![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 71. Go back in thread:
Posted by Racer on April 23, 2007, at 0:48:01
In reply to Re: Good bye, please do not ever post to me ever, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 23:29:25
> Oh, yeah, if I kill myself over this, you can all be happy-babblers, but don't worry I won't blame you even if that would be allowed on this site.
> So tell me NOW, you don't want me to die!
>
> Oh, WHATEVER!
>
> I don't give a F*CKPlease don't post threats of violence, whether it be against yourself or others.
I'm going to block you now, but I'll leave it to Dr Bob to determine the length.
Racer, acting as deputy to Dr Bob
Posted by zazenducke on April 23, 2007, at 8:59:48
In reply to *trigger*, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 22:51:55
you're worth more than all the jokes ever written
i'm sorry you were blocked when you are in such distress
i am sorry if the block is adding another blow to someone that has had more than she ever ever deserved
i am sorry people you trusted abandoned you or hurt you
i am sorry that at a time you needed comfort and compassion and understanding you didn't get it
i am sorry i can't do anything to make it up to you
i hope you are okay
you are a grown up now and you survived and are making a great life for yourself now. don't forget that. hope you enjoy your babble vacation!
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
In reply to So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 7:09:57
There have been questions raised here that have not been answered, and I'm going to add some more.
1. What is the status of old DNPs?
Current guidelines require administrative acknowledgement before enforcement, if I read the current rules correctly. What verification process applies to older events? Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable? Do the new rules apply retroactively?
So, what is the status of other old DNPs? Are they void? What is the cut-off date of the new rule? Why isn't this subject addressed in the FAQ?
2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?I do not read every post on every board every day, and I've seen concurrent threads on different boards between the same two posters, one culminating in a DNP. There is no assurance the DNP was read. Why is there no requirement to post a proper notice of such a request, perhaps in some place specifically designated for these? (Redirect?) Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request? Or for the administrative validation to be posted somewhere special? The way the boards archive, it's quite possible to miss a DNP. Trust me. Go away for a few months, and who knows what's in the archives.
3. Why isn't the harassment issue a required element of the request, in practise?Any dictionary I consult invokes concepts such as "repeated" or "persistent" in the definition of harassment. I do not see this rule being used as a shield. I see it used as a weapon. Two parties engage, and anger ensues. Wham! No evidence of repeated or persistent anything. Just anger.
I believe that if and only if a request to disengage is ignored should a DNP even be considered. Two people butting heads is not harassment, but that's when you see these things flying around. They are tantamount to blocks issued by posters, rather than by administrators. Censorship should not be in the hands of the posting population.
It clearly says that a poster seeking a DNP must demonstrate what steps have been taken to address the situation. I would think, therefore, that those steps must be in the context of the situation, rather than an entire history of interaction. If someone has upset you in the past, then why are you opening their posts? Under the "how can I help enforce these policies" section of the FAQ, it says, "After that, it will be up to you to deal in some other way with those posts, for example, by not reading them." Right there, you have the solution, as a possible "step taken".
Under these circumstances, administratively validated DNPs should be very rare.
4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?Any poster can throw down a DNP. That does not serve as evidence for a violation, but only an allegation thereof.
If a poster continues to post after a request to disengage, *that* could be construed as evidence for harassment. But not the first request itself, surely. Notice must be a required element, but only part of a sequence which culminates in an enforceable DNP. And, if the DNP is not validated, it should be entirely voided.
5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?
6. Why isn't a time limit applicable?Even murderers get out of jail, in real life. Sentences expire.
7. What happens if either of the parties changes posting names?
I saw a justification for DNPs as a coping strategy, one requiring no external validation. Well, that would be fine if that person's coping strategy had no consequences for others. I do not consider an externalized regulation of another's rights as not also requiring external validity. That's the whole thing about an external control of a third party, it always requires evidence. And, notwithstanding what a deputy says, the FAQ requires it.What a person does for their own wellbeing must first depend on internal locus of control. Making choices about environments frequented, posters to avoid, etc. It even says so, in the FAQ: "...since this (a DNP) should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation."
Harassment, and steps taken, are required elements, in the FAQ. I don't see "not liking somebody". The whole rule is so subjective, I cannot see how it can be made to work fairly. Feelings alone are not evidence of harassment. The civility guidelines are our umbrella. If a post is civil, how can a person attract further consequences, absent both harassment *and* steps taken?
