![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 47. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:22:28
In reply to Civility IRL, productivity and good relationships., posted by madeline on April 15, 2006, at 8:38:56
I agree completely.
I get really really upset (and thus probably violate my own principles of toleration) about this topic.
:)
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:29:33
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » madeline, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:22:28
> I get really really upset... about this topic.er... what topic?
civility?
how come?
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:31:13
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » Dinah, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:29:33
i propose a distinction
civility(BOB)
and
civililty(DICT)
which makes things a little clearer...in order for us to discuss / examine the similarities / differences.
i'm reminded of wittgenstein...
'i'll show you differences'
though i think he may have been quoting shakespeares king lear...
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:39:23
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:31:13
I have explained my passion for tolerance, mutual respect, and civility many times. Perhaps you could do a search if you're interested. I've stated it better in the past than I likely could at this moment.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:49:59
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:39:23
> I have explained my passion for tolerance, mutual respect, and civility many times. Perhaps you could do a search if you're interested. I've stated it better in the past than I likely could at this moment.
er...civilityDICT
or
civilityBOB
or...
perhaps...
you don't see a difference?
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 10:03:48
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:49:59
In some areas I see a difference. Although it might depend on interpretation. For example, the three post rule. I doubt that there is a three statement IRL rule. However, I suppose if you see the three post rule (as Dr. Bob apparently does) as the equivilant of the IRL life rule about monopolizing conversations, there would be a parallel.
I generally refer to civility guidelines, or rules of this site, as a civility choice.
Which means that my opinion is that while individual rulings might be site idiosyncratic, the civility rules in general are based on civility as defined by the broader societal definitions.
As in "Choosing Civility".
I must now concentrate on my work.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 10:05:18
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:49:59
>
> civilityDICT
> or
> civilityBOB
> or...
> perhaps...
> you don't see a difference?Please don't assume this. Perhaps the difference is evident, but only one applies here as far as policy. Perhaps that's why someone might not adopt your distinction preference.
And I'm sorry to post and run, but I'm late and have to leave.
gg
>
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:09:07
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 10:03:48
> In some areas I see a difference. Although it might depend on interpretation. For example, the three post rule.
though he has been letting that slide...
can you find a better example?
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 10:13:31
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » Dinah, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:09:07
The application of it does not significantly affect my point.
That was the rule I found most out of keeping with the concept of civility as commonly defined. So I used it.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:15:58
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » special_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 10:05:18
> > civilityDICT
> > or
> > civilityBOB
> > or...
> > perhaps...
> > you don't see a difference?> Please don't assume this.
a question is not an assumption.
> only one applies here as far as policy.
though the rationale / justification for the latter... is the former.
> Perhaps that's why someone might not adopt your distinction preference.
the reason why i want the distinction
(why i want people to acknowledge a distinction)
is because i want people to consider whether the current rules / blocking system (aka civilityBOB) is the best way in which to achieve civilityDICT.you need to acknowledge a distinction...
and to acknowledge the civilityBOB isn't perfect
(i hope nobody feels hurt about that... but then even if nobody feels hurt maybe i should worry that it is metaphysically possible that someone feel hurt????)
you need to acknowledge that civilityBOB isn't perfect (with respect to the ideal of achieving civilityDICT) before you would bother trying to improve it. before you would bother trying with constructive criticism.but maybe people are just interested in justifying the status quo.
i've been there done that.
i'll show you difference...
but it will have to be tomorrow 'cause now it is past one am and i need to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
but i don't even know if i'll be around tomorrow...but then i worry about that a lot...
i do.but i won't be frightened into submission...
blocked
maybe
frightened
no
>
Posted by muffled on April 15, 2006, at 11:08:56
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:15:58
(((special_k)))(((all you guys))))
Y'know, I've not been here that long and while I do disagree with some blockings......things ARE changing. Albeit slowly.
I think we all trying.
I still scared.
Change is sometimes slow.
But as long as things ARE changing ever so slowly for the better, well, thats a good thing eh?
Sorta reminds me of me.
Slowly, slowly improving. Two steps forward, one step back.
Anyhow.
I respect all you guys.
And your reasonably patient debate.
But mebbe its time for some hugs btwn. friends?
Or mebbe I just oversensitive.
Take care guys.
Have a good day.
Muffled
Posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 20:28:18
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationships. » madeline, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 8:55:32
> this is how you charactirise posters who are asked to be civil / blocked:
>
> blatantly disprespectful
> hostility
> rude
> those who can't contribute in a meaningful way
>
> ouch.
>Ouch, indeed. I didn't read Madeline's post as saying that, and I believe my feelings would be hurt if my own words were reinterpreted in such a manner.
