![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 57 to 81 of 131. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 14:37:23
In reply to Re: the fine line (notbob) » notfred, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 13:45:57
> It is actually a difficult thing.
Yes. It would be an interesting experiment to see if thorough disputations can be presented that remain civil as prescribed within the PB guidelines of civility.
It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis.
- Scott
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 14:41:44
In reply to Re: Words matter, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 14:13:34
> Hi NotFred.
>
> I agree with the others who agree with you. If there are any who will agree with me, then I will agree with them too.What really frightens me about all this, is that I think I understand what you just wrote...
;-)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 15:19:36
In reply to Re: the fine line (notbob), posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 14:37:23
"It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 15:33:12
In reply to Re: public disputations » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 15:19:36
> "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
>
> It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.Ok.
I look forward to seeing an argument made for complete transparancy.
- Scott
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 15:41:42
In reply to Re: public disputations, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 15:33:12
> > "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
> >
> > It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
>
> Ok.
>
> I look forward to seeing an argument made for complete transparancy.
>
>
> - ScottYou won't get any such argument from me.
It may be that I'm shallow, or not interested enough in larger issues like Truth or Justice, but honestly? I think complete transparency is usually a bad idea -- except in many sorts of glass and some forms of acrylic.
Transparency in complaints against deputies and other posters, for instance, seem like a great way to make people feel unnecessariy bad. Much better, from my perspective, to do that sort of thing privately, so that spankings -- if any -- can be private. It feels more respectful, to me, and I can't see why it wouldn't get the job done just as efficiently without hurting any feelings.
Again, this is my perspective, and maybe it's a character flaw on my part. I just don't see any compelling reason to risk hurting feelings needlessly.
I guess the office analogy resonates a great deal with me, because I keep coming back to how I've felt when castigated in front of other employees.
The answer, by the way, is pretty $h*tty.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 15:46:12
In reply to Re: public disputations, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 15:33:12
> > "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
> >
> > It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
>
> Ok.
>
> I look forward to seeing an argument made for complete transparancy.Or maybe I have it backwards?
In any event:
:-)
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 16:03:03
In reply to Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but » SLS, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 15:41:42
I like your office analogy.
But - that same person would also get in trouble by hinting another person did something wrong, even without spelling it out.
I vote for one or the other, either complete transparancy or complete quiet. I just don't like hybrids - insinuations without details. That leaves people to use their imaginations, usually much jucier than the truth.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 16:35:30
In reply to Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but » SLS, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 15:41:42
> > > "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
> > >
> > > It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > I look forward to seeing an argument made for complete transparancy.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> You won't get any such argument from me.
>
> It may be that I'm shallow, or not interested enough in larger issues like Truth or Justice, but honestly? I think complete transparency is usually a bad idea -- except in many sorts of glass and some forms of acrylic.
>
> Transparency in complaints against deputies and other posters, for instance, seem like a great way to make people feel unnecessariy bad. Much better, from my perspective, to do that sort of thing privately, so that spankings -- if any -- can be private. It feels more respectful, to me, and I can't see why it wouldn't get the job done just as efficiently without hurting any feelings.
>
> Again, this is my perspective, and maybe it's a character flaw on my part. I just don't see any compelling reason to risk hurting feelings needlessly.
>
> I guess the office analogy resonates a great deal with me, because I keep coming back to how I've felt when castigated in front of other employees.
>
> The answer, by the way, is pretty $h*tty.
Well, I guess there are no in-betweens. You either make it completely transparant or completely invisible.Throughout this tiny debate - and I do mean tiny - I have remained of the opinion that complaints made against deputies should be handled via email to Dr. Bob or by any mechanism he puts in place that will handle the complaints privately and invisibly. However, I am still interested to hear opposing views to learn from. I think the desirability of transparancy varies from situation to situation.
There really isn't much to be debated in this matter. It really is tiny. It is the protection of those people who have invested themselves as volunteers, donating great amounts of time and effort in reviewing and evaluating the activity on 20 different posting boards, helping to maintain the operation of this website that is of the highest priority. These are real human beings with real thoughts and feelings. Any discussion of transparancy in this situation seems like an academic exercise and does not rise to the level of importance as does the protection of those thoughts and feelings. I don't think there is any danger of deputies being brought before the public to be scrutinized through a presentation of disputation for all the world to see. I think people can sit back, relax and perhaps contemplate the unmitigated impudence of cowbirds for laying their eggs in other birds' nests.
- Scott
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 16:35:35
In reply to Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but » SLS, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 15:41:42
--but aren't deputies in the business of administering VERY public spankings? maybe pbc's etc should be dealt with privately too. and offensive posts should be removed instead of left on the boards forever. that's what Psychcentral does isn't it? but sure start with protecting the deputies and maybe it will work it's way down!
yours for Truth and Justice ;)
zazenducky
>
>
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:30:44
In reply to Re: Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 16:35:30
> I think people can sit back, relax and perhaps contemplate the unmitigated impudence of cowbirds for laying their eggs in other birds' nests.
That is rather impudent of them! I'm not fond of the near ultra-sonic whistle call they make either.
Thanks for your support.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:34:06
In reply to Re: public disputations » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 15:19:36
> "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
>
> It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.I remember seeing someone else affected. If I remember correctly, there was even a plea/request to stop.
It was painful to see, though the affected poster is quite pretty. ;)
gg
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 17:37:14
In reply to Re: public disputations » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:34:06
> > "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."
> >
> > It's not pretty. But I best not discuss this publicly, not now.
