![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 71. Go back in thread:
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:14:03
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 20:36:25
> To my knowledge no changes have been made since the new rules went into effect, and the information given to you by the deputy is correct.Which was you by the way
> I believe it's the specific reasons for the PDNP request that are supposed to be communicated to Dr. Bob or the deputies, I guess, off board.This is NOT what the official rules say at all, nothing about privately. I think I have made my point. How a deputy be one if you don't know the rules and you make your own version of them? Then they get upset when the poster complain about it. This is a perfect example.
> I feel a bit pressured re the response time. Please don't pressure deputies or post negative conclusions you may have come to as to the reasons answers aren't immediately forthcoming, even if a deputy has visited the board. There can be many. A deputy might be consulting with other deputies or Dr. Bob, a deputy might have time to answer some posts but not all, a deputy might be thinking of how to word a reply, a deputy might feel another deputy or even a knowledgeable poster might be better able to answer a question, a deputy may not always read every post on a board they visit at any given visit or even at all. Nor does a deputy have a requirement to read every post or answer every question. Dr. Bob has said that a civil reminder can be given if no response is received within a couple of days.
>
> Or a deputy might be doing the work they are paid for, or spending time with their families, or spending free time on or off the board.
Posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 21:15:49
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:14:03
I can't imagine why I'd tell you anything other than what I just told you, and what is in the FAQ. If I did, then I'm sorry. As far as I know this has been the rule since Dr Bob changed it.
Posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 21:19:51
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:14:03
To my eyes, the FAQ says exactly what I did.
"#
Ask them not to post to you anymore by replying to that post with the "add name of previous poster" box checked. Please be civil when you do so; "please don't post to me" is enough.
#Contact me and the deputy administrators to let us know why that post makes you feel harassed and, since this should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation. We'll post a reply if we're going to enforce your request. We may also decide their post isn't civil, but that's a separate issue.
#If we decide to enforce your request, save its URL and if they post to you after that, contact us again with the URLs of your request and their new post to you."
It says to contact "us" (Admin) with the reasons, what you've done to resolve it, and with any violations. I'm sorry if I worded my response in such a way that didn't sound like what I meant to say.
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:22:24
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 21:15:49
Then it should be in the f*cking official rules then. I am sick of the "implied rules", which are all different according to what deputy you are talking to.
Are posted recepit of DNP suppose to be made publicaly? Is this something new, not in the rules either?
Yet we can't say anything publically to defend ourselves on DNP made publically because we can't even mention it or we get blocked.
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:29:32
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 21:19:51
You said it that DNP needed to be done off the boards, that is what you said in the above post, and that is what you told me months ago. You also told me that my orginal DNP I issued (which I want reinstate) to Deneb)was no longer valid becaue of the new rules. You told me Dr/ Bob would have to deem it nessary to have a DNP honored. Plus I got blocked for even mentioning online that I wanted a DNP enforced, made with clips and everything. At that time we could make those requests on the boards. But I got blocked anyways.
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:37:42
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:29:32
Posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 20:36:25
This is what you said to me many times:I believe it's the specific reasons for the PDNP request that are supposed to be communicated to Dr. Bob or the deputies, I guess, off board
This is what the official rules say:
rather lines of communication stayed open, but if that's not possible, you can, as a last resort, ask another poster not to post to you anymore. If you think you need to do that, follow these steps:
Identify a post by them to you that makes you feel harassed.
Ask them not to post to you anymore by replying to that post with the "add name of previous poster" box checked. Please be civil when you do so; "please don't post to me" is enough.
Contact me and the deputy administrators to let us know why that post makes you feel harassed and, since this should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation. We'll post a reply if we're going to enforce your request. We may also decide their post isn't civil, but that's a separate issue.
If we decide to enforce your request, save its URL and if they post to you after that, contact us again with the URLs of your request and their new post to you.
If you post to them, it's OK for them to post to you in response. Your request stays in effect unless you change your mind, which you may do at any time (and are encouraged to do at some time to reopen lines of communication).
Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to a post by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.
Posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 21:47:58
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:29:32
No, I said that the *reasons* for the PDNP should be done off boards, which is what's in the rules and what I likely said months ago. I said that violations should be reported off the boards, which is what is in the rules and what I likely said months ago.
I am sorry again if I am phrasing myself poorly, but I've done the best I can. I don't see how my continuing this discussion can be helpful to you. If you wish further clarification, perhaps Mel, Racer, Dr. Bob, or a helpful poster can be more helpful to you than I apparently have been.
Since my answers do not appear to be helpful to you, perhaps it would be best for me to defer to Mel, Racer, Dr. Bob, or a knowledgeable poster.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 22, 2007, at 22:24:09
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 21:47:58
You're not phrasing poorly. And Happyflower posted exactly the same info from the FAQ as you did. I admire your stamina with this, Dinah.
