![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by zazenduck on June 9, 2006, at 16:00:55
In reply to Re: Inclusive discussions? » zazenduck, posted by Dinah on June 9, 2006, at 12:24:09
> I'm all for inclusive discussions as well.
>
> And at the very least for not publicly disclosing an exclusive one. :) I think perhaps Mother still needs to register under her own screen name.
>
> By all means, why should we not continue here? I saw no forbidding of the discussion.Well since he asked you to start the discussion with the deputies I guess you could start it on the board in public if you wanted. It's really up to you isn't it?
I think you are a strong competent woman and can stand up for what you believe without any help from your mom :) Why ever would you think you needed her?
But how do you know she isn't posting here all ready and just hasn't told you?
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkk!
Posted by Dinah on June 9, 2006, at 19:41:28
In reply to Re: Inclusive discussions? » Dinah, posted by zazenduck on June 9, 2006, at 16:00:55
> Well since he asked you to start the discussion with the deputies I guess you could start it on the board in public if you wanted. It's really up to you isn't it?
Well, ok. Here goes.
Would you consider not including Babblemail in blocks, unless Babblemail has been abused?
I understand and appreciate the purpose behind including it. But Babble is a large part of some people's support system, and leaving Babblemail on might be helpful while still allowing the posting portion of the block to still be in effect.
I know that some people have exchanged email addresses, but other people haven't.
I can understand if you veto the idea. I really can. But it would be a kindness to leave it on, unless of course it is abused.
> I think you are a strong competent woman and can stand up for what you believe without any help from your mom :) Why ever would you think you needed her?
Ohhh. Never say so. I like to think of myself as precocious and never like to refer to myself as a wo... well, you know. It's one of my idiosyncracies.
> But how do you know she isn't posting here all ready and just hasn't told you?
>
>
> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkk!Oh, I'd know. We'd all know.
:)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:51:32
In reply to Inclusive discussions? » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduck on June 9, 2006, at 10:31:59
> Bob why does it need to be a noninclusive discussion?
It doesn't, please feel free to continue here, too...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on June 10, 2006, at 10:14:19
In reply to Re: Inclusive discussions?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:51:32
I agree. Leave babblemail on - at least one way so that people can get in touch with the blocked person. The only way we can do that now is post our email address. Understandably, many are afraid to do that.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 10, 2006, at 15:19:40
In reply to Re: Inclusive discussions? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on June 10, 2006, at 10:14:19
If the Psychobabble yahoo group (where Open was) is still there, I suppose that a person, blocked or not could join that. Your membership profile includes a publically viewable email address if I'm not mistaken. There is no longer chat available in this group, but the group itself is still functional, I believe.
Heck, I think you can even post messages there.
gg
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2006, at 9:00:01
In reply to Re: Inclusive discussions?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:51:32
I do understand that the reason behind turning off Babblemail is to increase the incentive to comply with the civility guidelines. And I have enormous sympathy with trying to increase the incentive to comply with the civility guidelines. I love the civility guidelines.
And in many cases, it may not make much of a difference to a person's life if they have no babblemail.
But....
In some cases, Babble is an important pert of a person's support system. And it seems to me that the greater good would be served by allowing access to that support system at a time when the poster is most likely to be distressed.
I don't think there are that many posters who take a block lightly. I don't know that it's necessary to include Babblemail to have them take it seriously.
It could be included in standard block language that continuing the behavior via Babblemail or engaging in any other uncivil behavior via Babblemail will result in the suspension of Babblemail privileges for the length of the block, or even that it will have the same result as posting in doubling the length of the block.
You would have to rely on Babblers to do what many might consider "tattling". But I hope that most Babblers, if the offense was offensive enough, would overcome their distaste of reporting a fellow Babbler and forward the Babblemail on to you as per your instructions.
And no decision is unalterable. If you find that large numbers of blocked posters are also abusing Babblemail, or if you discover that blocks are less of a deterrant when they do not include Babblemail, you can say so and reverse the experiment in generosity.
In fact, on a slightly unrelated note, I think all new rules should be seen in light of an experiment that can be reversed if they don't bring the intended result.
I don't know. It just seems akin to having a crisis and having your therapist unavailable as a natural result of that crisis. And I have a special sympathy for that circumstance. I know Babble isn't therapy, but it can be and sometimes is an important part of a person's support system, so in that way is not dissimilar even though therapy is certainly not disbursed here.
Posted by Dinah on June 12, 2006, at 8:07:23
In reply to Babblemail » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 11, 2006, at 9:00:01
Babblers have to say before replying.
So Babblers, do you have anythng to say?
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 12, 2006, at 10:10:05
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 4, 2006, at 17:01:24
Dr. Bob,
I, too, would like to see Babble mail left on unless it is used in an abusive manner. I am not comfortable giving out an e-mail address to other Babblers. I think Babble mail is one of the best features of this site!
A block for me would be total, and I'm not sure that is the best way to learn what I did wrong or how to keep from repeating it. Without encouragement and support I might never come back.
