![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 20:43:59
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:22:09
I didn't mean to be sarcastic Lou, if that is what you are getting at.
Really.
I was attempting to share a joke with you.
Sorry.
I do have a strange sense of humour sometimes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:50:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k's reply to Lou-, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 20:43:59
a_k,
Sorry that you thought that I thought that you were being sarcastic, for that wasn't in my mind in the post in question. I was trying to see if we could make our plan to have a new system work by my hypothetical example which included the part of the guidline of the forum that the statement was relevant to since I thought that you thought that that needed to be included to avoid any ambiguity. I appreciate your sence of humor here...
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 14, 2005, at 20:55:36
In reply to Lou's reply(2) to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:50:04
Lou, I though that your reply was funny! Kippled! So you do have a sense of humor! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 21:57:08
In reply to Lou's reply(2) to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:50:04
>Sorry that you thought that I thought that you were being sarcastic, for that wasn't in my mind in the post in question.
Oh. Phew. I'm glad you didn't feel offended.
>I was trying to see if we could make our plan to have a new system work by my hypothetical example which included the part of the guidline of the forum that the statement was relevant to since I thought that you thought that that needed to be included to avoid any ambiguity.
Ah.
I don't know Lou. I'm feeling a bit confused...
A bit brain dead.>I appreciate your sence of humor here...
:-)
I guess I don't really know you well enough to tell when you might be kidding or serious.What do other people think????
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 22:02:34
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 20:22:09
> Poster A: Do you like Kippling, poster B?
> Poster B: I don't know , I've never Kippled.> Now the moderator could write: [...Poster B, you wrote,[...{I don't know, I've never Kippled}...] and it has been determined as unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum to reply in a sarcastic manner.
> What do you think?Ok. The problem I'm having with the example is that, like Phillipa I thought it was funny rather than sarcastic.
But. That is beside the point that you are trying to make. I have often thought it might be nice for Dr Bob to say WHAT is wrong with the statement. He does sometimes, but other times he doesn't.
I guess it would take a bit of time to individualise it to different contexts.
If the poster asks him to then he tends to clarify.
And I find it fun to try and figure out how what they said might be deemed to be unacceptable before he hits the boards.
I find that that helps me come to understand the civility rules.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 16:24:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 22:02:34
a_k,
You wrote,[...the point that you are trying to make...].
I am in agreement with others here that there could, perhaps, IMO, be a better way to have an administrative sanction to a statement be written here. Phillipa wrote,[...more human...].
My suggestion is for an administrative sanction to have the following criteria to be included in the statement by the moderator:
A. That there was a statement that was not acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum and that the particular guidline is identified.
B. That the statement in question is identified as to show that it is connected to the guidline that the statement is not acceptable to
C. That the reason is written as to the statement is not acceptable in relation to the guidline in question.
D. That at least one post's URL be cited as to the past practice being followed.
E. That there be an appeal process that does not include any moderator on this forum.
F. That if a past post can show that the statement had been previously allowed, then the sanction could be recinded.
G. That if the moderator can not post a previous URL to show the past practice of the sanction, then the sanction be recinded and a new policy be written for the FAQ to now include the statement as unacceptable.
H. That while there is a possible appeal in progress, the the poste in question not be kept from posting , but that the poster's post be limite to 3 per day untill the adjuducatiojn process is comp[leted.
I. Other good and just suggestions
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 17:45:20
In reply to Lou's reply(3)to alexandra_k's reply to Lou-adsact » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 16:24:00
That sounds pretty complicated. Who would make-up the appeals board? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 18:58:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply(3)to alexandra_k's reply to Lou-adsact, posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 17:45:20
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...who will make-up the appeals board...].
Well, in my suggested plan, they could not be Dr Hsiung or any moderator here. But I think that a quarum of 5 posters here could be something that could work. The qualifications would be for them to be members for some time and have been blocked themselves . I think a good group of the following could work:Bearded Lady
Cam W
Lou
Kid_A
ISO MLou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 19:26:54
In reply to Re: Lou's reply(3)to alexandra_k's reply to Lou-adsact, posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 17:45:20
Phillipa,
Those are some previous posters here that I knew from awhile back thatI think could be good at being in an appeals board. But if they could not be found, I suggest that others have the following credentials:
