![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 66 to 90 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 29, 2005, at 13:28:08
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:32:42
> How does it make you feel when your words are being scrutinized? That's something I do, too...
>
> BobJoining this group, I knew you were the moderator, so I expected you to monitor what I and others are saying and doing. (Also your appointed deputies when you aren't here.)
Posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 13:47:55
In reply to Re: Would it help? » nikkit2, posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 9:07:53
Apparantly a lot of what upsets folks is the shortening of what the post said and the possibility that could change the meaning.
Could you help with that by making a request (I hate to call it a rule) that when bringing issues to admin that the entire phrase under question be quoted verbatim?
It might even save you some time trying to find it.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 15:33:16
In reply to Re: one final appeal » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:46:38
Remember that Lou is a person, too, with feelings like the rest of us.
I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 16:15:42
In reply to Re: Could we all remember one thing?????, posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 15:33:16
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 29, 2005, at 16:37:32
In reply to Re: Could we all remember one thing?????, posted by AuntieMel on April 29, 2005, at 15:33:16
Auntie Mel,
You wrote,[...Lou is a person...I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now...].
Could you clarify why you would not want to be in my shoes right now?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 29, 2005, at 16:39:35
In reply to I wouldn't either. :( (nm) » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 16:15:42
Dinah,
Your subject line was,[...I wouldn't either...]
Could you clarify why you would not want to either?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 18:02:47
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 29, 2005, at 16:39:35
I'm sorry, but no Lou. Because yours aren't the only shoes I wouldn't want to be in right now. I feel empathy for everyone involved.
I hope you understand.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 21:41:01
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 29, 2005, at 12:42:42
> If... The fact is, we can none of us *really* know any other person's intention, even if they tell us what it is.
Absolutely. Our own can be like that too. In these cases it is 'polite' or 'acting in good faith' to assume the most charitable interpretation possible. Why? Because it makes life more pleasant, I suppose. If we assume others have malevolent intent it makes US hard to be around whereas if we attempt to assume that people are well intentioned then WE are easier to be around and we tend to be happier because the world (and more especially the people in the world) seem more pleasant.
>There are those here who think the behavior we’re talking about is not intentional and others who think it is.
I think that most people think the behaviour is intentional (that it is done on the basis of beliefs and desires) - the point at issue seems to be about what in actual fact the intention behind the behaviour is.
>If it *is* intentional, then the poster will not curb it unless something compels him to. If it is *not* intentional, and the poster has seen and heard repeatedly that the behavior is offensive, then he will stop it on his own if he cares how others feel.
Ah. So by 'intentional' you aren't really talking about the behaviour - but rather whether the poster intends for other people to respond by feeling offended.
I guess I disagree that the 'behaviour is offensive'. Rather - it is an undeniable fact that some people feel offended by the behaviour. What is the difference? Well, I am not offended by the behaviour. Maybe the difference is that I do not believe that the poster intends for other people to feel offended.
A little bit of evidence for that is that the poster does not seem upset when people are not offended. I dare say he much prefers it when people are not offended with his posts. That seems to give some support for the hypothesis that he does not desire to cause offense by his posts.
The intention that I summarised before is what I have gathered over the time that I have been here. A combination of what the poster has said himself and of a hypothesis that I have come to based on the way that he responds when people are upset.
>That brings us to at least two possibilities. One is someone who doesn't offend intentionally, but who doesn't care if he does.
Lets say that I enjoy singing a great deal. But that I am really very bad at it. I am so very bad at it that my SO finds it to be offensive in fact. Lets say that one day I sing. I know my SO finds it offensive - but I sing anyway. Does it follow from that that I don't care that my SO is offended? No. It doesn't. It is possible that I realise my SO will be offended and that I do care about that - but that I also have my own needs and desires and sometimes after weighing the costs and benefits I need to do what I need to do. Maybe this situation is something like that in that the poster feels very strongly about what he is attempting to do with his posts - and while he appreciates that some people do feel offended he needs to do what he needs to do.
>The other also doesn't offend intentionally, but can't stop himself from doing so. The former, IMO, is still uncivil.
Would it be uncivil for me to sing?
(I admit the analogy isn't perfect - in fact it isn't very good at all. But do you see what I am trying to say? Just because someone finds someones behaviour to be offensive doesn't mean that the behaviour itself is offensive.)
> > > Well, IMO, if someone is offended by uncivil behavior, they should not have to modify their behavior, but the offender should.But the behaviour itself is neither offensive nor uncivil.
I guess that civility has a fairly technical meaning here... It is a tricky one.
> You shouldn’t try to change who a person IS, but it's OK to ask them to modify offensive behavior.Sure.