MidnightBlue
Posted by muffled on June 12, 2006, at 12:00:05
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 12, 2006, at 10:10:05
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 22:19:30
In reply to It's possible that Dr. Bob is waiting to see what, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2006, at 8:07:23
deputies have to say before replying.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 12, 2006, at 22:26:11
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting to see what, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 22:19:30
Deputies aren't more important than posters. They're just posters who help you out, Dr. Bob.
Please don't set up artificial barriers, Dr. Bob.
Posted by muffled on June 12, 2006, at 22:38:44
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting to see what » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2006, at 22:26:11
Posted by muffled on June 12, 2006, at 22:41:28
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting to see what, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 22:19:30
WEASLE!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!
Weasles are smart and can sure snake around things!
Perfect.
:-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2006, at 17:28:08
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting to see what » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2006, at 22:26:11
> Deputies aren't more important than posters. They're just posters who help you out, Dr. Bob.
I value what they think, that's one way they help. But if someone really has no opinion, they can just let me know that, too.
Bob
Posted by ClearSkies on June 13, 2006, at 17:31:32
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2006, at 17:28:08
Maybe if you want to hear from more Babblers, you could put something on the top of the page (like you did announcing the Toronto meeting) and link it to this thread?
ClearSkies
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2006, at 17:49:59
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2006, at 17:28:08
I'm sure you meant to add that you value the input of all posters. :)
(Geez, Dr. Bob. I'm doing my best to help you, and me too incidentally. Don't leave me twisting here.)
Posted by zazenduck on June 13, 2006, at 18:03:46
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting to see what, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 22:19:30
GG Dinah and Auntymel have all posted on this thread
>
> Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 13, 2006, at 19:23:11
In reply to Who ARE the deputies?, posted by zazenduck on June 13, 2006, at 18:03:46
Well, technically, I posted to the thread but did not address the question about Babblemail here on the boards.
I have no objection to babblemail staying on for a blocked poster. However, I am concerned that it could be used to continue a disagreement, and/or to attack others regarding a block. Dr. Bob would have to rely on others reporting incidents like this in order to address them. I hope everyone would feel comfortable reporting abusive babblemails if they need to.
gg
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2006, at 9:38:54
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting to see what, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 22:19:30
If you wanted to make it one way, so that Babblers could write and leave email addresses or IM names if they wish, or at least say something, that would still be a big improvement over cutting someone off completely. A lot of people wouldn't feel comfortable giving those on board.
If you're afraid Babblemail would be abused, and Babblers wouldn't report it. I'd report it, because I see it as helping you administrate, but I suppose others might see it as tattling.
I'm not sure about the degree of difficulty involved in one way Babblemail.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:54:41
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob is waiting » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2006, at 17:49:59
> I'm sure you meant to add that you value the input of all posters. :)
I thought I did, maybe the server ate that part? :-)
> (Geez, Dr. Bob. I'm doing my best to help you, and me too incidentally. Don't leave me twisting here.)
I appreciate that and don't mean to leave anybody twisting! I do think we're moving forward on this and the process I have in mind will just take a little more time. Thanks for your patience, everyone,
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 14, 2006, at 14:02:50
In reply to Re: the process, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:54:41
> I do think we're moving forward on this and the process I have in mind will just take a little more time.Do you mind spelling that process out so that we know what to expect?
gg
Posted by muffled on June 14, 2006, at 16:08:09
In reply to Re: the process » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on June 14, 2006, at 14:02:50
>
> > I do think we're moving forward on this and the process I have in mind will just take a little more time.
>
> Do you mind spelling that process out so that we know what to expect?
>
> gg***Yeah a little real communication would be good right about now.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:30:01
In reply to Re: the process » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on June 14, 2006, at 14:02:50
> > I do think we're moving forward on this and the process I have in mind will just take a little more time.
>
> Do you mind spelling that process out so that we know what to expect?I thought I'd ask the deputies and deputy candidates to vote...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:05:58
In reply to Re: the process, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:30:01
About the degree of difficulty involved. Can the variables be separated? Posting and babblemailing and babblemail receiving?
Also, I wanted to clarify because I didn't make it clear in my original post.
I didn't think of this idea. I had heard it from one or two other posters, I don't remember where, and I'd read about people's pain when they were cut off from all Babble contact, and I just thought the idea deserved to be set apart on its own thread so I started one. But I don't want to take credit for the idea.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 21, 2006, at 6:20:15
In reply to I suppose I never asked » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:05:58
> About the degree of difficulty involved. Can the variables be separated? Posting and babblemailing and babblemail receiving?
>
> Also, I wanted to clarify because I didn't make it clear in my original post.
>
> I didn't think of this idea. I had heard it from one or two other posters, I don't remember where, and I'd read about people's pain when they were cut off from all Babble contact, and I just thought the idea deserved to be set apart on its own thread so I started one. But I don't want to take credit for the idea.Actually, it was my idea.
Cutting of posting means someone may not speak. Cutting off babblemail is tantamount to saying they may not listen, either. No personal support is allowed? The simplest sentence here is solitary confinement?
Lar
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.