![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 20:49:35
Would it be helpful or even possible to have threats of suicide or suicide idealization...or....even suicide manipulative comments in posts and in subject lines and chat to be auto asterisked? Would/could that help many feel safer in babble? I know for myself I do not get triggered but rather annoyed and I feel sad for others who do get triggered when I read some of these types of posts. Just a thought. Any views on this?
Posted by muffled on December 28, 2006, at 21:36:26
In reply to Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *trigger, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 20:49:35
> Would it be helpful or even possible to have threats of suicide or suicide idealization...or....even suicide manipulative comments in posts and in subject lines and chat to be auto asterisked? Would/could that help many feel safer in babble? I know for myself I do not get triggered but rather annoyed and I feel sad for others who do get triggered when I read some of these types of posts. Just a thought. Any views on this?
*A nice thot, but i dunno how effective it would be. The auto asterisk for swears is kinda silly really, everybody knows what the word really is!!!!
I'm not sure how it could be carried out logistically.
I DO know it needs to be dealt with SOMEhow.......
Nice to meet you.
Don't get burned here in admin, gets UGLY here sometimes...
Muffled
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 21:48:45
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *trigger » Fallen4MyT, posted by muffled on December 28, 2006, at 21:36:26
Thanks Muffled. :) I know there would be kinks but we could work them out...maybe .....
I can deal with THE ADMIN board. I have been a member for wow....YEARS now. I seldom post. I use to post a lot ..a LOT more in social, psych and here than anywhere else...but thanks for the warning.
I really agree SOMETHING needs to be done on the suicide things......I recall when it was pretty much a guaranteed block or call to the cops. Though, they did sometimes just say call 911 or see a doc and leave the poster alone and let them do or not do something safe
Posted by Phillipa on December 28, 2006, at 21:55:29
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *trigger, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 21:48:45
Did they call the police I heard that once that Dr. Bob did I think. Love Phillipa
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 22:07:56
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *trigger » Fallen4MyT, posted by Phillipa on December 28, 2006, at 21:55:29
> Did they call the police I heard that once that Dr. Bob did I think. Love Phillipa
They did I was a member well before that and remember that well...as well as the poster. I will not post the name. I may be wrong but I THINK? and Dr Bob can feel free to correct me but they did it more than once for that person and I think it helped that person in the end. I hope it did. I know she is still around I get emails now and then .
I KNOW THEY cannot call the cops and track ISPs all the time so I think some options would be a ban on it after a 1 time only..call 911 or your doc....or the astricks...or ????
Posted by Phillipa on December 28, 2006, at 22:11:27
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *trigger, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 22:07:56
Well I'm glad it helped the poster. So it's no longer done? Love Phillipa
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 22:56:40
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *trigger » Fallen4MyT, posted by Phillipa on December 28, 2006, at 22:11:27
> Well I'm glad it helped the poster. So it's no longer done? Love Phillipa
I do not know if it is done anymore. I kind of hope Dr Bob weighs in on this because he would know best on this policy. I don't THINK it is but I could be wrong. I see a lot of posts pass the suicide talk that would have been met back then with a different reaction. I mean as far as back then you pretty much ONLY got "call your PDOC or 911 now..this site is not a site for this and so on" ..and with this one poster the cops. I feel the site has gone backwards as far as that factor. I also feel THE OLD WAY was healthier for ALL concerned. But again I am just stating my view point
Posted by NikkiT2 on December 29, 2006, at 3:45:47
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *trigger, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 21:48:45
">.I recall when it was pretty much a guaranteed block or call to the cops."
Problem is, what do you do when you have a poster that says "if you block me, I will make a suicide attempt".
What is Dr Bob meant to do in that circumstance? Its a tough call..
*shrugs*
Nikki, each day caring less and less and less
Posted by fayeroe on December 29, 2006, at 7:46:09
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri, posted by NikkiT2 on December 29, 2006, at 3:45:47
Posted by madeline on December 29, 2006, at 9:00:58
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri, posted by NikkiT2 on December 29, 2006, at 3:45:47
yes, what does one do about that?
That certainly is an issue that has come up before.
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 9:17:02
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *trigger, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 28, 2006, at 22:56:40
Since it was always posters responding, I imagine that it was posters who said call 911, not Dr. Bob.
I've been here 5 1/2 years. Perhaps you've been here longer. But I don't see that things have changed significantly in this regard since I've been here. Posters talk to suicidal posters now more or less as they did before.
People get angry once in a while when they're feeling particularly frustrated, and always have.
