![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 75 to 99 of 133. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 16:53:57
In reply to Re: or...., posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 15:31:49
> Otherwise... I guess we might just end up going round in circles never really getting to the heart of the issue.
If there were more to it and our dialectic pattern is circular we might just end up going around in bigger circles. My sphere already includes considerable reading in the archives, regardless whose interests might be at risk. My scope of discussion is focused where I think it is most effective.
> It seems to me... To be something about the civility rules.This part of this thread emerged from Hsiung's request that I propose a first step toward more effective governance. I proposed that he involve professional peers in administration of the board. You seem to agree with that. He seemed to nix the idea with two brief comments.
From there, the discussion has evolved to include some people offering usual support for the administration, but acknowledging to some extent doubts about the accuracy of the term "civility" which I propose could be resolved by defining his terms of service in the same manner most Web sites define their terms of service - as terms of service. Otherwise, he appears *to some* to be a physician offering diagnostic comments about the behavior of participants in a setting that potentially has clinical implications.
>It is a shame that you don't want to discuss them with me anymore :-)I see no shame. You could write your comments as statements to the topic, and could avoid citing my comments as the source of ideas to which you are responding, if you want to help me more easily discuss ideas about which you share an interest.
By the way, I also agree with the suggestion that smaller boards would be best restricted as members-read-only. Especially if he wants to continue asking people to be "civil" but not post terms of service and to classify violation of his terms in the usual and most specific way, which would be ask people to comply with the terms of service.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 17:43:07
In reply to Re: or.... » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 15:03:14
I hadn't gone to the site, but on your recommendation I did so.
I think I agree with Alexandra. The limitations of artificial intelligence appear clear. Although there have been one or two people who gave me the same sort of feeling when conversing with them.
You never answered my question, which I'll take as an indication that you don't wish to discuss it with me any further.
That's cool. I'll see you elsewhere, I'm sure.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 17:57:15
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 17:43:07
> You never answered my question, which I'll take as an indication that you don't wish to discuss it with me any further.
>which question was that?
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 18:05:53
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 17:57:15
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501544.html
Posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:15:04
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 14:44:06
> > Um, why would the rules for this board apply anywhere else? They are by definition Dr. Bob's unique rules.
>
> And hence, terms of service for this site. "terms of service" is the standard reference to behavioral expectations published in support of networked forums. Civility is seldom, if ever, used to describe expectations of terms of service at other forums.But it is part of the guidelines for posting here. And if one is posting here, one must follow the guidelines here, just as when posting at a different site, one must follow the rules specified by that site. I'm not sure what the issue is. Dr. Bob's site, Dr. Bob's rules. Oma tupa, oma lupa; not mi casa, su casa.
>
>
> > Hmmm, I haven't read every word on this site, but I have never encountered any claim of ownership of the concept of "civility". Would you please provide a link or a quote?
>
> "Please be civil". What more evidence do we need than the statement itself? Either civility is what Robert Hsiung says it is, or it is a broader concept owned by society at large, which in this case does not always or even often align with expecations of his implicit terms of service.I disagree. I can hold both concepts at the same time...being civil according to Babble and being civil according to society are different uses of the word and have different requirements. Thus, Dr. Bob does not "own" the concept of civility. In addition, I'm quite certain I have heard of the term long before I ever came to Babble. I cannot claim to have known this longer than Dr. Bob has been alive, because I do not know his age, and it is unlikely I would have known the concept in my youngest years.
>> >The former is a request for a type of behavior and the latter is a characterization.
>
> And the request for a type of behavior, striclty, compliance with terms of service, characterizes non-compliance as less than civil, hence uncivilized. Does not the statement "Please wash your hands" imply that hands are unwashed and unclean?Nope. It is simply (or merely) a request for a behavior to occur. Said behavior may be occuring on a regular basis prior to the request; it may have never occured; it may be occuring at the exact same time of the request; and any other iteration of repetitions or ommissions. The request for a behavior is a separate entity from the behavior itself, and even more, it is completely separate from an assessment of a person's character (i.e. "unclean). Any connotation one perceives beyond the simple request for an action lies within the perceiver.
>
>
> >
> > And this is really about making sure Dr. Bob gets enough sleep? awwwww
>
> Perhaps the administration could write a determination as to whether use of the exclamation "awwww" is consistent with guidelines that would otherwise be considered terms of service. It has also been used elsewhere in this forum with similar inference, i believe in the title to a post.Perhaps he could. Are you requesting that he do so? I don't recall another post with that in the subject line. It may or may not be similar in usage to mine, regardless of inference.
