![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 35. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2006, at 11:26:32
In reply to Re: DNP's, posted by NikkiT2 on August 29, 2006, at 12:48:45
> People have been blocked many times for violating a DNP, no matter what the reason was for posting it.
If someone could provide an example of when the reason wasn't feeling harassed or wanting to disengage, I'd be interested...
> Certainly that wasn't harassment, but as I understand it he's within his rights to request it.
>
> AuntieMelMy understanding is there's only the above exception...
> Would a DNP that isn't requested for the purposes of harrasment pretty be covered by civility standards?
Not if the reason were a mutual desire to disengage...
> If someone posted a DNP to me, when all I had done was disagree sligtly with their point, I would feel pretty
>
> NikkiT2Which is a reason to limit them...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 10, 2006, at 13:54:51
In reply to Re: DNP's, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2006, at 11:26:32
It's rarely a mutual desire to disengage, Dr. Bob, or there'd be no need for a DNP. It's usually a desire by one party to disengage, and it works rather well since the party requesting the DNP can't post to the DNP recipient either, thus allowing a cooling off period.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 10, 2006, at 21:33:10
In reply to Re: DNP's, posted by Dinah on September 10, 2006, at 13:54:51
> It's rarely a mutual desire to disengage, Dr. Bob, or there'd be no need for a DNP.
In the case of the recent DNP to me, it was definitely not mutual, and I was surprised when it was posted. Although to be fair, I can't say I haven't derived some benefit from the action.
gg
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 12, 2006, at 12:13:07
In reply to Re: DNP's, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2006, at 11:26:32
> > If someone posted a DNP to me, when all I had done was disagree sligtly with their point, I would feel pretty
> >
> > NikkiT2
>
> Which is a reason to limit them...
>
> BobDon't you like me feeling pretty Dr Bob?! ;)
Nikki x
Posted by AuntieMel on September 12, 2006, at 12:56:56
In reply to Re: DNP's, posted by NikkiT2 on September 12, 2006, at 12:13:07
Now, *that* was funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2006, at 14:25:40
In reply to Re: DNP's, posted by Dinah on September 10, 2006, at 13:54:51
> It's rarely a mutual desire to disengage, Dr. Bob, or there'd be no need for a DNP. It's usually a desire by one party to disengage, and it works rather well since the party requesting the DNP can't post to the DNP recipient either, thus allowing a cooling off period.
The desire to disengage could be mutual, but difficulty actually disengaging could be mutual, too. If just one party wants to disengage, would it help if they could post a DNP to themselves?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:34:03
In reply to Re: desire to disengage, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2006, at 14:25:40
Dr. Bob, that is not past practice AT ALL.
You have told people that the harassment rule has been lifted. Perhaps because asking someont to DNP with harassment as a requirement would not be exactly civil, would it? Nor would proving that harassment has occurred. Which would actually be against the rules anyway, wouldn't it? I'm sure there was something in the FAQ about pressuring or harassing people as being not allowed.
And in the past, people have asked not to be posted to, other posters have been blocked for not obeying, and no one has had to prove harassment at all.
If you are going to reverse this policy, I think some people deserve retroactive unblockings and free passes for their next blocks.
How could it be mutual unless both parties simultaneously posted a DNP? If there's tension building between two posters, even if one poster is perhaps unaware of it, you have in the past upheld DNP's.
Posted by zazenducky on September 13, 2006, at 20:14:40
In reply to Re: desire to disengage, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2006, at 14:25:40
> > It's rarely a mutual desire to disengage, Dr. Bob, or there'd be no need for a DNP. It's usually a desire by one party to disengage, and it works rather well since the party requesting the DNP can't post to the DNP recipient either, thus allowing a cooling off period.
>
> The desire to disengage could be mutual, but difficulty actually disengaging could be mutual, too. If just one party wants to disengage, would it help if they could post a DNP to themselves?
>
But you won't let people request voluntary blocks so if they post a DNP to themselves and then post to themselves would you block them or by posting to themselves would they automatically rescind the DNP?
Posted by zazenducky on September 13, 2006, at 20:19:37
In reply to Re: posting DNP to self? » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on September 13, 2006, at 20:14:40
Posted by zazenducky on September 13, 2006, at 20:23:56
In reply to DNP to me (nm) » zazenducky, posted by zazenducky on September 13, 2006, at 20:19:37
Posted by 10derHeart on September 13, 2006, at 22:04:15
In reply to Re: desire to disengage, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2006, at 14:25:40
>> If just one party wants to disengage, would it help if they could post a DNP to themselves?
I'm sorry, but....huh? Guess I'm dense and/or unable to focus, as I couldn't follow this.
Were you serious, and if so, could you describe what that would look like, or give an example?
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 0:17:56
In reply to Re: desire to disengage, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2006, at 14:25:40
> > It's rarely a mutual desire to disengage, Dr. Bob, or there'd be no need for a DNP. It's usually a desire by one party to disengage, and it works rather well since the party requesting the DNP can't post to the DNP recipient either, thus allowing a cooling off period.