>
> I remember seeing someone else affected. If I remember correctly, there was even a plea/request to stop.
>
> It was painful to see, though the affected poster is quite pretty. ;)
>
> gg
>In fact, that's the only reason I ever got involved in these things in the first place.
And she is quite pretty, isn't she?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:38:04
In reply to Re: Maybe it's some character flaw of mine, but, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 16:03:03
> That leaves people to use their imaginations, usually much jucier than the truth.
I'm guilty of crimes against slug-anity. And I'll do it again. Bwaa haa haa haa
Somebody take away my salt.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 18:09:45
In reply to Re: public disputations » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:34:06
More than one plea, but who's counting.
And she's *very* pretty.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 18:15:18
In reply to Allright, allright. I admit it. %^O » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 17:38:04
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 18:27:29
In reply to Re: public disputations » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on September 15, 2006, at 18:09:45
> More than one plea, but who's counting.
>
> And she's *very* pretty.Available?
- Scott
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:07
In reply to Re: public disputations, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 18:27:29
i am pretty imperfect just like everyone else but i have positive feelings for others on both sides of this issue. i wish yall would have the grace to drop it
I saw a news special about mean girls on tv last night. about middle school..... I was frankly saddened by it too.
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 18:50:22
In reply to I am franklysaddened by the cryptic cuteness, posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:07
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 18:58:53
In reply to I am franklysaddened by the cryptic cuteness, posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:07
I FEEL FRANKLYSADDENED AS I READ THE CRYPTIC CUTENESS
SCUSE THE CAPS PLEASE
> i am pretty imperfect just like everyone else but i have positive feelings for others on both sides of this issue. i wish yall would have the grace to drop it
>
> I saw a news special about mean girls on tv last night. about middle school..... I was frankly saddened by it too.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 19:17:53
In reply to I am franklysaddened by the cryptic cuteness, posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:07
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/537516.html
It's all in the archives. Although Nikki being pretty is still on the current board, I think.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 19:18:40
In reply to not cryptic » zazenducky, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 19:17:53
for bringing up something I know was painful for you.
(((Nikki))))
gg
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 19:28:22
In reply to not cryptic » zazenducky, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 19:17:53
do you have a link to the post where she called Lou a name and Lou was banned for 48 weeks for referring to her apology and she was not banned at all? since you're bringing up history?
that was pretty too wasn't it Deputy GG?
i am pretty myself
Posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 19:46:30
In reply to that post was a year old! » gardenergirl, posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 19:28:22
It doesn't matter how old the post is. I was responding to this statement from SLS:
"It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."My point was that there is already data out there. At least one person has already posted how it affected their "psyche". That discussion was memorable for me. I didn't intend to be "cryptic", but I wanted to make my point without bringing another person into it, as I did by later linking Nikki's post.
That is all.
gg, who's not replying as a deputy and who is abstaining from any deputy duties on this thread.
Who also wants to make the picky point that no one is ever "banned" from this site. They are blocked from posting as a consequence of a behavior. They can still access the site.
Posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 19:57:09
In reply to Re: that post was a year old!, posted by gardenergirl on September 15, 2006, at 19:46:30
> It doesn't matter how old the post is. I was responding to this statement from SLS:
> "It would also be an interesting experiment to see how serial public disputations affect the psyches of those being accused of misconduct on a regular basis."Well Lou could probably tell us couldn't he? He has certainly suffered more accusations than anyone else I can think of on this board.
>
> My point was that there is already data out there. At least one person has already posted how it affected their "psyche". That discussion was memorable for me. I didn't intend to be "cryptic", but I wanted to make my point without bringing another person into it, as I did by later linking Nikki's post.
>
> That is all.
>
> gg, who's not replying as a deputy and who is abstaining from any deputy duties on this thread.
>
> Who also wants to make the picky point that no one is ever "banned" from this site. They are blocked from posting as a consequence of a behavior. They can still access the site.
******No they are blocked as the result of a subjective interpretation of their post made by one of a small group selected by Bob :) Quite a different thing indeed************
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 20:52:04
In reply to Re: that post was a year old!, posted by zazenducky on September 15, 2006, at 19:57:09
First of all, I don't expect that any general consensus will come from this thread. I very much doubt that anything said in this thread will modify anyone else's opinions on the matter...
So, what I'm about to say is probably just typing practice. :-) S'OK, I never was much of a typist...
> > They are blocked from posting as a consequence of a behavior.
>
>
> ******No they are blocked as the result of a subjective interpretation of their post made by one of a small group selected by Bob :) Quite a different thing indeed************
>
Zazenducky, I don't agree with you about this. It seems to me that the civility guidelines are posted, they're available for people to read, and it's a choice to abide by them or not. What's more, blocks are usually preceeded by warnings. Therefore, I think blocks are earned, not bestowed.And another part of my view, which probably explains why I can accept the system so well, is that only one person's opinion really matters here: the owner of the site. Why? Because of one word: owner.
I get a lot of support here. If I can't type some of the old AngloSaxon words I know because they might offend community standards? Yeah, it's worth it. I gotta try to play nice with others, even when I'm upset -- with them or with the world at large? Yeah, uh huh, good system. It means they gotta try to play nice with me when they feel snarky.
{shrug} As I said, this won't modify anyone's views about this place. It's just a pet peeve of mine, the "earned/given" thing. I hear it at school, too: "She *gave* me a B, even though I was only 30 points away from an A." Uh...
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.