I believe the rule itself to be fatally flawed, and all my questions are in the context of, "if we must have this rule, then what are the regulatory parameters?" Calling a rule a shield, then permitting it to be used as a weapon, is the flaw, IMHO. It encourages posters to lash out, and to hold grudges. It externalizes subjective interpretation. The reason there are so many issues is because it's a bad rule.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2007, at 11:29:53
In reply to Re: So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
> There have been questions raised here that have not been answered, and I'm going to add some more.
>
> 1. What is the status of old DNPs?
>
> Current guidelines require administrative acknowledgement before enforcement, if I read the current rules correctly. What verification process applies to older events? Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable? Do the new rules apply retroactively?
>
> So, what is the status of other old DNPs? Are they void? What is the cut-off date of the new rule? Why isn't this subject addressed in the FAQ?
>
>
> 2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?
>
> I do not read every post on every board every day, and I've seen concurrent threads on different boards between the same two posters, one culminating in a DNP. There is no assurance the DNP was read. Why is there no requirement to post a proper notice of such a request, perhaps in some place specifically designated for these? (Redirect?) Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request? Or for the administrative validation to be posted somewhere special? The way the boards archive, it's quite possible to miss a DNP. Trust me. Go away for a few months, and who knows what's in the archives.
>
>
> 3. Why isn't the harassment issue a required element of the request, in practise?
>
> Any dictionary I consult invokes concepts such as "repeated" or "persistent" in the definition of harassment. I do not see this rule being used as a shield. I see it used as a weapon. Two parties engage, and anger ensues. Wham! No evidence of repeated or persistent anything. Just anger.
>
> I believe that if and only if a request to disengage is ignored should a DNP even be considered. Two people butting heads is not harassment, but that's when you see these things flying around. They are tantamount to blocks issued by posters, rather than by administrators. Censorship should not be in the hands of the posting population.
>
> It clearly says that a poster seeking a DNP must demonstrate what steps have been taken to address the situation. I would think, therefore, that those steps must be in the context of the situation, rather than an entire history of interaction. If someone has upset you in the past, then why are you opening their posts? Under the "how can I help enforce these policies" section of the FAQ, it says, "After that, it will be up to you to deal in some other way with those posts, for example, by not reading them." Right there, you have the solution, as a possible "step taken".
>
> Under these circumstances, administratively validated DNPs should be very rare.
>
>
> 4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?
>
> Any poster can throw down a DNP. That does not serve as evidence for a violation, but only an allegation thereof.
>
> If a poster continues to post after a request to disengage, *that* could be construed as evidence for harassment. But not the first request itself, surely. Notice must be a required element, but only part of a sequence which culminates in an enforceable DNP. And, if the DNP is not validated, it should be entirely voided.
>
>
> 5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?
>
>
> 6. Why isn't a time limit applicable?
>
> Even murderers get out of jail, in real life. Sentences expire.
>
>
> 7. What happens if either of the parties changes posting names?
>
>
> I saw a justification for DNPs as a coping strategy, one requiring no external validation. Well, that would be fine if that person's coping strategy had no consequences for others. I do not consider an externalized regulation of another's rights as not also requiring external validity. That's the whole thing about an external control of a third party, it always requires evidence. And, notwithstanding what a deputy says, the FAQ requires it.
>
> What a person does for their own wellbeing must first depend on internal locus of control. Making choices about environments frequented, posters to avoid, etc. It even says so, in the FAQ: "...since this (a DNP) should be a last resort, what steps you've already taken to address the situation."
>
> Harassment, and steps taken, are required elements, in the FAQ. I don't see "not liking somebody". The whole rule is so subjective, I cannot see how it can be made to work fairly. Feelings alone are not evidence of harassment. The civility guidelines are our umbrella. If a post is civil, how can a person attract further consequences, absent both harassment *and* steps taken?
>
> I believe the rule itself to be fatally flawed, and all my questions are in the context of, "if we must have this rule, then what are the regulatory parameters?" Calling a rule a shield, then permitting it to be used as a weapon, is the flaw, IMHO. It encourages posters to lash out, and to hold grudges. It externalizes subjective interpretation. The reason there are so many issues is because it's a bad rule.
>
> LarFriends,
It is written here,[...Censorship...this rule...]
