![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Greg on January 28, 2001, at 16:40:57
Bob,
Are you in all seriousness going to ban (even temporarily) Cam from this site? You know as well as anyone how this man has given so freely of his time and expertise to 100's of people at this site over the years, never asking for anything in return from you or anyone else. He simply chose to say what most of us were thinking. I thought one of the reasons PBA was created was so issues like these could be hashed out without interferring with the PB and PSB boards. I saw nothing terribly out of line with what he wrote, I have in fact seen you let others get away with MUCH worse. I am one of those people.
I ask you to reconsider your decision to do this. You are not just punishing him, but the rest of us who love and care about a very special man. There are some of us here who are fortunate enough to be able to interact with Cam at another website, but many more here aren't. Please do the right thing and re-instate him immediately.
I hope if others share this viewpoint you'll make your feeling known.
Greg
Posted by tina on January 28, 2001, at 17:35:41
In reply to Bob, are you serious???, posted by Greg on January 28, 2001, at 16:40:57
Dr. Bob
What he said! Ditto.
> Bob,
>
> Are you in all seriousness going to ban (even temporarily) Cam from this site? You know as well as anyone how this man has given so freely of his time and expertise to 100's of people at this site over the years, never asking for anything in return from you or anyone else. He simply chose to say what most of us were thinking. I thought one of the reasons PBA was created was so issues like these could be hashed out without interferring with the PB and PSB boards. I saw nothing terribly out of line with what he wrote, I have in fact seen you let others get away with MUCH worse. I am one of those people.
>
> I ask you to reconsider your decision to do this. You are not just punishing him, but the rest of us who love and care about a very special man. There are some of us here who are fortunate enough to be able to interact with Cam at another website, but many more here aren't. Please do the right thing and re-instate him immediately.
>
> I hope if others share this viewpoint you'll make your feeling known.
>
> Greg
Posted by name on January 28, 2001, at 18:09:17
In reply to Bob, are you serious???, posted by Greg on January 28, 2001, at 16:40:57
Though the administrator conditionally suggested a person might be blocked, I have not found a post that says the person in question was blocked. Not to say that is not what is going on, but I don’t want to reinforce an idea that something happened if it didn’t happen.
That said, I was going to say when I read the administrator’s posts at msg/360 and msg/354, that the person in question had already posted a self-moderating message, at msg/350. I suppose that is just an inherent flaw of asynchronous communication, that a person who moderated their own stance will then be sanctioned about something for which they have already expressed apology. (I didn’t post to that effect when I noticed it, mostly to minimize whatever arousal or dissonance might follow a wordy but well-intended post. But since you asked…)
Intervening on-line, and publicly blocking people has both advantages and disadvantages, as cited in the Cyberpsych article. But when a person is posting under their real identity, and is discussing matters in the area of their professional expertise, the disadvantages can be exacerbated. Whether this discussion is research, practice, project or well-intended public service, public censures and the blocking of another professional approaches the measure of risk forewarned against in human research guidelines, in that it potentially can effect their professional status.
I advocate against the technique of publicly expelling group members. I believe the administrator’s admitted naivete is not limited to the technical difficulties of on-line expulsion. In one study, administrators who had no formal training in on-line education, and those who had taught fewer than five on-line courses, were more likely to prefer expulsion as a means of keeping discussion on topic.
In an study titled “Keeping Online Asynchronous Discussions on Topic” 135 online instructors surveyed rated expulsion of offenders as the least used and least recommended among 13 techniques suggested for that purpose.
The Beaudin study was specifically of asynchronous on-line forums in support of distance learning projects. However, the void of available information about administration of on-line self-help educational forums might encourage administrators to look at related genres in search of the best techniques for keeping things on track in their specific genre of on-line education.
In the Beaudin study, the most highly rated techniques were to carefully design questions that specifically elicit on-topic discussion and to provide guidelines to help online learners prepare on-topic responses. An adaptation of those techniques applied at a similar site has been cited elsewhere in this first PBA page.
