Babble's loss.
MidnightBlue
Posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 18:05:36
In reply to Re: Announcement of Policy Changes » Deputy Dinah, posted by Midnightblue on July 31, 2008, at 17:47:40
It certainly would be Babble's loss.
Midnight, we would never ask that people support a person to do anything that wasn't good for them. In saying that tough love wasn't appropriate for Babble, I didn't anything that would ordinarily be posted by you or by most Babblers familiar with Babble civility rules. I was talking about the fact that people who post something against the civility guidelines often point out that they are doing so in a form of tough love, and that is supportive. Dr. Bob acknowledges that there are times when support is intended, but that the form of support would not be appropriate for this site. I was acknowledging that someone doesn't have to have bad intent to be uncivil per site guidelines.
I'm having difficulty in expressing this properly, and I hope you continue to ask until you feel comfortable.
I don't think that any way you post now would be a problem in the future. Being supportive does not mean being in agreement with. It's possible to disagree in a civil way.
We're talking about fairly limited behaviors here.
Perhaps Dr. Bob has the right of it after all, and it's better not to say anything, just to do.
Religion and politics are tricky subjects to discuss on Babble. It's hard to talk about those topics while being respectful to those of different views. Some sites just disallow the discussion altogether. Dr. Bob allows it but with pretty strict guidelines.
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:04:30
In reply to Re: Policy Changes » Justherself54, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:31:24
> > Good questions...will this new policy address the thinly veiled sarcasm in some posts?
>
> Yes, I think it would. But there is some interpretation required in detecting sarcasm. It's possible that there are times when the deputies' interpretation may differ from the interpretation of one or more posters. And if we're not certain, we may ask for clarification or a restatement.more and more confused about how we define the pattern that is being followed in some posts.
>
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:15:39
In reply to This is all a bit difficult, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 15:44:29
> to answer in the particular.
>
> The desire for Dr. Bob to wait to see if posters resolve something dates way back to when I felt forced to resign, and was resolved when Dr. Bob acknowledged we were posters as well as deputies and could report things ourselves. It's still a work in progress, and we're still trying to figure out exactly what he'd do in this situation or thatDo you think that there is the possibility that the posters will be using babblemail and it will then erupt on the board and cause more upset among the other posters?
This sounds very iffy.
I don't suppose that Bob would come on the board and add his two cents to this discussion?
>
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:24:33
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:15:39
> > to answer in the particular.
> >
> > The desire for Dr. Bob to wait to see if posters resolve something dates way back to when I felt forced to resign, and was resolved when Dr. Bob acknowledged we were posters as well as deputies and could report things ourselves. It's still a work in progress, and we're still trying to figure out exactly what he'd do in this situation or that
>
> Do you think that there is the possibility that the posters will be using babblemail and it will then erupt on the board and cause more upset among the other posters?This would be another area where this policy might apply. Things erupting on board does not sound in keeping with the civility guidelines. Dr. Bob is in favor of encouraging people to discuss things on board, but in accordance with the civility guidelines. Wherever a confrontation starts, posts should remain civil. And uncivil babblemails should be reported to Administration off board.
> This sounds very iffy.
Posters have been asking for this. I realize it might seem different when it actually happens.
> I don't suppose that Bob would come on the board and add his two cents to this discussion?I don't suppose he would. But hope springs eternal. I think you know how I feel about Dr. Bob's presence. And about deputorial presence for that matter. I'd rather no deputies be needed because Dr. Bob was here all the time. However, he asked me to do this because he didn't think he could get to it any time soon. It would have come better from him, I think. But we're what you've got.
Posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:37:09
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:24:33
No offense was meant towards the deputies. If there was any, it was directed at our poohbah. :-)
It is what it is....Thanks, Pat
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:46:14
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 31, 2008, at 19:37:09
Thanks, Pat.
I didn't actually take any offense at anything you said.
Those remarks came straight from my heart.
No one (well, Deneb maybe) misses Dr. Bob's on board presence more than I do. I'll bet my fellow deputies agree.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 31, 2008, at 21:09:44
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:46:14
Posted by Zeba on July 31, 2008, at 22:39:19
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
How is one supposed to know what that means--the spirit vs. the letter of the law??? I have no idea what this will mean, and it seems to me that this will make things even more subjective and open to interpretation such that unpopular folk can get blocked more easily????? This does not feel good or seem to be a good solution to whatever problems there are.
I just don't understand what is/was the problem in the first place. Who cares how often someone posts or does not post. I think either is okay. I would think the only safe thing to do at this point would be to post just about myself and not comment on anything anyone else says for fear of being blocked. I guess it would be okay to answer a question. Oh well, need to go to bed as I have to get up early for therapy tomorrow.
