Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: subjectivity and parole

Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 10:18:19

In reply to Re: subjectivity and parole, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2002, at 9:13:27


To me, there seems to be two types of "PBC" warnings.

Ones where people are blatantly mean, disrespectful, call people names etc. There really is no room for argument there. I mean, there is no "suportive" way to call someone an asshole, or a whiner, or stupid. People get frustrated and sound off and usually regret it, know they could have handled it better but instead let themselves get heated. You know, the kinda stuff you wouldn't say on the street to a person twice your size that could kick your ass. These are clear violations and do absolutely nothing to foster a sense of safety or community. PBCs are in order and then blocks, if people can't get their act together.

Then there are the PBCs where IMO it is more about miscommunication, misunderstanding, people being overly sensitive/assuming the worst, etc.

If I type "Nice one buddy" to someone, I could mean it sarcastically, or I could mean they did a good job. Simply because someone else takes it negatively doesn't mean I meant it negatively. I think these type of posts need intervention of behalf of a moderator - YOU - to simply point out that INTENT might not be clear, and to rephrase their post. Maybe PRT (Please Rephrase That) rather than PBC, since some people honestly believe they are being civil.
This way, you don't assume that a person is being unsupportive, but you do help ensure that what they are typing matches what should be intended (support). I just think that blocking people for miscommunicating takes away from the sense of community because other people read something as supportive, you deem it unsupportive and then there is bad feelings toward the supportee and it's just a mess.

Would it be so bad to give people a chance to rephrase things that may/may not be supportive? I think it might help everyone understand what supportive language IS, rather than simply what supportive language ISN'T. Encouraging, vs. discouraging, you know? I think you're right to look from the perspective of the supportee, but the person requiring support can change from one post to the next depending on the flow of the thread.

When I refer to group sessions, I simply mean that it would take something pretty blatant and dysfunctional to get kicked out of the room. But if someone said something that could be taken a couple different ways, the moderator usually asks them to rephrase it or better explain. Kinda gets everyone working together.

Maybe I am in LaLa land, but discussions, online or otherwise, aren't always text book, and sometimes simply taking the time to say something twice, let's the conversation (and therefore support) develop that much further.

I am on a role because I had therapy this morning and I only have 20 days left of work before heading back to graduate school. My productivity at work is at an all time low, so this poor board gets to benefit from all this extra time on my hands! Hahah

-L


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lini thread:5995
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6090.html