A. Be a member for more than one year
B. Have demonstrated a concern about the administration of the forum
C. Have been blocked
D. Be willing to spend at least an hour at least 4 days a week to rendering decisions
E. Not be a participant on another mental health forum while a member of the board here.
F. Have at least 5 posts on the faith board
G. Not be a member of the 2000 board while they are a member of the appeals board.
H. Not have a family member a psychiatrist
I. other good and just qualifications.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 20:47:35
In reply to Lou's reply to Phillipa-B » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 19:26:54
Lou, It just sounds like so many rules. And the committment to me sounds like it would warrant some sort of payment. What about the fact that Dr. Bob is not the only one responsible for monitoring these Boards now? He must be running it as a type of business. And I know that the Faith Board is your passion, but shouldn't they have to be familiar with the other Boards also. I wouldn't want to think that you thought the people on PBabble, Withdrawal, Eating, etc weren't competent? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 20:53:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa-B » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 20:47:35
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...commmittment...would warrent...payment...]
What kind of payment?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 21:08:21
In reply to Lou's reply to Phillipa-(2)-pytobdmembrs » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 20:53:00
Lou I have no idea. Any thoughts? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 21:16:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa-B » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 20:47:35
Phillipa,
It is not my intention to write that one is not competent if they, let's say, do not have one year or more experiance as a poster here, or to have a family member a psychiatrist or to have posted on a particular board. Thesea re just what I think could be some type of qualification. They are for discussion purposes here to be modified, deleted, added to, etc. etc.
As for the faith board requierement, perhaps that could be deleted and substituted for that the person have knowlege of the past practice of posts there.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 21:20:34
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa-B » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 20:47:35
Phillipa,
you wrote, [..Dr. Bob not the only one responsible for monitoring...]and,[...he must be running...a business...]
Who else is monitoring the boards now? And what type of business?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 21:45:19
In reply to Lou's reply to Phillipa-3B » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 21:20:34
Lou, I have no fact to back me up. Just a Thread, and I honestly forget where, where someone said Dr. Bob has others monitoring the Boards besides the Monitors. And who is organizing the gettogether in Chicago? I haven't been around long enough to know. I didn't mean he was making money on Psycho-Babble. But is it a grant or something that pays for the website? I didn't even know how to send an E-mail until last winter so my knowledge of the computer world is really limited. I'm constantly calling my husband to get me out of some mess I've made. I think that's a good idea to get suggestions and work out a plan. You may be on to something. The ideas are flowing. Hope you didn't take anything I said personally. I just wondered how let's say someone who exclusively posts on students would know what was going on in health, or any of the Boards they don't participate in. I know I haven't even visited some of them. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 22:02:35
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa-3B » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 21:45:19
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...I think it is a good idea....You may be on...hope you didn't take anything ...personally (No, I did not),...how would they know...?].
I think you have brought up a good question as to how one could be knowlegable about all boards.
I think that there is a common thread that determines acceptability or not on all the boards and then there could be particular distinctions for each board so that a member of the appeals board could be knowledgeable for any board, in a general sense, and then if the statement in question for determination is of the other type, then it could go to only those in the appeal board that are knowledgable about that. This could mean that only , say, 3 of the members of the appeals board could determine if Dr. Hsiung be reversed, or it could go back to Dr. Hsiung for further consideration and advisement.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 22:15:41
In reply to Lou's reply to Phillipa-3B-gdida » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 22:02:35
Lou, it sounds pretty good to me. Now what do the others think? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 17, 2005, at 4:59:33
In reply to Lou's reply to Phillipa-2B » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 21:16:19
May I ask, Lou, why being part of the PB2000 board should rule someone out. After all, we are the people that have been at PB the longest.
Or, is it (as my guess is), that its the actual people who are members there that you object to!!!
Hilarious!
nikki
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 17, 2005, at 5:02:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa-3B-gdida » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on May 16, 2005, at 22:15:41
What is it about posting on the faith board that makes them more able to be part of your little group?
how about my suggestions for rules:
1) Must never have posted on faith board
2) Must have been here atleast 5 years
3) Must have posted atleast 1000 messages on the main PB board
4) Must have been blocked for atleast 3 months in total*still laughing*
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 17, 2005, at 5:49:28
In reply to *laughing*, posted by Nikkit2 on May 17, 2005, at 4:59:33
> May I ask, Lou, why being part of the PB2000 board should rule someone out. After all, we are the people that have been at PB the longest.
>
> Or, is it (as my guess is), that its the actual people who are members there that you object to!!!
>
> Hilarious!