Again, I have no standing, but it has been stated in the past that other posters can remind someone of the civilityBOB guidelines. Please consider the feelings of others when you post, please do not post anything which puts someone else down, and please do be civil, by either definition.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 21:37:55
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:15:58
> > Please don't assume this.
>
> a question is not an assumption.Okay, my spin probably.
>
> you need to acknowledge a distinction...
> and to acknowledge the civilityBOB isn't perfectI don't know that anyone here does think it's perfect. I certainly don't. There are tons of discussions on the issue of civility in the archives.
> (i hope nobody feels hurt about that... but then even if nobody feels hurt maybe i should worry that it is metaphysically possible that someone feel hurt????)
Um, I hope that's not sarcasm.
> you need to acknowledge that civilityBOB isn't perfect (with respect to the ideal of achieving civilityDICT) before you would bother trying to improve it. before you would bother trying with constructive criticism.
Again, there's plenty of this type of discussion on the board, both constructive and not.
>
> but maybe people are just interested in justifying the status quo.Or perhaps they have different ways of expressing their concerns?
>
>
> but i won't be frightened into submission...
> blocked
> maybe
> frightened
> noI'm glad. I would hope that no one here is trying to frighten you into submission.
Hope you're sleeping well.
gg
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 22:06:22
In reply to Please consider your statements » special_k, posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 20:28:18
>I didn't read Madeline's post as saying that, and I believe my feelings would be hurt if my own words were reinterpreted in such a manner.1) how about you worry about your own feelings and let other people worry about theirs. Madeline didn't express hurt at my taking her post that way.
2) what NOW you want to be charitable?! welcome to priming racer and well done for having got a second little please be sensitive in there...> Please consider the feelings of others when you post, please do not post anything which puts someone else down, and please do be civil, by either definition.
I'd like you to do that too please.
I have feelings too you know.
And in this instant...
I wasn't even talking to you
And the person I was talking to didn't seem to have a problem
And the person I was talking to also had the opportunity to take my point
(Which wasn't a point about being uncivil)
It was a point about civilityBOB and civilityDICT and about how those two come apart. Same point as the one I made to 10 a little while earlier. I took my pointing that out to be a reductio ad absurdum (technical term so please try not to get upset) of the view that there is no distinction. The thought being there are things that might well be true of civilityDICT that are not true of civilityBOBAnd on that note:
Please do not post to me.
You have shown you can be charitable...
But not to me
Not to me
Well thanks very much.
You might just...Fit right on in...
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 22:11:31
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » special_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 21:37:55
> I don't know that anyone here does think it's perfect. I certainly don't. There are tons of discussions on the issue of civility in the archives.
well HALLELUJAH (or however the hell you spell that).
> > (i hope nobody feels hurt about that... but then even if nobody feels hurt maybe i should worry that it is metaphysically possible that someone feel hurt????)
> Um, I hope that's not sarcasm.It isn't sarcasm. It is the point that you can't rearrange everything to rule out the POSSIBILITY of people feeling hurt. Because people can / will get hurt at almost anything... So you need to decide what kinds of things warrant a blocking and what kinds of things do not.
Dr BOb thinks critiquing and ideal / political party / ideology warrants a blocking.
(he is also none too charitable on distinguishing between attacking posters and critiquing ideology etc in my opinion)
I think it does not warrant a blocking.
That is what I"m wanting to discuss...
> Or perhaps they have different ways of expressing their concerns?Oh. Ok. So what are your concerns then?
Are you concerned about the political blockings?
> I'm glad. I would hope that no one here is trying to frighten you into submission.fear of looming blocks...
> Hope you're sleeping well.been there done that.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 22:49:09
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationships. » special_k, posted by madeline on April 15, 2006, at 9:18:03
i don't think i did offend you...
but maybe i did.
and if i did then i'm sorry for that.> I think you bring up a good point, and one that was missed in my original post. What is civility?
yeah that was my point. thanks for seeing that and seeing that i wasn't trying to get you proclaimed uncivil or anything like that...
> And yes, it should be about self-control and respect, always.yeah. respect. i think so too.
i guess i just worry when i see someone blocked who wasn't trying to hurt / offend etc. i feel real sad when that happens.yeah i think the ideal of a civil community is a good one. admirable.
it is just how to get to there...
Posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 23:02:02
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » gardenergirl, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 22:11:31
>
> Oh. Ok. So what are your concerns then?
> Are you concerned about the political blockings?Actually, I've found myself a bit surprised that more posts have not been blocked or PBC'd there based on the guidelines. There's an appropriate time and place for many behaviors and inappropriate times and places for them as well.