Zeba
Posted by okydoky on July 31, 2008, at 22:53:48
In reply to Yes. I agree wholeheartedly (nm) » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on July 31, 2008, at 21:09:44
In the spirit of Dr Bobs changes in policy will we as a community now be examining the semantic meaning in the context with which the post is written as well as the pragmatic in order to conform to both the civility rule and the spirit with which it was written? Social convention or context was irrelevant in the application of the rule.
To put it crudely, what counts is not what is true or right (in some sense independent of the community of language users), but what you can get away with or get others to accept.
--------------------------------Wittgenstien
I feel there is no application toward meaningful purpose of the admin site in many instances. I feel that the civility rules are being enforced pragmatically.I mostly feel for a lot of potentially vulnerable people (we all are) getting riled up because they feel that they are being treated unjustly. Excuse me uncivilly. This is what bothers me but I do believe there is intention, it serves a purpose.
The feeling I came away with was that there was a tacit acceptance by some how the civility guidelines are applied practically and a frustration by others as language as a tool for meaning making and meaning exchange in this social context seems not to be amenable to any meaningful discussion as intent might be implied.
practical as opposed to idealistic <pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal withsocial morality K. B. Clark
---------------------------------Websters
.
Im starting to question my own use of the words I feel and my intention in the application of their use.Well maybe some of this is nonsense. I feel I tried.
Posted by Sigismund on July 31, 2008, at 23:26:18
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:46:14
I remember CS saying that part of a deputy's training back then was to assess posts for civility out of context.
Assessing intent is going to be subjective (but everything is) but taking context into account seems sensible.
Posted by Justherself54 on August 1, 2008, at 0:32:18
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by Sigismund on July 31, 2008, at 23:26:18
I think business will carry on an usual and a gentle reminder here and there can only help to keep things on track. I think if we could all speak to each other they way we would like to be spoken to, with respect...there would be far less admin sanctions.
It's the three word sarcastic zingers that could cause some problem..the tone is there but is there enough words to give a please post in the spirit, etc. For some reason these posts are the ones that bother me the most. I've seen threads on the med board that can get heated and where posters have apologized...I was happy to see that..
Enough rambling from me!
Posted by Daisym on August 1, 2008, at 1:17:36
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 31, 2008, at 19:24:33
Dinah,
Thanks for taking on this announcement. I must say that I don't understand how Bob has time to ask you to do this but not time to just write a post himself. That makes no sense.But as someone else said, it is what it is.
You have a generous spirit.
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2008, at 5:51:02
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by Daisym on August 1, 2008, at 1:17:36
Thank you, Daisy.
Don't ask me the ways of Bob. He was apparently on board last night. I am, of course, happy to see him.
Posted by Lemonaide on August 1, 2008, at 6:28:12
In reply to Announcement of Policy Changes, posted by Deputy Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 21:50:35
I thought I understood, but I think I am more confused as ever. Perhaps some made up examples to show the change?
Posted by okydoky on August 1, 2008, at 10:42:30
In reply to Re: This is all a bit difficult, posted by Justherself54 on August 1, 2008, at 0:32:18
In light of what Daisym and Justherself54 said:
I feel it is all a part of this experiment, a part which observes how or if we react.
I dont know if either of the two issues were by design or not.
I feel by posting here I have allowed myself to be an active participant in what I feel is a disrespectful use of behavioral science with respect to the participants. But perhaps it is for the greater good. And mostly perhaps no one really gives a hoot what I feel :)
I have used the medication board as a resource, and I am most thankful to those that have helped me and to the experiment that made it possible.I checked out information on group social dynamics or other applicable search terms on the internet. Here are a couple I feel had applicable information (I have no background or knowledge on the topic)
http://hsd.soc.cornell.edu/curricular/axelrod_evolution_cooperation.pdf
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Social_Psychology/Introduction (The concerns of social psychology, Research ethics, External links )The American Association for Technology in Psychiatry had their 2008 annual meeting in May. One workshop was COMPUTER-MEDIATED RELATIONSHIPS: BLOGS,
ONLINE COMMUNITIES, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS
American Association for Technology in Psychiatry
Chp.: Robert C. Hsiung, M.D.
Participants: Steven Daviss, M.D., Jerald Block, M.DBut you have to pay to belong to read it. Has anyone on the site read it? I feel it would be interesting for us. I see DR Bob posts on the site what and where his talks are but not their content.
If you actually read this whole thing, thanks. I apologize for not being concise in my writing.
A kind and caring Community. I thank all of you.
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.