>And if they don't, it's OK to exclude them (the length of time depends) from the group.
Once again there is a difference between 'offensive' behavior and the fact that some people respond to certain behaviour by taking offense.
IMO it is actually uncivil to call the behaviour (itself) uncivil or offensive. Because that is judging it negatively. The same with assuming the worst with respect to peoples intentions.
How about:4. Try to come to understand the posters intentions (by using the principle of charity). I really think that if people understood more about where the poster was coming from they wouldn't find the behaviour so distressing anymore. Then it would be easier to ignore - or people might even be a bit more interested in the determinations that are made.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 29, 2005, at 23:15:15
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 21:41:01
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 30, 2005, at 0:13:16
In reply to alexandraK, You are so darned cool! (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 29, 2005, at 23:15:15
Brava!
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 30, 2005, at 5:02:14
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 21:41:01
I agree it is uncivil to say another post is uncivil.
I also believe that it is uncivil to *suggest* another post is uncivil.
Isn't that the whole basis of this entire thread?
Maybe I should go back to bed and get some more sleep.. But I'm seriously confused here.. Its *not* OK for someone to ask whether repeated requests as to whether posts are uncivil or not (when in the vast majority of cases, the posts being questioned *are* civil), but it *is* OK for those repeated *suggestions* that a post is uncivil?
Yeah, I need more sleep *L*
Nikki x
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 30, 2005, at 12:48:31
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break » alexandra_k, posted by NikkiT2 on April 30, 2005, at 5:02:14
> I agree it is uncivil to say another post is uncivil.
>
> I also believe that it is uncivil to *suggest* another post is uncivil.
>
> Isn't that the whole basis of this entire thread?
>
> Maybe I should go back to bed and get some more sleep.. But I'm seriously confused here.. Its *not* OK for someone to ask whether repeated requests as to whether posts are uncivil or not (when in the vast majority of cases, the posts being questioned *are* civil), but it *is* OK for those repeated *suggestions* that a post is uncivil?
>
> Yeah, I need more sleep *L*
>
> Nikki xBut... bwah-ha-ha... *my* intentions are uncivil, don't you see. ;)
I go bye-bye now. This is not a debate that can be won here (for the time being). I don't mean I'm going bye-bye from the site, just from this thread. I sure wish all you ladies would come over to the PB-Sisters group and get to know me better; I think I'm rather likeable. And I'd sure like to get to know you better, but I use idioms and I don't want to be the possible target of an inquisition right now... Emotions are feeling rather raw. I don't know if anyone has the charity to believe that my intentions here were good (IMO), but they were. It took a lot of courage on my part to bring up the topic, but I think my arguments were very logical.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on April 30, 2005, at 13:06:54
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 21:41:01
> Ah. So by 'intentional' you aren't really talking about the behaviour - but rather whether the poster intends for other people to respond by feeling offended.
No. Perhaps I did I poor job of making this clear in that post, but I only discussed intention because some here don't want to consider behavior alone, which is what I'd prefer to do. I still contend that once the poster learns that the behavior is offensive, if he/she continues to do it, his or her intentions need to be more deeply examined, because he/she now knows the behavior is offensive.
For example, once you get a PBC here (an *official* civility warning), you know that you're on notice; the next time you're uncivil, you'll be blocked, regardless of your intentions.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 14:55:35
In reply to Re: This has been interesting, but I need a break, posted by Minnie-Haha on April 29, 2005, at 12:42:42
> If it *is* intentional, then the poster will not curb it unless something compels him to. If it is *not* intentional, and the poster has seen and heard repeatedly that the behavior is offensive, then he will stop it on his own if he cares how others feel.
So either the poster intends to offend or he doesn't care how others feel? Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 14:57:50
In reply to Re: being scrutinized » Dr. Bob, posted by nikkit2 on April 29, 2005, at 7:58:44
> > How does it make you feel when your words are being scrutinized?
>
> Its your role, as administrator to check the posts. You also only comment on them when they *are* uncivil.
>
> Can you not understand the pain this causes people?
>
> It HURTS, incredibly, to be accused of being anti semitic when that is very far from the truth, it hurts to have your civility questioned when in fact there is nothing in the post remotely uncivil.1. True, it's my role to check the posts. Still, that means I scrutinize your words, and you might have feelings about that.
2. Civility is subjective, and reasonable people can disagree. And have. :-)
3. I understand it can be uncomfortable to be accused, or even just scrutinized. But if you know something's very far from the truth? Would it hurt to be accused of having two heads?
> words are *often* taken out of context, and not reproduced accurately.
>
> By para phrasing and using [..]'s we can easily take almost any post and turn it into something different to what it is.But isn't one of the advantages of this medium that inaccuracies like that are easily corrected?