I don't agree that it's impossible to have an engaging and informative discussion about politics while staying within the current guidelines.You know, I love to discuss politics, and I've called the senior Senator from my state a very bad word recently. I did that within the privacy of my own home, and to my husband. I would never dream of saying it to the man's face, as it would be disrespectful, even if I don't like him. And it would not be effective in getting him to at least listen to me and (gasp!) actually think about what I said (therein lies the problem with this dude). I also would never post that I think he's a [insert bad word here] here, because this is not an appropriate place for that kind of talk. The bad word is not appropriate here, nor is my calling him a name.
Instead, I could post that he tends to vote strictly along party lines, which I don't like. I prefer the junior senator's style in occasionally breaking with party lines with his votes. I interpret that behavior as showing that he thinks critically about his votes before making them. I also might say that I am pleased that the junior senator's staff have actually taken calls from me and have replied to some of my emails. The senior senator has never acknowledged my contacts.
Just an example of how one can express one's thoughts and beliefs in different ways depending on the setting and expectations. I realize this one is rather "tame". But still, calling him a bad word can feel awfully satisfying when I'm particulary annoyed with him. But I don't have to do that here to feel that satisfaction.
> fear of looming blocks...
I would imagine it could feel more frightening if one feels it's not within one's locus of control.
>
> > Hope you're sleeping well.
>
> been there done that.Well then, I hope I sleep well tonight. :)
take care,
gg
>
>
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 23:51:40
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » special_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 23:02:02
i sorry :-(
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 16, 2006, at 5:00:40
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 23:51:40
but quickly learned this isn't the right place for me to do it.
So, I do it elsewhere.. Somewhere with no civility guidelines, but you know what. I *really* wish there were, as politics cannot be discussed without emotions it seems.
Nikki
Posted by special_k on April 16, 2006, at 21:00:09
In reply to I love to discuss politics.., posted by NikkiT2 on April 16, 2006, at 5:00:40
> but quickly learned this isn't the right place for me to do it.
how come?
because you don't want to upset people you care about over here?
because you are worried about being blocked?> So, I do it elsewhere.. Somewhere with no civility guidelines, but you know what. I *really* wish there were, as politics cannot be discussed without emotions it seems.
yeah. maybe what is needed is... a middle ground. there need to be SOME guidelines (IMO) but not as strict as we have here (IMO)...
or is it that you like to talk about UK / European politics too and here the main focus is on US politics?
Posted by special_k on April 16, 2006, at 21:08:45
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » special_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 23:02:02
> Actually, I've found myself a bit surprised that more posts have not been blocked or PBC'd there based on the guidelines.
Okay. Do you think more posts should be blocked / PBC'd because you think more posts should be blocked / PBC'd... Or do you think more posts should be blocked / PBC'd as a matter of consistency because of what the guidelines say?
(What I mean is do you think there should be more blockings to match the guidelines or do you think the guidelines should be revised down so less people are / should be blocked)?
> There's an appropriate time and place for many behaviors and inappropriate times and places for them as well.
And you think the things people get blocked / PBC'd for are inappropriate (in a civilityDICT) sense rather than inappropriate (in a 'according to current guidelines) sense...
> I don't agree that it's impossible to have an engaging and informative discussion about politics while staying within the current guidelines.
Not impossible... But seems to be too tricky for most.
> You know, I love to discuss politics,Er... But you don't really. You very rarely post to the politics board. How come?
>I've called the senior Senator from my state a very bad word recently...
Right. I'm not advocating that we can call people bad words on the politics board...
> Instead, I could post that he tends to vote strictly along party lines, which I don't like.
Ah I see. So you can talk about what led you to conclude that the bad word applies to him. Though according to current guidelines I don't think you are allowed to say what you don't like so much as say what you would prefer him to do...
Tis a natural tendancy to point out what is wrong with the present situation
(what one perceives to be wrong clearly)
BEFORE going on to say what you prefer him to do.
yup yup yup...
Posted by greywolf on April 16, 2006, at 22:36:27
In reply to Civility IRL, productivity and good relationships., posted by madeline on April 15, 2006, at 8:38:56
Isn't the first rule of civility club that you don't argue about civility club?My lonely, personal opinion--expressed without regard to any particular other poster(s)--is (1) that civility guidelines are inherently difficult to enforce, and (2) that civility guidelines are particularly necessary for a website that supports people, some of whom are experiencing pain and unhappiness.
Consequently, while one would hope that common sense prevails in all circumstances, and that too close scrutiny would not be applied simply for the sake of finding violations of the civility rules, the nature of these boards suggests a need to err on the side of caution--both in the administration of the rules and in expression of disagreement with the rules or rules enforcement.
Posted by special_k on April 16, 2006, at 22:59:19
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationships., posted by greywolf on April 16, 2006, at 22:36:27
hey :-)
> Isn't the first rule of civility club that you don't argue about civility club?heh heh. would you mind terribly if i made an argument1 and argument2 distinction... ;-)
(seriously though thats pretty funny)
:-)> My lonely, personal opinion--expressed without regard to any particular other poster(s)--is (1) that civility guidelines are inherently difficult to enforce,
i agree.