Namaste
gg
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:35:54
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Happyflower, posted by Dinah on April 22, 2007, at 20:36:25
Why was I told I had to get Dr. Bob approval under the new rules,that my DNP that I made under the old rules were not valid any longer since the rules have changed, that we can't simply just request a DNP, it had to have valid reasons approved by Dr. Bob. and these requests were to be made privately, not just the reasons for, but the requests themselves, this is what I was told by a deputy. I swear on the bible and whatever you hold dear to you that this is the truth.
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:43:03
In reply to Why was my DNP not honored then?, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:35:54
I know in my heart what was said, and I am very disapointed in this place.
I will just leave, for real, I have had enough.
If you want a joke about abuse, and allow others to threaten you with sucide if you don't talk to them, without any protection, then this is the place to be.Jokes about animal cruelity is NEVER okay anywhere. I give up
Posted by gardenergirl on April 22, 2007, at 22:44:26
In reply to Re: Lack of timely response » Dinah, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 21:22:24
> Yet we can't say anything publicly to defend ourselves on DNP made publicly because we can't even mention it or we get blocked.
I know this topic has come up before, so at the risk of being redundant...There's no need with a PDP to have to defend anything. A PDP does not mean that the other person did anything wrong or is a bad person. A poster requests a PDP as a coping strategy for themselves. Why would anyone have to defend against what another person does for their own wellbeing?
Namaste
gg
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:51:55
In reply to on 2nd thought just forget it, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:43:03
I would rather be burned with lightbulbs,whipped until my flesh is broken, attemted to be drowned, and tortured daily like my past life than spend anymore time here.
Yeah, lets joke about putting forks in the eyeballs of cats, soooo funny!
Yeah lets all get together and tell rape jokes because it is soooo funny. Lets all tell how to abuse a child, it is sooooooo funny. Lets tell jokes about being tortured or gunned down, it is sooooooo funny, isnt' it?Is a joke really just a harmless form of entertainment here. Oh yeah, just kidding, all of this is a joke and I did put a trigger warning on it so it should be allowed.
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:53:29
In reply to 'Defending' PDP's, posted by gardenergirl on April 22, 2007, at 22:44:26
Oh, upset by my above post, then if you are sensitive to triggers , you shouldn't have read it. See how well that works?
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:57:26
In reply to Re: 'Defending' PDP's, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:53:29
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:29:25
In reply to Good bye, please do not ever post to me ever (nm), posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:57:26
Oh, yeah, if I kill myself over this, you can all be happy-babblers, but don't worry I won't blame you even if that would be allowed on this site.
So tell me NOW, you don't want me to die!Oh, WHATEVER!
I don't give a F*CK
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:31:09
In reply to Re: Good bye, please do not ever post to me ever, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:29:25
Like I even care
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:44:28
In reply to oh, I forgot here is a f*cking trigger warning, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:31:09
ohhh, I am joking by the way and I think it is f*cking funny too. I dont' even care if I am blocked. I deserved it a long time ago, it just shows how some are treated better than other, me included. lol
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:51:37
In reply to Re: oh, I forgot here is a f*cking trigger warning, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:44:28
I even got 2 warnings today, did Verne get that? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! This proves a point here! Tooo many decision are way too subjective ones.
Posted by Racer on April 23, 2007, at 0:48:01
In reply to Re: Good bye, please do not ever post to me ever, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:29:25
> Oh, yeah, if I kill myself over this, you can all be happy-babblers, but don't worry I won't blame you even if that would be allowed on this site.
> So tell me NOW, you don't want me to die!
>
> Oh, WHATEVER!
>
> I don't give a F*CKPlease don't post threats of violence, whether it be against yourself or others.
I'm going to block you now, but I'll leave it to Dr Bob to determine the length.
Racer, acting as deputy to Dr Bob
Posted by zazenducke on April 23, 2007, at 8:59:48
In reply to *trigger*, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:51:55
you're worth more than all the jokes ever written
i'm sorry you were blocked when you are in such distress
i am sorry if the block is adding another blow to someone that has had more than she ever ever deserved
i am sorry people you trusted abandoned you or hurt you
i am sorry that at a time you needed comfort and compassion and understanding you didn't get it
i am sorry i can't do anything to make it up to you
i hope you are okay
you are a grown up now and you survived and are making a great life for yourself now. don't forget that. hope you enjoy your babble vacation!
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
In reply to So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 7:09:57
There have been questions raised here that have not been answered, and I'm going to add some more.
1. What is the status of old DNPs?
Current guidelines require administrative acknowledgement before enforcement, if I read the current rules correctly. What verification process applies to older events? Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable? Do the new rules apply retroactively?