>
> But yes, sleep and the effect of rest on capacity to deliver service is part of what I am discussing.In your response to chemist, you used the term "critical service" related to service delivery of possibly impaired providers. How do you define "critical service"?
gg
>
>
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 18:57:30
In reply to Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:38:38
If I were Mrs. Hsiung, I would say so, and would want to be addressed either by my own name, by the handle I established on the board or by our family name. If my role in his communities were described primarily as an extension of his persona, I would suggest we seek family counseling together. If I were the first lady of the United States, I wouldn't want to be called "Mrs. George."
> so let me see if I can summarize your concerns.
>
> You don't think Dr. Bob gets enough sleep, and that he may make errors on the board because of it, and later justify them. You're worried about his personal wellbeing, and the wellbeing of us Babblers. Have you perchance had experience with doctors or interns who try to function on too little sleep?This question seeks to inform your speculation about my experience, exploring reasons I might hold a view in line with those you might think I hold but have not yet verified. Nonetheless I will reply as if you are inquiring about the veracity of your understanding of my perspective, as is the stated purpose of your message, clarified in a summary paragraph and in a follow-up post.
My original concern stated in this thread, in response to a request that I propose a first step toward more effective goverance patterned after the historic experience of nations worldwide, was that medical professionals do best to administer services based on established protocols developed in a process of peer review, and when they venture into new services, they do best to substantially involve peers in defining the scope and methods of those new protocols. This is especially a concern to me when new protocols are unique and are administered in a dynamic setting that requires judgement calls by the provider that can involve large numbers of people in diverse situations. I proposed seeking funding as a means of formally involving other organized, established groups that would help attend to matters involving efficacy, harm and liability.
The possibility that he attends to the site when he is near the end of a very long day, and that he attends to the site 365 days a year is a result I cited of his go-it-alone strategy. It might be part of the reason his solo effort doesn't rise to what might be it's full potential, and could be part of the reason his late-night/early morning interventions don't seem entirely understandable to some people. Involving others, either as co-administrators, or as benefactors who contribute based on formal presentation of his methods and purposes, could serve to resolve problems that might arise from his 365-days-a-year involvement.
My experience with physicians is different, though when you mention it, they might have first learned social behaviors that I now recognize during the time they were required to work more than 24 hours without sufficient rest.
>
> (You don't happen to be Mrs. Bob, do you? In which case I concede to your greater knowledge.)
>
> You don't think this is a problem particularly of Dr. Bob's site, but of PsychCentral and similar sites as well. But it appears to you to be more evident at Babble because Dr. Bob does his administrating up front rather than behind the scenes.
I have addressed my concerns solely to the administration of this site. I did not cite PsychCentral as an ideal site or as a less than ideal site, but cited as alternative models sites administered under the aegis of well-established health-care organizations, and in which the identity and personality of administrators is scarcely discernable if at all.> You want Dr. Bob to get funding for Babble. I don't quite understand the rationale behind this one. If Dr. Bob wants funding, I certainly understand. But I don't see what huge difference it would make. I sort of like the credit card idea better (yes, yes, I know others don't). But perhaps I'm missing something?
I suggested he pursue formal funding arrangements as a way of substantially involving other responsible parties in reviewing policies at the site. It is not my first suggestion, but one means of reaching the goal of substantially involving other qualified parties in development of policy.
>
> You think Babble decisions should be a committee view, with a committee composed of mental health providers.Not the individual decisions, but policies. If policies were articulated to a board, a panel or even a limited partnership of professionals, the refinement and clarification gleaned from other professionals might result in more coherent explanations to those with less training -- and I don't mean to those, such as yourself, who assert an understanding of his terms, but to those who routinely represent that they don't understand some of his judgements.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 19:13:02
In reply to Re: or...., posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:15:04
>I can hold both concepts at the same time...being civil according to Babble and being civil according to society are different uses of the word and have different requirements.
An ambiguity at the level of semantics (a word having two different senses or meanings) can be resolved at the level of pragmatics (context).
So, for example 'follow the law' is semantically unambiguous, but precicely what counts as following the law varies depending on the context of which country you are in.
In the same way 'civility' has a standard meaning...
adequate in courtesy and politeness
often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness(Miriam Webster)
I don't understand why this seems to be so very much to ask for...