If this is not altogether clear, I am sticking up for the person in question, and maintaining my plea for better guidelines to help participants here keep themselves and each other on topic. :-)
The Beadin study is posted at: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue2/beaudin.htm
Posted by tina on January 28, 2001, at 20:03:07
In reply to Moving toward the best, posted by name on January 28, 2001, at 18:09:17
God, grant me the serenity...............yada yada yada
> Though the administrator conditionally suggested a person might be blocked, I have not found a post that says the person in question was blocked. Not to say that is not what is going on, but I don’t want to reinforce an idea that something happened if it didn’t happen.
>
> That said, I was going to say when I read the administrator’s posts at msg/360 and msg/354, that the person in question had already posted a self-moderating message, at msg/350. I suppose that is just an inherent flaw of asynchronous communication, that a person who moderated their own stance will then be sanctioned about something for which they have already expressed apology. (I didn’t post to that effect when I noticed it, mostly to minimize whatever arousal or dissonance might follow a wordy but well-intended post. But since you asked…)
>
> Intervening on-line, and publicly blocking people has both advantages and disadvantages, as cited in the Cyberpsych article. But when a person is posting under their real identity, and is discussing matters in the area of their professional expertise, the disadvantages can be exacerbated. Whether this discussion is research, practice, project or well-intended public service, public censures and the blocking of another professional approaches the measure of risk forewarned against in human research guidelines, in that it potentially can effect their professional status.
>
> I advocate against the technique of publicly expelling group members. I believe the administrator’s admitted naivete is not limited to the technical difficulties of on-line expulsion. In one study, administrators who had no formal training in on-line education, and those who had taught fewer than five on-line courses, were more likely to prefer expulsion as a means of keeping discussion on topic.
>
> In an study titled “Keeping Online Asynchronous Discussions on Topic” 135 online instructors surveyed rated expulsion of offenders as the least used and least recommended among 13 techniques suggested for that purpose.
>
> The Beaudin study was specifically of asynchronous on-line forums in support of distance learning projects. However, the void of available information about administration of on-line self-help educational forums might encourage administrators to look at related genres in search of the best techniques for keeping things on track in their specific genre of on-line education.
>
> In the Beaudin study, the most highly rated techniques were to carefully design questions that specifically elicit on-topic discussion and to provide guidelines to help online learners prepare on-topic responses. An adaptation of those techniques applied at a similar site has been cited elsewhere in this first PBA page.
>
> If this is not altogether clear, I am sticking up for the person in question, and maintaining my plea for better guidelines to help participants here keep themselves and each other on topic. :-)
>
> The Beadin study is posted at: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue2/beaudin.htm
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 23:14:21
In reply to Bob, are you serious???, posted by Greg on January 28, 2001, at 16:40:57
> Bob,
>
> Are you in all seriousness going to ban (even temporarily) Cam from this site?james here.....
Greg, are you serious ? Point us to the posts where this was sugested. I cannot find these posts.
james
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 29, 2001, at 8:24:08
In reply to Re: Moving toward the best, posted by tina on January 28, 2001, at 20:03:07
T,
Did you understand a word of that??!!
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2001, at 8:57:30
In reply to Bob, are you serious???, posted by Greg on January 28, 2001, at 16:40:57
> Are you in all seriousness going to ban (even temporarily) Cam from this site? You know as well as anyone how this man has given so freely of his time and expertise to 100's of people at this site over the years, never asking for anything in return from you or anyone else.
I agree, he's a "very important poster", but *everyone* here needs to be civil. That keeps the atmosphere safe, and this needs to be a safe place.
> He simply chose to say what most of us were thinking.
Maybe, but there's a big difference between thinking something and saying it.
> I thought one of the reasons PBA was created was so issues like these could be hashed out without interferring with the PB and PSB boards.
Right, but let's hash things out in a civil way.