So, what is the status of other old DNPs? Are they void? What is the cut-off date of the new rule? Why isn't this subject addressed in the FAQ?
2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?I do not read every post on every board every day, and I've seen concurrent threads on different boards between the same two posters, one culminating in a DNP. There is no assurance the DNP was read. Why is there no requirement to post a proper notice of such a request, perhaps in some place specifically designated for these? (Redirect?) Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request? Or for the administrative validation to be posted somewhere special? The way the boards archive, it's quite possible to miss a DNP. Trust me. Go away for a few months, and who knows what's in the archives.
3. Why isn't the harassment issue a required element of the request, in practise?Any dictionary I consult invokes concepts such as "repeated" or "persistent" in the definition of harassment. I do not see this rule being used as a shield. I see it used as a weapon. Two parties engage, and anger ensues. Wham! No evidence of repeated or persistent anything. Just anger.
I believe that if and only if a request to disengage is ignored should a DNP even be considered. Two people butting heads is not harassment, but that's when you see these things flying around. They are tantamount to blocks issued by posters, rather than by administrators. Censorship should not be in the hands of the posting population.
It clearly says that a poster seeking a DNP must demonstrate what steps have been taken to address the situation. I would think, therefore, that those steps must be in the context of the situation, rather than an entire history of interaction. If someone has upset you in the past, then why are you opening their posts? Under the "how can I help enforce these policies" section of the FAQ, it says, "After that, it will be up to you to deal in some other way with those posts, for example, by not reading them." Right there, you have the solution, as a possible "step taken".
Under these circumstances, administratively validated DNPs should be very rare.
4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?Any poster can throw down a DNP. That does not serve as evidence for a violation, but only an allegation thereof.
If a poster continues to post after a request to disengage, *that* could be construed as evidence for harassment. But not the first request itself, surely. Notice must be a required element, but only part of a sequence which culminates in an enforceable DNP. And, if the DNP is not validated, it should be entirely voided.
5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?
6. Why isn't a time limit applicable?Even murderers get out of jail, in real life. Sentences expire.
7. What happens if either of the parties changes posting names?
I saw a justification for DNPs as a coping strategy, one requiring no external validation. Well, that would be fine if that person's coping strategy had no consequences for others. I do not consider an externalized regulation of another's rights as not also requiring external validity. That's the whole thing about an external control of a third party, it always requires evidence. And, notwithstanding what a deputy says, the FAQ requires it.What a person does for their own wellbeing must first depend on internal locus of control. Making choices about environments frequented, posters to avoid, etc. It even says so, in the FAQ: "...since this (a DNP) should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation."
Harassment, and steps taken, are required elements, in the FAQ. I don't see "not liking somebody". The whole rule is so subjective, I cannot see how it can be made to work fairly. Feelings alone are not evidence of harassment. The civility guidelines are our umbrella. If a post is civil, how can a person attract further consequences, absent both harassment *and* steps taken?
I believe the rule itself to be fatally flawed, and all my questions are in the context of, "if we must have this rule, then what are the regulatory parameters?" Calling a rule a shield, then permitting it to be used as a weapon, is the flaw, IMHO. It encourages posters to lash out, and to hold grudges. It externalizes subjective interpretation. The reason there are so many issues is because it's a bad rule.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2007, at 11:29:53
In reply to Re: So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
> There have been questions raised here that have not been answered, and I'm going to add some more.
>
> 1. What is the status of old DNPs?
>
> Current guidelines require administrative acknowledgement before enforcement, if I read the current rules correctly. What verification process applies to older events? Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable? Do the new rules apply retroactively?
>
> So, what is the status of other old DNPs? Are they void? What is the cut-off date of the new rule? Why isn't this subject addressed in the FAQ?
>
>
> 2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?
>
> I do not read every post on every board every day, and I've seen concurrent threads on different boards between the same two posters, one culminating in a DNP. There is no assurance the DNP was read. Why is there no requirement to post a proper notice of such a request, perhaps in some place specifically designated for these? (Redirect?) Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request? Or for the administrative validation to be posted somewhere special? The way the boards archive, it's quite possible to miss a DNP. Trust me. Go away for a few months, and who knows what's in the archives.
>
>
> 3. Why isn't the harassment issue a required element of the request, in practise?
>
> Any dictionary I consult invokes concepts such as "repeated" or "persistent" in the definition of harassment. I do not see this rule being used as a shield. I see it used as a weapon. Two parties engage, and anger ensues. Wham! No evidence of repeated or persistent anything. Just anger.
>
> I believe that if and only if a request to disengage is ignored should a DNP even be considered. Two people butting heads is not harassment, but that's when you see these things flying around. They are tantamount to blocks issued by posters, rather than by administrators. Censorship should not be in the hands of the posting population.