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:13:13
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 18:57:30
I'm not sure I understand any better, but I acknowledge that maybe I just won't be able to.
It's true that I am rarely surprised by Dr. Bob's administrative decisions, except that sometimes he shows more mercy than I would in interpreting the rules. But I also think it's within his discretion to show mercy, and it's not a bad thing.
So, if I'm now understanding you correctly, this is more or less a global crusade to bring about regulation and standardization to a new form of peer support?
I think...
Hmmm....
You've stated a few times that people, and I'm assuming you're including me, rush to Dr. Bob's support.
I'm wondering if you're open to a different understanding of the responses you get.
The large number (not small number as you stated in one of your posts) of posters at Babble are sort of self selected to be ones who like the sort of moderation that comes with Babble. We like things to be in the open, rather than behind the scenes. We prefer a rather regulated environment, because such an environment makes us feel safe. We like the consistency that comes from having a single administrator whose actions are readily predictable after you've spent a bit of time with him. And a few of us, but by no means all of us, enjoy interacting with the moderator to the limited extent he allows it, and would prefer a bit more interaction even. While we might have issues with some details at Babble, and this Admin board is here to air them, in general we like it here at Babble. It suits us.
And sometimes it seems to us that people come here and see a place that suits us, but doesn't suit them, and try to change it into a place that suits them, but doesn't suit us.
(I understand that, of course. Goodness only knows I'd like to change the entire world, not to mention sites on which I interact or environments I enter, to suit me.)
No place can suit anyone. But why isn't it possible for people to find places to suit themselves? Or to start such places if they don't exist? Why isn't it ok for Babble to suit those it suits?
I trust you won't get all paternalistic on me here.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:18:45
In reply to Re: or...., posted by gardenergirl on May 23, 2005, at 18:15:04
> > > Um, why would the rules for this board apply anywhere else? They are by definition Dr. Bob's unique rules.
Aka "terms". Civility is a common term that means many things to many people. In the way it is used here, the local definition does not differentiate itself from a generally accepted definition, unless one carefully examines print on other pages. In fact, one well-educated person has argued in this thread that civility as used here is in fact cohesive with not only a broad concept of civility, but also of adulthood. The phrase "Terms of service" as is routinely affixed to tens of thousands of network services conjugates to mean explicitly particular terms of particular services in particular contexts.
> >
> > And hence, terms of service for this site. "terms of service" is the standard reference to behavioral expectations published in support of networked forums. Civility is seldom, if ever, used to describe expectations of terms of service at other forums.
>
> But it is part of the guidelines for posting here.Are you disagreeing that "terms of service" is a more specific description of the expectations at this site than "Civility" which is routinely misunderstood by some members to suggest a universal standard of civility?
>And if one is posting here, one must follow the guidelines here, just as when posting at a different site, one must follow the rules specified by that site. I'm not sure what the issue is. Dr. Bob's site, Dr. Bob's rules. Oma tupa, oma lupa; not mi casa, su casa.
> >If one posts here, they are asked to "be civil". If they post elsewhere, they are asked to comply with terms of service. The other matters you cite, such as thinking his house is my house, don't find a basis in my assertions.
> >
> > > Hmmm, I haven't read every word on this site, but I have never encountered any claim of ownership of the concept of "civility". Would you please provide a link or a quote?
> >
> > "Please be civil". What more evidence do we need than the statement itself? Either civility is what Robert Hsiung says it is, or it is a broader concept owned by society at large, which in this case does not always or even often align with expecations of his implicit terms of service.
>
> I disagree. I can hold both concepts at the same time...being civil according to Babble and being civil according to society are different uses of the word and have different requirements.Do you have any concern for those who don't hold those same concepts at the same time? Is your capacity to hold those concepts evidence of everyones capacity to hold a view similar to yours?
>
> > >The former is a request for a type of behavior and the latter is a characterization.
> >
> > And the request for a type of behavior, striclty, compliance with terms of service, characterizes non-compliance as less than civil, hence uncivilized. Does not the statement "Please wash your hands" imply that hands are unwashed and unclean?
>
> Nope. It is simply (or merely) a request for a behavior to occur. Said behavior may be occuring on a regular basis prior to the request; it may have never occured; it may be occuring at the exact same time of the request; and any other iteration of repetitions or ommissions.Is the statement "please be civil" ever addressed to a particular individual here except in the context of instances where he asserts the behavior has not occured?
