![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by BayLeaf on June 17, 2009, at 21:01:48
In reply to archives show years of our thoughts on this matter (nm) » SLS, posted by zenhussy on June 17, 2009, at 12:14:46
about a decades worth! :-)
Posted by BayLeaf on June 17, 2009, at 21:06:31
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » zenhussy, posted by SLS on June 17, 2009, at 12:11:41
"While you are here..."
whatcha mean? ya think zen's going somewhere?? I can't imagine why you'd say such a thing? Zen is an ever present member of this community! :-)
bay
Posted by fayeroe on June 17, 2009, at 21:21:17
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » SLS, posted by BayLeaf on June 17, 2009, at 21:06:31
> "While you are here..."
>
> whatcha mean? ya think zen's going somewhere?? I can't imagine why you'd say such a thing? Zen is an ever present member of this community! :-)
>
> bayI noticed that..of course Zen isn't going anywhere. I wonder what brought that on?
Posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 5:32:47
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » BayLeaf, posted by fayeroe on June 17, 2009, at 21:21:17
> > "While you are here..."
> >
> > whatcha mean? ya think zen's going somewhere?? I can't imagine why you'd say such a thing? Zen is an ever present member of this community! :-)
> >
> > bay
>
> I noticed that..of course Zen isn't going anywhere. I wonder what brought that on?
>Do I really have to explain that it is a figure of speech?
My efforts here are sincere, if not, perhaps misguided.
Thanks.
The archives are yesterday.
This thread is today, as yesterday no longer has much influence.
Tomorrow might be different than today because of today.
So far, I don't see that many people actually want to participate seriously in these discussions, so perhaps we should just "let things go"?
Personally, I do well in either type of environment - moderated or unmoderated. However, I prefer a moderated environment because it provides for a higher percentage of on topic discourse and less vulgar flaming. Something about Psycho-Babble is wrong, though, and I was thinking that it might be worth the effort to discover what that is. For me, evidence that there is something wrong with Psycho-Babble is that droves of good people left within months of the advent of the rules of civility.
Unfortunately, a sizable portion of the community is NOT here to participate in this thread as many members do not visit Administration.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 6:23:10
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 5:32:47
To look at things from another angle:
Which of the current rules should be abandoned?
- Scott
Posted by Frustratedmama on June 18, 2009, at 8:23:55
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 6:23:10
I was wondering if this was an infraction? someone posted this in response to me earlier in the year and it still bothers me......
"A way has been revealed to me that could open a new life where you could sing a new song. You could have a new heart and a new spirit and a new mind, not like the one that you describe here, but one of peace and joy.
It has been revealed to me that there is a great gulf separating two worlds, one side the world of death and another side the world of life and peace. And it has been revealed to me that one can break on through to the other side."It was in response to feelings of suicide- I assumed the poster wanted me to go through with it- which might be the right choice at this time. I keep myself alive though for the sake of my child- but every time I read this post I wonder....
Posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 8:35:58
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by Frustratedmama on June 18, 2009, at 8:23:55
> It was in response to feelings of suicide- I assumed the poster wanted me to go through with it- which might be the right choice at this time. I keep myself alive though for the sake of my child- but every time I read this post I wonder....
I'm certainly glad you didn't hurt yourself. I don't care what your motivations were. For what it's worth, in my way of thinking, I'm not sure that there is much guarantee of anything except for what exists in the moment, including joy and peace. I'll let the moderators (called "deputies" on this website) suggest how you should handle this sort of thing and where best to locate this post.
Thanks for your input.
- Scott
Posted by floatingbridge on June 18, 2009, at 21:41:19
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by Frustratedmama on June 18, 2009, at 8:23:55
Some infractions, IMHO:
Bullying (not strong opinion, mind you)
Encouraging or condoning suicide or other self-harming
Hate speech
Basic incivility (personal attacks)
I'm here because there is a high quality (information, civility) to the posting and because it is moderated. Unmoderated boards can devolve to a real free-for-all.
Candace
Posted by rjlockhart04-08 on June 18, 2009, at 23:35:40
In reply to Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 14:49:51
Can I tell Racer, is she still here? what happened....throught a vortex going through "this time.....boom! where am i?"