> Please please instigate a "report this" button so we can put a stop to admin posts that subject people to intense scrutiny
The button may help, but I don't know if it's going to put a stop to all conflict...
Also, a button shouldn't be too hard to add, but there's also the issue of how a "report" should then be handled. Any thoughts regarding that?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 15:14:58
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 14:57:50
What do you mean? Wouldn't the button just generate an email to you, with perhaps the id of the poster reporting and a short message space to explain what they think is wrong?
Then you could look at the posts reported and send back an automated message to the reporter along the lines of "I've looked at this and it appears to comply with the civility guidelines" or "I've looked at this and handled it accordingly"?
Are you asking if there should be a public report of posts reported? That would appear to be contrary to the spirit behind the whole button idea.
Weren't you giving some thought to allowing the button reporting to replace your reading every post and save you time? Are you still considering that? Or do you still want to look for things that others might not have found uncivil but you would.
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 30, 2005, at 15:38:51
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 14:57:50
3. I understand it can be uncomfortable to be accused, or even just scrutinized. But if you know something's very far from the truth? Would it hurt to be accused of having two heads?
To borrow a phrase, if someone is accused of being anti semitic, this could lead others to believe it. Having two heads is impossible.. but to be thought of as anti semitic, in my mind, is closer to be thought of as ignorant.
Would you allow it if someone "suggested" another was a peadophile? Both are illegal here in the UK (anti semitism falls under "inciting racial hatred" I believe)..Installing the "report it" button (Dinah's suggestion sounds perfect by the way) would remove all of this..
If you use outlook for your emails I might even be able to work out how you can just press a button to send the appropriate reply!Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2005, at 0:27:08
In reply to Re: being scrutinized » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 15:14:58
> Then you could look at the posts reported and send back an automated message to the reporter along the lines of "I've looked at this and it appears to comply with the civility guidelines" or "I've looked at this and handled it accordingly"?
I was thinking maybe the reports should go to not just me, but also the deputy administrators. So we'd need to be coordinated on the other end. And would having a button mean people couldn't report something here?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2005, at 0:27:12
In reply to Re: being scrutinized » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on April 30, 2005, at 15:38:51
> > I understand it can be uncomfortable to be accused... But if you know something's very far from the truth? Would it hurt to be accused of having two heads?
>
> To borrow a phrase, if someone is accused of being anti semitic, this could lead others to believe it.Even if it's very far from the truth? They'd be swayed by one accusation?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 1, 2005, at 0:46:47
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2005, at 0:27:12
Ah, Dr. Bob.
You know full well that no one is allowed to accuse another poster on Babble under the civility rules.
The distinction is whether one is being accused or not, not whether being accused is ok.
Not that this doesn't make for an interesting discussion.
Posted by Dinah on May 1, 2005, at 0:49:44
In reply to Re: how a report should be handled, posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2005, at 0:27:08
I hadn't thought of the button replacing the Admin board. That's up to you to decide of course. I just thought it would be a more private way to request you to look at a post.
But I do think that if a post is found to be in compliance with the civility guidelines, there should be a place on the open forum to try to lobby for a change in the civility guidelines at the very least.
What are your thoughts?
Posted by Dinah on May 1, 2005, at 0:52:06
In reply to Re: being scrutinized, posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2005, at 0:27:12
"post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down"
Posted by gardenergirl on May 1, 2005, at 12:27:00
In reply to :-) » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 1, 2005, at 0:52:06
I have to admit, I'm interpreting things that Lou has said before, so I am sure he can speak to this better than me.
But since I believe Lou's stated intention about his requests to admin is to improve understanding of the civility guidelines for the sake of the entire community, I don't see how a report post button would change things-- unless it became a requirement rather than a proposed option. I think that those of us who occasionally flag a post here or who send an email to Dr. Bob might use it instead. But I *think* Lou's posts are intended to be open so that anyone in the community may learn from the clarification if they wish.
Lou, please correct me if I am misunderstanding your intentions.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 1, 2005, at 12:29:04
In reply to Re: being scrutinized » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 15:14:58
> What do you mean? Wouldn't the button just generate an email to you, with perhaps the id of the poster reporting and a short message space to explain what they think is wrong?
Oh lordy, I would NOT want anyone sending me their "id". Imagine all the unconscious needs to meet! :-D
Just had this association to your post as an aside when I was reading it. It made me giggle.
gg
Posted by Dinah on May 1, 2005, at 15:58:49
In reply to Being playful » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on May 1, 2005, at 12:29:04
lol. It took me a good minute to figure that out. So much for my psychology book immersion.
I love playful. I'm feeling more than a bit playful myself.
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.