> > >
> > > And this is really about making sure Dr. Bob gets enough sleep? awwwww
> >
> > Perhaps the administration could write a determination ....
> Perhaps he could. Are you requesting that he do so?You offered a definative citation. It says "perhaps."
>How do you define "critical service"?
One example of critical service would be a service described as occuring in potentially clinical milieu in which people occassionally present with the complaint that "I might die in the next few hours if I don't get help."
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 19:20:09
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 18:57:30
>My original concern stated in this thread, in response to a request that I propose a first step toward more effective goverance patterned after the historic experience of nations worldwide, was that medical professionals do best to administer services based on established protocols developed in a process of peer review, and when they venture into new services, they do best to substantially involve peers in defining the scope and methods of those new protocols.
But... Dr Bob isn't offering us a service AS a medical professional. He simply provides us board space and moderates that so we don't turn on each other...
I thought that was clear enough from the mulit-guess quiz...
>This is especially a concern to me when new protocols are unique and are administered in a dynamic setting that requires judgement calls by the provider that can involve large numbers of people in diverse situations. I proposed seeking funding as a means of formally involving other organized, established groups that would help attend to matters involving efficacy, harm and liability.
So... You don't understand some of his decisions -> you don't think there is a rational basis to some of his decisions. You can't point out precisely what the problem is but you are thinking some other professional might be able to?
> Not the individual decisions, but policies. If policies were articulated to a board, a panel or even a limited partnership of professionals, the refinement and clarification gleaned from other professionals might result in more coherent explanations to those with less training -- and I don't mean to those, such as yourself, who assert an understanding of his terms, but to those who routinely represent that they don't understand some of his judgements.
Ah.
So we want to understand the rules better...
And how the rules are applied in particular determinations...Is that what this is about???
Posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 19:26:27
In reply to Re: or.... » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:18:45
>Is the statement "please be civil" ever addressed to a particular individual here except in the context of instances where he asserts the behavior has not occured?
Please cite one instance of Dr Bob asserting that the behaviour was uncivil.
One where you disagreed on his determination.
I don't understand the problem here...
>One example of critical service would be a service described as occuring in potentially clinical milieu in which people occassionally present with the complaint that "I might die in the next few hours if I don't get help."
Dr Bob isn't providing a professional service to us.
That is made clear from the multi-guess quiz.IMO people shouldn't be allowed to say that kind of thing on the boards BECAUSE IT IS DISTRESSING TO THE POSTERS HERE AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO.
Dr Bob has no obligation to do anything in those cases.
None of us do.Though posters typically urge people to get help IRL and Dr Bob provides information and links to enable people to get help IRL.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:29:47
In reply to Re: or.... » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:18:45
> >How do you define "critical service"?
>
> One example of critical service would be a service described as occuring in potentially clinical milieu in which people occassionally present with the complaint that "I might die in the next few hours if I don't get help."Of course this isn't a clinical milieu. And people are told up front that Babble is not going to provide that "help" and is not an appropriate place to seek it.
And we mean it. If people are suicidal, they are urged by fellow posters to get help IRL. We have no illusion that we are up to that situation, and Dr. Bob does not claim to provide that sort of service.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:33:17
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:13:13
> So, if I'm now understanding you correctly, this is more or less a global crusade to bring about regulation and standardization to a new form of peer support?
If you could cite anything I've written that suggests to you my concerns are either "global" or that my response to his invitation to suggest a first step is a "crusade" I might more easily help clarify your understanding of my perspective.
>snipped.
I am open to understanding the views of those you hold out as a "large number." But I am replying to your request to help you better understand my perspective, not asking for further explanation of your views, which I believe I understand. It's not that I don't understand your view, its just that I don't find it to resolve all of my concerns. If I'm not mistaken, your view is that the number, large or small, that does not enjoy the atmosphere here and that potentially finds administrative style harmful can go somewhere else. If I correctly read the plain language of your comment, theirs, or our concerns at least as I represent them are potentially beyond your understanding. Do you find any further reason to attempt to understand my concerns, or even to articulate them in terms I can verify as an accurate description of my concerns?
>
> I trust you won't get all paternalistic on me here.I trust you will not consider my compliance with your request that I help you clarify your understanding of my perspective to be a paternalistic act.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:38:34
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 19:20:09
> So we want to understand the rules better...
> And how the rules are applied in particular determinations...
>
> Is that what this is about???