>
> nikki
Nikki,
My suggestion is that those of the review board not post on the 2000 board {while they are members of the review board}. I do not object to those posters on that board.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 17, 2005, at 5:57:35
In reply to *laughing*, posted by Nikkit2 on May 17, 2005, at 4:59:33
> May I ask, Lou, why being part of the PB2000 board should rule someone out. After all, we are the people that have been at PB the longest.
>
> Or, is it (as my guess is), that its the actual people who are members there that you object to!!!
>
> Hilarious!
>
> nikkiNIkki,
My reasoning in relation to my suggestion that those on the board not post on the 2000 board {while they are members of the review board} has something to do with the concept of {equal access}. I feel that since not all the members of this community have {equal access} to that forum, that review board members could not be accessible to all members here when the review board members post on the 2000 board. Another alternative could be to allow equal access to all members of the community to the 2000 board {durring times when a statement is under review}.
Lou
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 17, 2005, at 6:37:35
In reply to Lou's reply to Nikki » Nikkit2, posted by Lou Pilder on May 17, 2005, at 5:49:28
Why PB2000?
Why should someone be able to post on PBSocial, or PBFaith, but not be able to post on PB2000??
It just makes no sense to me Lou!
Nikki
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 17, 2005, at 6:48:36
In reply to LOu's reply to NikkiT2-B » Nikkit2, posted by Lou Pilder on May 17, 2005, at 5:57:35
*Everyone* can read the PB2000 board though Lou, and as you have shown in the past, it is read by others and issues posted there bought to Admin.
I, personally, am not comofrtable with *anyone* other than Dr Bob and the deputies making decisions as to whether something I say is "acceptable" or not. Dr Bob doesn't have personal relationships with any of us, and he is also trained to be objective.
Most of us have personal relationships, either positively or negatively, with the other posters here.. That would, in my opinion, lead to "favourtism" being shown.If I was told I was unable to post on 2000 for desperately needed support, simply because *you* felt something I had said might, possibly, be breaking the rules, I owuld be incredibly angry.
is this really any different to when you wanted to put a stop on any thread you felt might break a rule?
In my eyes, its Dr Bobs rules that rule here. Not someone other poster's.
I am perfectly happy for Dr Bob to ban me, as when that happens I *know* it is because I have broken the rules. But I think history shows, Lou, that not every post you flag up for attention has broken the rules.
In theory, say poster X doesn't like the fact that the PB2000 board is there, they could object to every single message posted. Which would mean that eventually no one would be able to post on there.*shrugs*
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 17, 2005, at 7:00:49
In reply to Re: LOu's reply to NikkiT2-B » Lou Pilder, posted by Nikkit2 on May 17, 2005, at 6:48:36
> *Everyone* can read the PB2000 board though Lou, and as you have shown in the past, it is read by others and issues posted there bought to Admin.
>
> I, personally, am not comofrtable with *anyone* other than Dr Bob and the deputies making decisions as to whether something I say is "acceptable" or not. Dr Bob doesn't have personal relationships with any of us, and he is also trained to be objective.
> Most of us have personal relationships, either positively or negatively, with the other posters here.. That would, in my opinion, lead to "favourtism" being shown.
>
> If I was told I was unable to post on 2000 for desperately needed support, simply because *you* felt something I had said might, possibly, be breaking the rules, I owuld be incredibly angry.
>
> is this really any different to when you wanted to put a stop on any thread you felt might break a rule?
>
> In my eyes, its Dr Bobs rules that rule here. Not someone other poster's.
>
> I am perfectly happy for Dr Bob to ban me, as when that happens I *know* it is because I have broken the rules. But I think history shows, Lou, that not every post you flag up for attention has broken the rules.
> In theory, say poster X doesn't like the fact that the PB2000 board is there, they could object to every single message posted. Which would mean that eventually no one would be able to post on there.
>
> *shrugs*
NikkiT2,
Although evryone can read the posts on the 2000 board, not evryone can have equal opportunity to intereact with the posters there. So if an appeals board member is in the decision process, I am suggesting that durring that time that all the posters here have equal access to posting to them freely. Are you saying that I wrote that you could not post on the 2000 board?If so,I do not belive that I suggested that you could not post there while there was a review in process unless you were a member of the appeals board durring the time that they were in session.
Lou
Posted by TofuEmmy on May 17, 2005, at 8:21:07
In reply to *laughing*, posted by Nikkit2 on May 17, 2005, at 4:59:33
The committee members should be:
A. Dr. Bob
B. Bob's deputies
C. No one elseThe appeals process:
A. Read the decision
B. Grump about it
C. Deal with the outcome of grumping
D. Move on, or post elsewhereemmy, keeping it simple
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.