This poster was the most valued, in my case of ever being here. And ready to make some bent belief's straight, because there was stuff hitting the fan, 2006, 2007...2008. Eventaully that "person" who is "You", evolves, throw's all the residue of the past in the trash. Yet, you know all about, where you born, due! yet, the turmoil that was caused in a distress for help for someone to be there, couldnt take place even through it was "being made" by posters. Evacuation Sequence, back in 2006 failed. You know that movie Alien, if she didnt get out of that ship...., glad she wasnt me. Adios and Muchacho's! Should of left everything behind, forgot about it.
So is this reiencforing stronger rules of, everyone knows my writing, yet, back a couple years ago....it was diffrent through the brain, metaphorhizied into a better form. DNA adaption.
You know i'll post stuff, then...??? no one awnser's, well at least it was wonderful info for people to read, say "naaa" next post.
Deputy Rjlockhart?
after me Deputy Racer make up?
Racer......come back!
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:24:39
In reply to Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 14:49:51
Infractions:
1. Actual words, not intent. In therapy, people learn that they can't mind read. One shouldn't have to mind read here.
2. Sarcasm directed towards a person. Sarcasm is easy to detect. Sarcasm employs actual words. Therefore, #2 is in line with #1.
3. Encouragement of suicidal behaviors, self-injurious behavior.
When an argument breaks out, what should happen? As Deputy Dinah did, so we should do: immediately move the argument over to administration (or a board specifically for hashing things out). As soon as someone has made a move to do that, no one should be able to continue to make comments about it after the fact in the main boards, and especially not as side notes in a message that is primarily not about the argument.
> Hopefully, the diplomatic talents of the moderators will obviate the need for giving warnings and enforcing rules by imposing blocks. However, there are bound to be some posting behaviors that will be in the best interests of the Psycho-Babble community to proscribe.
>
> The current punitive system might not be well conceived, but we can defer that issue for another thread.
>
> What posting behaviors do you think should constitute sanctionable infractions?
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 12:27:58
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » SLS, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:24:39
> Infractions:
>
> 1. Actual words, not intent. In therapy, people learn that they can't mind read. One shouldn't have to mind read here.
>
> 2. Sarcasm directed towards a person. Sarcasm is easy to detect. Sarcasm employs actual words. Therefore, #2 is in line with #1.
I don't understand how one could possibly detect sarcasm without some supposition of the writer's intent. From where I sit, that sets #2 in opposition to #1.gg
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 21, 2009, at 19:52:14
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 12:27:58
Oh, you're right. Sarcasm is *so* hard to detect.
(My tone of voice for demonstrative purposes only and not for offense).
> > Infractions:
> >
> > 1. Actual words, not intent. In therapy, people learn that they can't mind read. One shouldn't have to mind read here.
> >
> > 2. Sarcasm directed towards a person. Sarcasm is easy to detect. Sarcasm employs actual words. Therefore, #2 is in line with #1.
>
>
> I don't understand how one could possibly detect sarcasm without some supposition of the writer's intent. From where I sit, that sets #2 in opposition to #1.
>
> gg
Posted by SLS on June 21, 2009, at 20:13:01
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 21, 2009, at 19:52:14
> Oh, you're right. Sarcasm is *so* hard to detect.
>
> (My tone of voice for demonstrative purposes only and not for offense).Sarcasm is sort of like a pornography. It is hard to define for legal purposes, but I know it when I see it.
It really is a tough call, but Dr. Bob seems to make sarcasm one of his pet peeves. I guess he feels that he knows it when he sees it, too.
Unless the sarcasm is completely undisguised, it is difficult to pull out any one sentence from a post as an example of the sarcasm contained within it. Yet, it is sarcasm that can sometimes cut the deepest.
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 20:41:19
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 21, 2009, at 19:52:14
My point is that you can't have #1 and #2. You can't have it both ways. If you indeed want to only consider the words themselves, then you cannot make assumptions or inferences about tone and/or intent.
gg
Posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2009, at 21:39:17
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 20:41:19
An example for me is that being from CT originally and now being in the South what up North wasn't sarcasm there but is here. Constanting insulting my husband but that is not the intent. Boy if again up there don't think I could again spar every conversation. We use hands up there too down here none. Phillipa
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 0:54:07
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 20:41:19
I got what you meant. My point, by example, is that words have connotative and denotative meaning. So #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive, at all.