>
no
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:39:06
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:33:17
Sigh. No, I was being sincere.
I thought I understood, but after your last post I saw that I didn't understand before and understood even less now.
I take full responsibility for that. But I also take responsibility for perhaps not being able to understand.
I'd be perfectly willing to continue trying, but you'll have to talk in smaller bites maybe? if I'm to understand. And if you don't wish to change your communicative style, I perfectly understand, but I acknowledge my limitation in understanding what you're trying to say.
If that makes sense. I'm just saying there is a difference in communicative styles that is neither right nor wrong on either of our parts, but that may make discussion difficult.
All I meant by paternalistic (and perhaps I was overly succinct) is that some people have come here in the past and led me to understand that they believe we don't know what's best for us, and they would like to help us with that. I was trusting you to give us more credit than that.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:41:39
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 23, 2005, at 19:26:27
> Please cite one instance of Dr Bob asserting that the behaviour was uncivil.
>
>I have stated in this thread that demanding that people be civil is seen by some people as in implication that they are not being civil -- hence "uncivil".
If you did not read that, or if you don't agree that is one way of seeing things, or that some reasonable people see it that way, there may be little I can write that would help expand your understanding.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:48:45
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:39:06
>
> ... some people have come here in the past and led me to understand ...Could you see that as a direction you went but that you might not have been led in that direction?
Or as you offered in an I-statement brief "when some people came here in the past, I developed an understanding that ...
> that they believe we don't know what's best for us, and they would like to help us with that.
Perhaps the uncertainty is over who is "us." You seem to define us as those who have made this a home of sorts, or who have established and maintained regular identities, comradaries or community roles. I am trying to be specific that I am refering to my interests and to those who hold interests similar to mine, which by your definition, just might not include you because your interests are different. Nonetheless, as the site is written "group" refers to the entire set of people who register a user name -- not just to those who profess a profound appreciation for the site.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:51:18
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:48:45
But isn't it *impossible* to satisfy people of such very different interests?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:54:41
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:51:18
> But isn't it *impossible* to satisfy people of such very different interests?
If I thought so, do you think i would be advocating otherwise? For that matter, would I be trying to help you understand my sense of possibility if I had no confidence in your capacity to understand?
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:56:32
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 19:54:41
So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
To make it personal.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:00:22
In reply to Re: Ok, » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 19:56:32
> So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
>
> To make it personal.Would any other professional administrator's involvement in addition to that of Robert Hsiung be a step in turning the site against you?
Would defining the terms of service as terms of service turn the site against you?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:03:40
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:00:22
> > So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
> >
> > To make it personal.
>
> Would any other professional administrator's involvement in addition to that of Robert Hsiung be a step in turning the site against you?
>
> Would defining the terms of service as terms of service turn the site against you?
>
against your interests, that is. I'm trying to grill salmon, work, and correspond with you all at once.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:12:45
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:00:22
> > So what changes could be done that would satisfy your interests without turning the site against mine?
> >
> > To make it personal.
>
> Would any other professional administrator's involvement in addition to that of Robert Hsiung be a step in turning the site against you?It might. It would depend a whole lot on the other administrator. I told you I don't trust easily and I meant it. Dr. Bob has gone through hell and back to earn my trust, figuratively speaking.
Plus, I really do like the consistency that comes from having one moderator. But should Dr. Bob decide that it would be best to have more than one moderator, and chose one I could learn to trust, I wouldn't object.
He, and we, have also made various proposals along the way that would make moderating the boards easier for him. I think he's considering them.
>
> Would defining the terms of service as terms of service turn the site against you?
>
>
I've suggested that before. Not terms of service. I wouldn't like that because it would be totally incomprehensible to me. But I like "site guidelines". I'm nostalgic about PBC's. I'm a PBC virgin you know. And PDVSG (Please Don't Violate Site Guidelines) virgin doesn't have the same ring. But I'd be willing to put aside nostalgia to use wording that people who get upset at being told to be civil would find less upsetting.Salmon, yummm...
I appreciate your putting your time into this conversation.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:16:13
In reply to Re: Ok,, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:12:45
I like Please Abide By Site Guidelines better. It's phrased as a positive. (Can you tell I'm a mom?)
Hmmm... PABSG...
Still nostalgic.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 20:22:36
In reply to Actually, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 20:16:13
So you are a virgin mother and the administrator is like a god?
I'm sorry, full-belly intoxication caught up with me. I'll enclose my serious reply in another post.
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.