>
> It clearly says that a poster seeking a DNP must demonstrate what steps have been taken to address the situation. I would think, therefore, that those steps must be in the context of the situation, rather than an entire history of interaction. If someone has upset you in the past, then why are you opening their posts? Under the "how can I help enforce these policies" section of the FAQ, it says, "After that, it will be up to you to deal in some other way with those posts, for example, by not reading them." Right there, you have the solution, as a possible "step taken".
>
> Under these circumstances, administratively validated DNPs should be very rare.
>
>
> 4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?
>
> Any poster can throw down a DNP. That does not serve as evidence for a violation, but only an allegation thereof.
>
> If a poster continues to post after a request to disengage, *that* could be construed as evidence for harassment. But not the first request itself, surely. Notice must be a required element, but only part of a sequence which culminates in an enforceable DNP. And, if the DNP is not validated, it should be entirely voided.
>
>
> 5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?
>
>
> 6. Why isn't a time limit applicable?
>
> Even murderers get out of jail, in real life. Sentences expire.
>
>
> 7. What happens if either of the parties changes posting names?
>
>
> I saw a justification for DNPs as a coping strategy, one requiring no external validation. Well, that would be fine if that person's coping strategy had no consequences for others. I do not consider an externalized regulation of another's rights as not also requiring external validity. That's the whole thing about an external control of a third party, it always requires evidence. And, notwithstanding what a deputy says, the FAQ requires it.
>
> What a person does for their own wellbeing must first depend on internal locus of control. Making choices about environments frequented, posters to avoid, etc. It even says so, in the FAQ: "...since this (a DNP) should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation."
>
> Harassment, and steps taken, are required elements, in the FAQ. I don't see "not liking somebody". The whole rule is so subjective, I cannot see how it can be made to work fairly. Feelings alone are not evidence of harassment. The civility guidelines are our umbrella. If a post is civil, how can a person attract further consequences, absent both harassment *and* steps taken?
>
> I believe the rule itself to be fatally flawed, and all my questions are in the context of, "if we must have this rule, then what are the regulatory parameters?" Calling a rule a shield, then permitting it to be used as a weapon, is the flaw, IMHO. It encourages posters to lash out, and to hold grudges. It externalizes subjective interpretation. The reason there are so many issues is because it's a bad rule.
>
> LarFriends,
It is written here,[...Censorship...this rule...]
If anyone would like to discuss this by email with me, they could email me if they like. In my discussion, I would like to discuss:
A. the origin of the rule
B. the purpose that could be seen for the rule
C. the historical parallels to the rule
D. the origin of the qualification to the rule
E. are there any psychological/emotional aspects to the issuer and/or the recipient of the rule?
F. how the rule is good for the community as a whole
G. how the rule is more helpfull
H. how the rule is reasonable
J. could there or could there not be alternatives to the rule to accomplish the same purpose?
K. other relevant concerns about the rule
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Racer on April 23, 2007, at 13:11:01
In reply to Re: So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
I'm the newest of the active deputies, so I can't answer all of the questions. I will answer the few that I know, however.
> 1. What is the status of old DNPs?
>
> Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable?All she'd have to do is to post the DNP request again, and inform Dr Bob and the deputies. It would be helpful to have a link to the offending post in the private message to Dr Bob and the deputies, but it needn't be posted on the board. In fact, it really shouldn't be posted on the board.
> 2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?
>
>Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request?Only Dr Bob has access to registration information for people who post here. The deputies cannot email anyone, we can only use Babblemail if it's turned on. Therefore, while it would be nice to have notifications sent, we do not have the ability to do so.
>
> 4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?I think it's probably worth erring on the side of caution here, and just not posting to someone who has asked you not to. (That's the general "you," not you-meaning-Larry) If the DNP is validated, and you've continued to post to the person who requested it, that does tend to show a bit of support for the need for a DNP request, n'est pas?
>
>
> 5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?I think this has been addressed, although I don't recall what the official penalties might be. Generally, there are limits here regarding complaints of any sort against other Babblers. There are rules regarding how many times you can report another Babbler's posts, if those posts are found acceptable. I'm not sure what Dr Bob has decided on regarding DNPs, but I'm sure he has limits on them, as well. It is his hope that a DNP is the last resort, and is only used if nothing else has resolved the conflicts between two Babblers.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 23, 2007, at 16:32:12
In reply to Re: So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
...and it's a problem that someone has been asked not to post to one specific poster????
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 17:19:27
In reply to 11K users have posted..., posted by gardenergirl on April 23, 2007, at 16:32:12
...and someone has a problem with avoiding posts by a single poster????
How useful was this exchange?
How about answering the questions posed?
Lar
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.