> I saw nothing terribly out of line with what he wrote, I have in fact seen you let others get away with MUCH worse. I am one of those people.
Well, this is inevitably to some extent either subjective or arbitrary, depending on your point of view. Maybe you caught me in a good mood? :-)
> I ask you to reconsider your decision to do this.
I haven't blocked him, you know, that was just a warning...
Bob
Posted by tina on January 29, 2001, at 18:11:29
In reply to Re: Bob, are you serious???, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2001, at 8:57:30
""I agree, he's a "very important poster", but *everyone* here needs to be civil. That keeps the atmosphere safe, and this needs to be a safe place.""
Bob, maybe if you were consistent with your bannings the issue wouldn't get so inflamed? "name" wasn't very civil either or do you only read half of what is written?> > Are you in all seriousness going to ban (even temporarily) Cam from this site? You know as well as anyone how this man has given so freely of his time and expertise to 100's of people at this site over the years, never asking for anything in return from you or anyone else.
>
> I agree, he's a "very important poster", but *everyone* here needs to be civil. That keeps the atmosphere safe, and this needs to be a safe place.
>
> > He simply chose to say what most of us were thinking.
>
> Maybe, but there's a big difference between thinking something and saying it.
>
> > I thought one of the reasons PBA was created was so issues like these could be hashed out without interferring with the PB and PSB boards.
>
> Right, but let's hash things out in a civil way.
>
> > I saw nothing terribly out of line with what he wrote, I have in fact seen you let others get away with MUCH worse. I am one of those people.
>
> Well, this is inevitably to some extent either subjective or arbitrary, depending on your point of view. Maybe you caught me in a good mood? :-)
>
> > I ask you to reconsider your decision to do this.
>
> I haven't blocked him, you know, that was just a warning...
>
> Bob
Posted by Rach on January 30, 2001, at 6:35:44
In reply to Re: Bob, are you serious???Dr. Bob, posted by tina on January 29, 2001, at 18:11:29
Seriously, name, what are you trying to prove? That you have lots of links to crap nobody is interested in? We are here to support each other. We all have problems and are trying to aid each other in the best way possible. We are trying to work through our own shit. We are trying to survive in a world full of assholes and people who don't know when to shut up. People have said 'ignore you', but at this point I don't care if this incites 5000 people to respond in the way you have been blabbing on. I just want you to know that you don't exactly rate at the top of my fav posters list. (That civil enough for you, Dr Bob???)
How about this? Fuck you name. You're not teaching anyone anything, you're not helping anyone, you're not even proving a point. So this board has the ability to harm as well as to help. What a newsflash! I can see the headlines. STOP PRESS - PB EXISTS WITH HUMANITY. I never realised this board was exactly like the rest of the world. I thought it was immune to the downfalls of everything else - namely that it is a human creation with humans interacting. Of course there is as much possibility for harm as there is help, and we've all known that.
I wouldn't give a shit if you actually contributed something or helped people. I wouldn't care if you were here for help yourself. But you have pushed other valued people off the board, and you have insulted my friends. You have pushed me to sarcasm and swearing.
So what are you doing here? You haven't helped anyone. You've bitched, you've babbled, you've spouted scientific crap until we're all cured of our med induced insomnia. What is your purpose here? You don't want help. You don't give help. Fuck off. Leave us alone to try to make our lives better. You have no place here. There are other forums where you can spout your 'knowledge' til the cows come home.
This is a place where we gain support and love. It improves our lives. Why are you insisting on taking that away from us?
We don't want you here.
Posted by Ron Hill on January 30, 2001, at 8:00:53
In reply to name Dr Bob, posted by Rach on January 30, 2001, at 6:35:44
This must be the most difficult and frustrating part of Dr Bob's work in providing us with a very useful site. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along"?
I vote that we each do what we can to make it as easy as possible for Dr Bob to manage this site.