Dr. Bob has never blocked people for expressing suicidal intent, and it would appear from his recent post that he's not open to starting now.
And while he *has* been known to report a post to the police (or rather to the poster's ISP), I don't think it could be considered a policy. For one thing, he isn't on board for stretches at a time, and only he has the information to report a post to a posters ISP. So it couldn't possibly be consistently enforced. Relying on him to report a post would be a very bad idea, because he just isn't around consistently enough to do anything regularly on a timely basis.
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 9:27:15
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri, posted by NikkiT2 on December 29, 2006, at 3:45:47
Dr. Bob has answered that question, with his actions, if I recall correctly.
Dr. Bob appears to me to be perfectly comfortable with his boundaries. I admire him for that. Even when I'm mad enough to have my head explode when he crosses his arms with me. But I admire him anyway. I admire my therapist somewhat less for the same quality.
You know, I agree with what you wrote somewhere else about Babble changing. I find myself feeling the same way. Although that's off topic.
Posted by ElaineM on December 29, 2006, at 9:34:41
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri, posted by NikkiT2 on December 29, 2006, at 3:45:47
((((NikkiT2)))
That would be a theoretical example of the type of turn in a situation that I'm trying to express my views about above -- when an *individual reaction* becomes a *threat* (not just in general) but to a *member of the community*. To me, even "If my aunt doesn't...I swear I will..." is worlds apart from, "If you/he/she *HERE* don't....I will..." And I'm confused that that could be considered within the civility guidelines, when someone could get blocked for implying something about a (relatively) less loaded subject.
To me, even modifying the phrasing by saying only "*maybe* I will harm myself if they....", or, "I'll *feel* like I'll harm myself if he/she...." is completely irrelevant. The part that I feel matters most is the "IF a community member" part. I think the "if" (stated or implied) connotes the "threat". I think it ascribes personal blame for one's behaviour to someone else -- which I feel is uncivil. And I think threats try to place responsibility for the results of an interaction on one person more than the other. But whatever.
I fear I don't explain myself well, but you seem much more succinct in your posts.
I'm sorry you've come to care less and less.
blove, EL
Posted by Farkus on December 29, 2006, at 9:54:29
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » NikkiT2, posted by ElaineM on December 29, 2006, at 9:34:41
I absolutely agree and I think you explained it well. Suicide talk used as coercive statement has always felt wrong to me. I believe that if it is leveled at Adm. or at other posters.
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 10:00:44
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » NikkiT2, posted by ElaineM on December 29, 2006, at 9:34:41
I am positive I've wanted to post things like that. I might even have done it, I'm not sure. Not prospectively, more in retrospect. Not if you do this, I'll xxxx. More like when you did this, I want to xxxx, or I did xxxx.
I remember one memorable occasion when only Babble's being shut down overnight at exactly the moment that I hit "post" saved me from sheer disaster. I said thank you in church that Sunday, although I'm not sure God actually had Dr. Bob work on the system that night just so I wouldn't post myself beyond redemption.
I know what was in my mind at the time. At least consciously. It wasn't to manipulate. It was more to say "I hurt so much. I want others to know how much I'm hurting."
It is *very* hard to give up that way of communicating pain. Especially if it was the only way to be taken seriously as you were growing up.
I'm not saying it would be ok for me to have posted what I wanted to post that night. It very much wouldn't have been ok, even if Dr. Bob didn't consider it uncivil. I'm not saying that the things I did post from time to time were ok. They weren't. In addition to having the potential for making others angry, uncomfortable, or anxious it also just wasn't the best way to convey what I wanted to convey. It wasn't a pragmatic choice. It wouldn't have gotten me what I wanted. As manipulation goes, it wouldn't have been effective at all. I really like what Linehan says about people who communicate that way. That they aren't any more manipulative than anyone else, they just aren't very effective at it.
I'm not saying that what I wanted to do, or even what I may have actually done, should be allowed under the civility rules. It probably shouldn't be.
On the other hand, I rather wish that what led to what I wanted to do wasn't allowed under the civility rules either. The civility rules just don't cover everything that can hurt a whole lot, and I think there are difficulties in trying to extend it to do that.
But I do try to keep in mind my own actions, and my own reasons, and Linehans words when I'm feeling frustrated with others who make the same choices I did, or at least that I almost did. I can't recall whether I did or didn't in actuality, and I don't think I want to remember.
Posted by madeline on December 29, 2006, at 10:18:08
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri, posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 10:00:44
First, let me say, that I am very sad for you that your hurt reached that point for you. I'm sad when the hurt reaches that point for anyone.