>
> The desire to disengage could be mutual, but difficulty actually disengaging could be mutual, too. If just one party wants to disengage, would it help if they could post a DNP to themselves?I should think that it would be desirable to alert the recipient of the DNP request by addressing the post to him. Actually, I would consider this a rather necessary requesite if there are sanctions to be issued for failure to comply with such a request. I don't think it would be legal for me to be fined for not complying with a court order that was mailed to the court house.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2006, at 8:43:30
In reply to Re: desire to disengage, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2006, at 14:25:40
>If just one party wants to disengage, would it help if they could post a DNP to themselves?
so if i wanted to disengage from posting responses to poster x then i could publicly commit myself to not responding to them by posting 'i request that i dnp to x'?
then poster x would know that i was not going to post to them.
and hopefully, as a matter of courtesy, they would stop posting to me.
and even if they did post to me, they would have forewarning that i wouldn't be answering them.
and if i did post to them then...
i would recieve a warning then a blocking?
how is this different from people requesting they be blocked from babble?
are you advocating that people could say 'i will dnp to babble' and if they broke that... they will be blocked?
sounds like a good idea to me.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2006, at 10:07:08
In reply to Re: desire to disengage » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2006, at 8:43:30
> Dr. Bob, that is not past practice AT ALL.
>
> You have told people that the harassment rule has been lifted.
>
> And in the past, people have asked not to be posted to, other posters have been blocked for not obeying, and no one has had to prove harassment at all.
>
> How could it be mutual unless both parties simultaneously posted a DNP? If there's tension building between two posters, even if one poster is perhaps unaware of it, you have in the past upheld DNP's.
>
> DinahSorry about not remembering. If someone could provide the URLs, I'd be interested in reviewing those situations and my thinking then.
Harassment hasn't needed to be "proven":
> > If it's not clear to me why their post makes [might make] you feel harassed, I may ask.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
There could in fact be simultaneous DNPs...
--
> > If just one party wants to disengage, would it help if they could post a DNP to themselves?
>
> so if i wanted to disengage from posting responses to poster x then i could publicly commit myself to not responding to them by posting 'i request that i dnp to x'?Right, that's what I was thinking...
> how is this different from people requesting they be blocked from babble?
>
> alexandra_kIt would be specific to poster x.
--
> I should think that it would be desirable to alert the recipient of the DNP request by addressing the post to him.
>
> ScottI agree. Currently, the procedure is:
> > Ask them not to post to you anymore by replying to that post with the "add name of previous poster" box checked.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
FYI, an overhaul of this system is also on my to-do list. The idea will be to standardize and centralize requests by having them posted by the server to a single thread here, to notify the other person by email, and to require them to acknowledge receipt.
I've also been thinking Please Don't Post would be preferable to Do Not Post. Maybe we could start with that change now?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 14, 2006, at 10:14:22
In reply to Re: desire to disengage, posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2006, at 10:07:08
Perhaps those who have received sanctions can provide URL's if they wish reconsideration.
If you don't have to prove the harassment, how do you judge if it's a valid PDNP?
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:57:34
In reply to Re: desire to disengage, posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2006, at 10:07:08
>
> FYI, an overhaul of this system is also on my to-do list. The idea will be to standardize and centralize requests by having them posted by the server to a single thread here, to notify the other person by email, and to require them to acknowledge receipt.
>some people choose not to use babblemail and rarely check the e-mail addresses used to register
some people prefer not to recieve email from you bob
please respect that
Posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 13:12:18
In reply to compulsory e-mails bad idea » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:57:34
I do think it needs to be in the subject line. I've seen numerous DNP's posted within the body of a message that could very easily be overlooked.
And I think it would be useful if the other poster could post a "nm" post saying that it was acknowledged. That way you know that the person "DNP'd" knows, since it is not always anticipated. A neutral message like that seems to have a low potential for causing any harm to the person requesting the DNP. Though I realize that different folks have different thresholds for upset, and that can vary by the situation.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 14, 2006, at 13:20:04
In reply to Re: compulsory e-mails bad idea, posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 13:12:18
A (nm) acknowledgement would be useful, but it would be hard to enforce. A person could pretend forever not to see it.
But - to make it easier - I do hereby acknowledge that zazenducky did request me not to post.....
You have my permission to block me if I forget.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 14:00:39
In reply to Re: compulsory e-mails bad idea » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on September 14, 2006, at 13:20:04
Maybe we should start writing names on the board. With checkmarks for multiples? ;)
gg
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 17:54:22
In reply to compulsory e-mails bad idea » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:57:34
> > FYI, an overhaul of this system is also on my to-do list. The idea will be to standardize and centralize requests by having them posted by the server to a single thread here, to notify the other person by email, and to require them to acknowledge receipt.
Could someone please explain to me the reason behind the perceived need to prescribe this manner of initiating a "do not post to me" request?
I didn't know there was a problem.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on September 14, 2006, at 18:09:00
In reply to Re: compulsory e-mails bad idea, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 17:54:22
I expect the problem is that Dr. Bob would like acknowledgement that a poster is aware of a PDNP request before giving out sanctions.
I'm not aware of there being any question in the past, but there definitely *could* be.
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 19:50:12
In reply to DNP to me (nm) » zazenducky, posted by zazenducky on September 13, 2006, at 20:19:37
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 19:52:41
In reply to PDP to me (nm) » zazenducky, posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 19:50:12
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 21:20:38
In reply to Re: compulsory e-mails bad idea » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 14, 2006, at 18:09:00
> I expect the problem is that Dr. Bob would like acknowledgement that a poster is aware of a PDNP request before giving out sanctions.
>
> I'm not aware of there being any question in the past, but there definitely *could* be.Ok. I was confused there. (Far too easy to do with this illness). That makes sense. This is becoming rather burdensome, though, with everything else that we are responsible to know and do. Perhaps the administration should send an email to the requestee informing them of the request with the instructions to reply to the email as an acknowledgment of its receipt.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:40:38
In reply to compulsory e-mails bad idea » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:57:34
> some people choose not to use babblemail and rarely check the e-mail addresses used to register
>
> some people prefer not to recieve email from you bobThanks, those are good points. The server could notify them the next time they tried to post instead, I do think that would be better.
Bob
This is the end of the 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.