--Ron
--------------------------------------------------> Seriously, name, what are you trying to prove? That you have lots of links to crap nobody is interested in? We are here to support each other. We all have problems and are trying to aid each other in the best way possible. We are trying to work through our own shit. We are trying to survive in a world full of assholes and people who don't know when to shut up. People have said 'ignore you', but at this point I don't care if this incites 5000 people to respond in the way you have been blabbing on. I just want you to know that you don't exactly rate at the top of my fav posters list. (That civil enough for you, Dr Bob???)
>
> How about this? Fuck you name. You're not teaching anyone anything, you're not helping anyone, you're not even proving a point. So this board has the ability to harm as well as to help. What a newsflash! I can see the headlines. STOP PRESS - PB EXISTS WITH HUMANITY. I never realised this board was exactly like the rest of the world. I thought it was immune to the downfalls of everything else - namely that it is a human creation with humans interacting. Of course there is as much possibility for harm as there is help, and we've all known that.
>
> I wouldn't give a shit if you actually contributed something or helped people. I wouldn't care if you were here for help yourself. But you have pushed other valued people off the board, and you have insulted my friends. You have pushed me to sarcasm and swearing.
>
> So what are you doing here? You haven't helped anyone. You've bitched, you've babbled, you've spouted scientific crap until we're all cured of our med induced insomnia. What is your purpose here? You don't want help. You don't give help. Fuck off. Leave us alone to try to make our lives better. You have no place here. There are other forums where you can spout your 'knowledge' til the cows come home.
>
> This is a place where we gain support and love. It improves our lives. Why are you insisting on taking that away from us?
>
> We don't want you here.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 30, 2001, at 9:23:56
In reply to name Dr Bob, posted by Rach on January 30, 2001, at 6:35:44
LOL
Now I see what you meant at ASH!!!
You've said what alot of us feel - just *coughs* more bluntly than we might have!!
You *know* you have loads of support on this though hun....
N xx
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 23:22:12
In reply to name Dr Bob, posted by Rach on January 30, 2001, at 6:35:44
> So what are you doing here? You haven't helped anyone. You've bitched, you've babbled, you've spouted scientific crap until we're all cured of our med induced insomnia. What is your purpose here? You don't want help. You don't give help. Fuck off...
Um, that's supposed to help the situation?
Bob
Posted by stjames on January 30, 2001, at 23:37:44
In reply to Re: please be civil » Rach, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 23:22:12
> > So what are you doing here? You haven't helped anyone. You've bitched, you've babbled, you've spouted scientific crap until we're all cured of our med induced insomnia. What is your purpose here? You don't want help. You don't give help. Fuck off...
>
> Um, that's supposed to help the situation?
>
> BobJames here....
Help no. Indicating many persons growing frustration with this issue, yes. Incicate that name is clever enought to stay within the limits
of "civility" while driving others up the wall, yes. Indicate that many are rightfilly tired of countless posts stating the same veiwpoint, yes.James
Posted by PatJ. on January 31, 2001, at 0:29:54
In reply to Re: please be civil » Rach, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 23:22:12
I hate to state the obvious but isn't it easy enough to just not read posts written by someone who gets to a person(s). The energy can be saved for something someone really likes to do. :-)
Posted by Rach on January 31, 2001, at 6:48:10
In reply to Re: please be civil » Rach, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 23:22:12
> Um, that's supposed to help the situation?
>
> BobNope - never said I was trying to help the situation. But I know I gave some people a laugh, and that I voiced what a lot of people have been thinking. It certainly made myself and others feel better!
Posted by PatJ. on February 4, 2001, at 17:38:32
In reply to Dr Bob, posted by Rach on January 31, 2001, at 6:48:10
> > Um, that's supposed to help the situation?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Nope - never said I was trying to help the situation. But I know I gave some people a laugh, and that I voiced what a lot of people have been thinking. It certainly made myself and others feel better!
Rach,
You may have made some feel better but name surely has feelings, too. You may feel name is wrong to post those posts but as my mom said 2 wrongs don't make a right. :-)
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.