<<<<<It is *very* hard to give up that way of communicating pain. Especially if it was the only way to be taken seriously as you were growing up.>>>>>>>
I agree with you, we all have to fight the demons of our childhood, however, what about those who were programmed to attack as kids? Such attacks are not allowed on babble and can result in administrative action. That behaviour must be curbed in order to be a part of babble.
<<<<<<I'm not saying it would be ok for me to have posted what I wanted to post that night. It very much wouldn't have been ok, even if Dr. Bob didn't consider it uncivil. I'm not saying that the things I did post from time to time were ok. They weren't. In addition to having the potential for making others angry, uncomfortable, or anxious it also just wasn't the best way to convey what I wanted to convey. It wasn't a pragmatic choice. It wouldn't have gotten me what I wanted. As manipulation goes, it wouldn't have been effective at all.>>>>>>
You're right, it isn't the most effective form of communication at all. Babble is about support and education, and correcting this kind of communciation, I think falls within the scope of babble.
<<<<<I really like what Linehan says about people who communicate that way. That they aren't any more manipulative than anyone else, they just aren't very effective at it. >>>>>
I have thought of that quote quite frequently lately.
<<<<<I'm not saying that what I wanted to do, or even what I may have actually done, should be allowed under the civility rules. It probably shouldn't be.>>>>
I don't think it should be.
<<<<<<On the other hand, I rather wish that what led to what I wanted to do wasn't allowed under the civility rules either. The civility rules just don't cover everything that can hurt a whole lot, and I think there are difficulties in trying to extend it to do that.>>>>>>
As I've learned during my years on babble, the civility rules aren't perfect, and even if someone is abusive to you, we do not have the right to react in kind. Our responses have be controlled even when faced with incivility.
<<<<<But I do try to keep in mind my own actions, and my own reasons, and Linehans words when I'm feeling frustrated with others who make the same choices I did, or at least that I almost did. I can't recall whether I did or didn't in actuality, and I don't think I want to remember.>>>>>
Sure, but we can never stop trying to make babble a safer place for us all.
Maddie
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 10:44:11
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » Dinah, posted by madeline on December 29, 2006, at 10:18:08
I don't think we're in disagreement.
I think the civility rules should be broadened to include this behavior.
In fact, if it were included as uncivil behavior, it would probably be easier for me to fight any urges I might have. So overall I think it would be in the best interests of everyone to have it included, since it would discourage behaviors that tend to interfere with receiving support.
I just have a certain amount of empathy for it. And I know you do too, because I've seen you show it. I'm not saying you, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't have empathy for it. I was just musing, using myself as a true example, and trying to look at both sides of the issue.
Posted by ElaineM on December 29, 2006, at 11:19:58
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » madeline, posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 10:44:11
[I appreciate you voicing your understanding Farkus]
Dinah, I'm sorry you've been in such a state of mind before. You are a dear person, and I'd hate to think of you hurting so. I'd hate to think of anyone hurting so.
>>>> Not if you do this, I'll xxxx. More like when you did this, I want to xxxx, or I did xxxx.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing then, because to me, the first example is the one I have a bigger problem with. The second one, is sad to hear, but still slightly accusatory to post, in my point of view. It still implies that another’s actions are the cause for another's self-destructive behavior. And ultimately, it's not. But maybe your post is recognizing the difference. If not, (to use your example), what if I had said in an emotional post, "Dinah when you typed that response to me that I didn't agree with I tried to kill myself."
It just sounds accusatory to me somehow -- it suggests blame to me. I'd never want you to be at the end of that sort of thing. True, I'm more concerned with the "If you don't... I will..." structure, but I also don't think that people should be left to feel put down should someone connect them to the actions of someone outside themself. To me it contains a dangerous puppet string analogy. I'm all for people expressing themself, I just think that (especially concerning suicide) it should be done respectfully, and strictly enforced, to ensure that the rest of the community is protected.[as a side track, I remember once I had mistakenly typed out identifying information about myself before, and hit send, instantly having my eyes zone in on the part and my stomach lurch into my throat. But my computer, thank goodness, had a broken connection.]
>>>>>At least consciously. It wasn't to manipulate. It was more to say "I hurt so much. I want others to know how much I'm hurting."