> and (2) that civility guidelines are particularly necessary for a website that supports people, some of whom are experiencing pain and unhappiness.
i agree.
> Consequently, while one would hope that common sense prevails in all circumstances,yes indeedie
> and that too close scrutiny would not be applied simply for the sake of finding violations of the civility rules,
yes of course
> the nature of these boards suggests a need to err on the side of caution--both in the administration of the rules and in expression of disagreement with the rules or rules enforcement.
ooh.
err on the side of caution in the sense of blocking people incase they were intending to be incivilDICT or do you mean err on the side of caution in the sense of being charitable to the poster and not blocking them unless they unquestionably stepped over the line? because bob seems to be thinking former and i'm trying to advocate the latter.why? i guess bob is focusing on the harm to the community of uncivilityDICT on the boards. but who is gonna be harmed if declan didn't get blocked for two weeks?
i have refocused... on the harm to the poster who is blocked. a two week banishment. and what for? because there is a tendency for people from the us to take politics personally. not that anybody did in this instance i don't think. you know declan wasn't even talking about us politics! that is the ironic thing. he was worrying about australia. but the default assumption... priming is going on...
re expressing disagreement...
i express disagreement and people ignore me.
so yeah...
i guess i'm glad people are following along.
not so glad people have been feeling hurt...
but are people feeling hurt...
or are people feeling pissed?
have i overstepped the line?
depends... i honestly don't know. i honestly don't know. bob says he doesn't make admin decisions on the basis of how people feel. but that is b*llshit.
so what i'm wondering is what kinds of feelings...
and whose feelings...lets just see.
because we all know bob can be charitable at times.
so what will he choose to do...
he will probably be trying to figure what might be best for the boards...
hard to say.
Posted by Dinah on April 17, 2006, at 9:32:55
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationships., posted by special_k on April 16, 2006, at 22:59:19
> but are people feeling hurt...
>
> or are people feeling pissed?Does that mean you don't mind the latter? I'm not trying to be confrontative. I'm just really saddened and confused by what's been going on here lately. I just really really don't understand. I just really really am upset by the fact that I don't seem to know Special K at all. I guess I shouldn't be. I should just realize that I need to adjust my mental image of you, or get to know you as Special K. Or maybe even be glad that you are feeling comfortable enough to show more of yourself here. I'll have to work hard on that attitude adjustment.
But in the meantime, I mind the latter as much as I mind the former. Because the goal here is mutual support. And feeling p*ssed off, and thinking that the other poster doesn't mind or even sort of wants to be p*ssing people off doesn't help me to achieve that goal on my end.
I'm not saying that's what you're saying. I'm saying that that's how I hear what you're saying, and if I'm wrong I'd rather have the misunderstanding clarified than to operate on my current understanding.
I got the idea from one of your posts that you think that you tried being "nice" and that didn't work in achieving your goals. And I heard the implication that what you're doing right now is trying another approach.
Do you *really* think that other approach will work? Do you really think that making people angry will bring about your desired change? How do you think that will happen? What would be the sequence of events from people being p*ssed off to greater freedom of speech on the Politics board?
If that's your intent I truly wish to know, so that I will maybe be less discombobulated by the sudden changes in how I percieve you. And again, if I'm mistaken, I'd really like to have my perception corrected.
I have to say that I see a far more probable chain of events that doesn't include your achieving your desired goal, if I'm understanding that goal correctly. And I am regretful if what I foresee comes to pass.
I guess it depends a lot on Dr. Bob and how he interprets things. Although I don't think I ever remembering him changing a rule under those circumstances. Can you remember any times where he has?
Posted by verne on April 17, 2006, at 10:40:24
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2006, at 9:32:55
I haven't been able to follow this entire thread and have little more to offer. Just wanted to thank Dinah for identifying what's important.
I think it's possible to have different views without argument and disagreement. Imagine the difference between an art museum and a debate club. At the art museum we may see things differently but there's no reason to "disagree".
On the other hand, a debating society's purpose is to find disagreement in everything and practice winning the argument. That's a good exercise for those going into law, or a profession where that's needed, but not so helpful in a community where mutual support is the goal.
And even if we carry the day and score enough points to "win" the argument. What have we really won? The loser probably hasn't even changed their mind.
The earth, that we passionately argued rotates around the sun, didn't change course because someone thought otherwise. And after we crushed any opposing points of view, the earth didn't rotate in the proper direction with any more authority.
And even if truth did accidentally break out during an argument aren't there better ways to arrive at the truth?
I don't see much difference between debate and boxing. They both involve winning a fight.
Verne
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.