> My point is that you can't have #1 and #2. You can't have it both ways. If you indeed want to only consider the words themselves, then you cannot make assumptions or inferences about tone and/or intent.
>
> gg
>
Posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2009, at 1:18:53
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 0:54:07
> I got what you meant. My point, by example, is that words have connotative and denotative meaning. So #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive, at all.
And so if I were to reply with something like, "Gosh, you're so smart", how would you determine whether I am being sarcastic or sincere using just the words themselves?
gg
>
> > My point is that you can't have #1 and #2. You can't have it both ways. If you indeed want to only consider the words themselves, then you cannot make assumptions or inferences about tone and/or intent.
> >
> > gg
> >
>
>
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 2:16:40
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2009, at 1:18:53
If you replied with that statement only, just "Gosh you're so smart," that would be sarcasm. Who uses "gosh" any more without serious emoticon action?
Gosh, this is fun.
^ Sarcasm or not?
> > I got what you meant. My point, by example, is that words have connotative and denotative meaning. So #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive, at all.
>
> And so if I were to reply with something like, "Gosh, you're so smart", how would you determine whether I am being sarcastic or sincere using just the words themselves?
>
> gg
>
>
> >
> > > My point is that you can't have #1 and #2. You can't have it both ways. If you indeed want to only consider the words themselves, then you cannot make assumptions or inferences about tone and/or intent.
> > >
> > > gg
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 4:29:41
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 2:16:40
> If you replied with that statement only, just "Gosh you're so smart," that would be sarcasm. Who uses "gosh" any more without serious emoticon action?
ME!!!
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 5:13:09
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 20:41:19
> My point is that you can't have #1 and #2. You can't have it both ways. If you indeed want to only consider the words themselves, then you cannot make assumptions or inferences about tone and/or intent.
>
> gg
>Do you feel that sarcasm should be judged as being uncivil when it is putting down another person? Can such sarcasm be identified and demonstrated as being such for the community so as to justify the earning of a PBC or block? Some sarcastic attacks and put-downs are very obvious to me, but are difficult to prove as being such by pulling out any one sentence for identification.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 5:24:13
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 5:13:09
Should it be an infraction to call attention to one poster that they might have been uncivil to another poster? I guess any such behavior can be looked at as an accusation. If so, then the only way to accomplish the same thing is to notify administration. That seems reasonable.
Will administration hear the complaints of a poster if he is acting as a third party?
- Scott
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 8:13:54
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 5:24:13
> Will administration hear the complaints of a poster if he is acting as a third party?
Yes, definitely. Dr. Bob encourages posters to use the notification system, although depending on circumstances, deputies may wait to see if posters work it out between themselves.
Sarcasm can be difficult to determine. I know there have been times when people have been sure I am being sarcastic when I am not. Perhaps posters could ask for clarification if they are unsure of intent? Civilly and with, to paraphrase Alex, the most charitable assumptions possible?
Dr. Bob has been asking for posters to encourage each other to apologize lately, and that does leave the poster attempting this at the risk of being uncivil themselves. From what guidance he has given us, Dr. Bob has more in mind the idea that posters would say something like "I like to have you around here, and would hate to see you blocked." rather than something like "You know, that was terribly uncivil, could you please apologize."
I foresee problems even with that since, unless the poster has stated in his post that he believes there is a possibility that he will be blocked for his post, there is perhaps an implied accusation? It could be done of course, but with care to the civility guidelines and sensitivity and respect to the poster.
There is also the possibility that it will not be particularly well received.
I think there is some middle ground too, where posters can explain what they believe to be a misunderstanding (My reading of xxx's post was that they meant this, not that.). I think posters already do that.
I hope this clarifies, and Dr. Bob is of course free to correct any misinterpretations on my part.
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 12:14:00
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 4:29:41
Ahhhh! Gosh, I love that. Huh. You have inspired me to use "gosh." I just used gosh. In a nonironic, nonsarcastic way. Huzzah!
> > If you replied with that statement only, just "Gosh you're so smart," that would be sarcasm. Who uses "gosh" any more without serious emoticon action?
>
> ME!!!
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Phillipa on June 22, 2009, at 20:10:38
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 2:16:40
I use gosh all the time and it's not sarcasm it's just a word I use. Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on June 22, 2009, at 20:43:09
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by Phillipa on June 22, 2009, at 20:10:38
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.