Oh my goodness - I can totally appreciate that. And if that's lost in my other posts i'm sorry. I know everything that is posted on these boards is motivated from one emotion or another, usually strong, and usually very painful ones. But, to risk sounding harsh, I don't think that intent should be reason to allow something like threats to be posted or stand as civil. Most times intent is only clarified much later -- after the "damage has been done", so to speak. I sincerely support people's right to post the most heartbreaking, scary, angry, devastating things, but only if it doesn't interfere with the rights of the rest of the community to have a safe (civil) place. I do think that we are ultimately agreeing with eachother (though you can say if not), just that perhaps my posts don't equally emphasize what I *am* okay with and empathic for, as well as what I'm completely against.
>>>>>It is *very* hard to give up that way of communicating pain. Especially if it was the only way to be taken seriously as you were growing up.
I agree. I have many vices grown out of an abusive childhood, but I don't think that being symptomatic is a legitimate reason for leniency. Many other kinds of behavior that could be considered symptomatic have caused others to be blocked. I don't think the emotionality of a poster or their subject should preclude civility enforcement.
>>>>>it also just wasn't the best way to convey what I wanted to convey
This is probably just me too, but I'm less concerned about somebody finding the best way. Just a way that respects the rights of both the upset person and the readers. I realize, that everyone can be effected indirectly, but I'm not talking about difficult posts in general, just threat-containing/implying ones.
>>>>But I do try to keep in mind my own actions, and my own reasons, and Linehans words when I'm feeling frustrated with others who make the same choices I did, or at least that I almost did. I can't recall whether I did or didn't in actuality, and I don't think I want to remember.
Dinah, you sound so sad. It sounds like this is a painful subject for you. I do see what you mean. I'm always sorry when people are hurting. All people. I just think that theoretically I'd deserve the same amount of protection and care and support, whether I'm the person in crisis at the time, the responder, or "only" a silent reader.
I'm sorry if I'm sounding mean. I'm really just passionate about self-harm being used as a mechanism to influence another's online peers *when* its connected to threats/blame(both when suicidal intent is truly there, and when it's "not really") To me, it's too devastating a subject to be used that way.
For me:
Someone can "cry wolf" regarding suicide.
Someone can post when truly in immediate jeopardy.
But someone cannot post as a threat, or "cry wolf" as a threat to fellow members.I don't really have much else to add anymore - my brain is fried and I’ve rambled and repeated myself enough for now :) I think we do agree afterall. And I appreciate your sensitivity to both sides.
(((Dinah))) take care.
blove, EL
Posted by madeline on December 29, 2006, at 12:07:57
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » madeline, posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 10:44:11
You're right, we do agree.
You are also right that I feel a marked degree of empathy for both the attackers, the manipulators, the frustrated and the suicidal.
It is one of the gifts (curses) from my childhood
I certainly know how hellish life can be and the maladaptive coping skills a lot of us have picked up along the way.
Is it possible to be empathetic (which I am) and still want this behaviour to stop (which I do)? I don't know the answer to that. Frankly, that very question is causing me a little conflict.
Do you mind if I babblemail you or perhaps we can meet in chat tonight.
Maddie.
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 12:24:49
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » Dinah, posted by madeline on December 29, 2006, at 12:07:57
Sure, I'd be happy to hear from you. I don't think I can make chat. I'm tied up with work right now. :(
Posted by Poet on December 29, 2006, at 12:52:07
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » Dinah, posted by ElaineM on December 29, 2006, at 11:19:58
I generally avoid this board, but wandered over to find out why Happyflower was blocked. I grew up in a household where my parents fought (actually they're both pushing 80 and still at it) nonstop. The admin board reminds me of listening to my parents fight over anything and everything. That stated I completely agree with what Elaine said about posting about suicide.
<<<I'm sorry if I'm sounding mean. I'm really just passionate about self-harm being used as a mechanism to influence another's online peers *when* its connected to threats/blame(both when suicidal intent is truly there, and when it's "not really") To me, it's too devastating a subject to be used that way.
For me:
Someone can "cry wolf" regarding suicide.
Someone can post when truly in immediate jeopardy.
But someone cannot post as a threat, or "cry wolf" as a threat to fellow members.I have posted that I am feeling suicidal, I found babble looking to see if my chosen method would be foolproof, so to speak. I didn't find that, what I found was understanding and support. Our common element is some form of mental illness, unfortunately suicidal ideation and mental illness are a combination that I personally struggle with. I agree that we should find a way to not have posts that are veiled threats.
Poet
Posted by Phillipa on December 29, 2006, at 18:42:29
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » ElaineM, posted by Poet on December 29, 2006, at 12:52:07
How do you know if someone is crying wolf? Repeatedly posting of suicide? Haven't been here as long as a lot of you have. And most importantly have you found those people stay and get better from the support. Love Phillipa
Posted by ElaineM on December 29, 2006, at 20:36:21
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri, posted by Phillipa on December 29, 2006, at 18:42:29
>>>>How do you know if someone is crying wolf?
I think that's a touchy subject. To me, "crying wolf" (like from the actual story) suggests a calculated repetition of a statement/gesture because of the immediate personal gratification that an individual believes the process will bring their way. Crying wolf then connotes a knowing - a manipulation - a fabrication of a level of danger. I don't think that it's possible to prove 100% if a person is doing such a thing -- that is unless a person admits it to have been such after the fact. Which I believe would thereby make future/repeated pleas suspect -- unfortunately. I think it's a self-defeating thing to do, but unless a person is aware of a self-defeating behaviour and its consequences, and is willing to work on reeducation, then it likely will only repeat. That's why I'm personally sensitive to "suicide" being used as a synonym for emotions - but of course, that sometimes requires a personal judgement to be made (again unless an individual clarifies after that, now that they are in a different emotional place, it would've been more accurate had they said that they had felt X instead) In the story, it is proven that the boy has repeatedly lied because the actual wolf is never present when they arrive - its immediately verifiable. In this case, the wolf isn't as easy to prove or disprove because it's an emotional state, and expressed only through words on a screen without even any possible accompanying visual cues.
I think that it's natural that people will make their own private decisions about a persons honesty or intent, and use that to determine when they interact and when they self-protect, but I'd never try and quantify a number of repeated suicide/"suicide" posts needed to prove someone is only a "wolf crier". Cause even if someone did that fifty times, doesn't mean that the fifty-first time won't be the real thing. Something like that could never be guaranteed. Plus I think that "only" crying wolf doesn't necessarily mean that a person is not troubled or in pain. That's why I'm all for someone discussing suicide, self-harm, suicidal ideation -- real or fabricated. I definately think online communication can have an impact. I think it's a good thing, if conducted in a way that's respectful of other community members.
I was trying to type my thoughts on the last half of your post, but it just comes out like a jumbled mess, so I left it out. Plus I haven't even been around a year, so I'll leave that for others.
blove EL
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 29, 2006, at 23:59:38
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri, posted by NikkiT2 on December 29, 2006, at 3:45:47
Hi Nikki....of course it is Dr Bob's call to make
Personally if I had a site like this I would make the decision go ahead and block them IF they broke a rule like this because otherwise the site and I am being held hostage. Members suffer reading the threats of "I will kill myself if you block me".....Being held hostage is not healthy for anyone on here IN MY OPINION... NOT saying that anyone IS doing that but that is how I would feel about it.
They would then be told to stay in therapy and seek help. There are risks all over the webTheoretically, we could ALL avoid blocks if a threat to kill oneself got us all out of block. I AM NOT suggesting anyone do that at all. This is one of the reasons I would like to see a new rule on this, and see it enforced no matter WHO broke it.
> ">.I recall when it was pretty much a guaranteed block or call to the cops."
>
> Problem is, what do you do when you have a poster that says "if you block me, I will make a suicide attempt".
>
> What is Dr Bob meant to do in that circumstance? Its a tough call..
>
> *shrugs*
>
> Nikki, each day caring less and less and less
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 30, 2006, at 0:09:30
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 9:17:02
I do feel it has become much worse. There are far too many threats of suicide IF this or that does or does not happen. This was never seen on the site before. If you can post the links to them please do but I only know of 1 poster...minus the one Dr Bob had to contact the ISP WHICH resulted in the cops being sent out....doing this.
I do realize that Dr Bob is not always on..that is why in my post I suggested auto astrick and or blocking for this type of activity...OR other suggestions to stop these suicide threats...ESPECIALLY the ones others have referred to as manipulative.
> Since it was always posters responding, I imagine that it was posters who said call 911, not Dr. Bob.
>
> I've been here 5 1/2 years. Perhaps you've been here longer. But I don't see that things have changed significantly in this regard since I've been here. Posters talk to suicidal posters now more or less as they did before.
>
> People get angry once in a while when they're feeling particularly frustrated, and always have.
>
> Dr. Bob has never blocked people for expressing suicidal intent, and it would appear from his recent post that he's not open to starting now.
>
> And while he *has* been known to report a post to the police (or rather to the poster's ISP), I don't think it could be considered a policy. For one thing, he isn't on board for stretches at a time, and only he has the information to report a post to a posters ISP. So it couldn't possibly be consistently enforced. Relying on him to report a post would be a very bad idea, because he just isn't around consistently enough to do anything regularly on a timely basis.
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.