If anyone would like to discuss this by email with me, they could email me if they like. In my discussion, I would like to discuss:
A. the origin of the rule
B. the purpose that could be seen for the rule
C. the historical parallels to the rule
D. the origin of the qualification to the rule
E. are there any psychological/emotional aspects to the issuer and/or the recipient of the rule?
F. how the rule is good for the community as a whole
G. how the rule is more helpfull
H. how the rule is reasonable
J. could there or could there not be alternatives to the rule to accomplish the same purpose?
K. other relevant concerns about the rule
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Racer on April 23, 2007, at 13:11:01
In reply to Re: So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
I'm the newest of the active deputies, so I can't answer all of the questions. I will answer the few that I know, however.
> 1. What is the status of old DNPs?
>
> Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable?All she'd have to do is to post the DNP request again, and inform Dr Bob and the deputies. It would be helpful to have a link to the offending post in the private message to Dr Bob and the deputies, but it needn't be posted on the board. In fact, it really shouldn't be posted on the board.
> 2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?
>
>Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request?Only Dr Bob has access to registration information for people who post here. The deputies cannot email anyone, we can only use Babblemail if it's turned on. Therefore, while it would be nice to have notifications sent, we do not have the ability to do so.
>
> 4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?I think it's probably worth erring on the side of caution here, and just not posting to someone who has asked you not to. (That's the general "you," not you-meaning-Larry) If the DNP is validated, and you've continued to post to the person who requested it, that does tend to show a bit of support for the need for a DNP request, n'est pas?
>
>
> 5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?I think this has been addressed, although I don't recall what the official penalties might be. Generally, there are limits here regarding complaints of any sort against other Babblers. There are rules regarding how many times you can report another Babbler's posts, if those posts are found acceptable. I'm not sure what Dr Bob has decided on regarding DNPs, but I'm sure he has limits on them, as well. It is his hope that a DNP is the last resort, and is only used if nothing else has resolved the conflicts between two Babblers.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 23, 2007, at 16:32:12
In reply to Re: So what are the real DNP rules anyways, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 9:36:42
...and it's a problem that someone has been asked not to post to one specific poster????
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 17:19:27
In reply to 11K users have posted..., posted by gardenergirl on April 23, 2007, at 16:32:12
...and someone has a problem with avoiding posts by a single poster????
How useful was this exchange?
How about answering the questions posed?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 18:22:06
In reply to Just a couple of those answers.... » Larry Hoover, posted by Racer on April 23, 2007, at 13:11:01
> I'm the newest of the active deputies, so I can't answer all of the questions. I will answer the few that I know, however.
I appreciate the effort expended.
> > 1. What is the status of old DNPs?
> >
> > Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable?
>
> All she'd have to do is to post the DNP request again, and inform Dr Bob and the deputies. It would be helpful to have a link to the offending post in the private message to Dr Bob and the deputies, but it needn't be posted on the board. In fact, it really shouldn't be posted on the board.I still am not clear on the status of old DNPs. I take it that all are unenforceable, unless renewed under the current guidelines?
> > 2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?
> >
> >Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request?
>
> Only Dr Bob has access to registration information for people who post here. The deputies cannot email anyone, we can only use Babblemail if it's turned on. Therefore, while it would be nice to have notifications sent, we do not have the ability to do so.I was just trying to make suggestions. I understand that this one may not be feasible, but that does not mean that a more formal process is unreasonable. Clarity is an important issue, for some.
> >
> > 4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?
>
> I think it's probably worth erring on the side of caution here, and just not posting to someone who has asked you not to. (That's the general "you," not you-meaning-Larry) If the DNP is validated, and you've continued to post to the person who requested it, that does tend to show a bit of support for the need for a DNP request, n'est pas?Circular argument. If the former is false, the latter is moot.
I was considering the case where a DNP lands out of the blue. It could be perceived as, "You shut up, or else!" "Forever, if I so choose." There could have been a misunderstanding. There could yet be no evidence that someone is even becoming upset, to that point in time. If a DNP is to be a last resort, and open communications is to be encouraged, how does jumping to a full blockade serve these ideas?
It precludes any opportunity to explain oneself, to apologize, to rephrase, to ask questions.....It is the antithesis of open communication. Moreover, the interpretation of what constitutes posting to somebody has been so broadly interpreted, censorship is indeed the result.
First one to push that DNP button gets all the power. And, as I've raised repeatedly, without verification of harassment and alternate efforts to settle things.
Used in the way I'm describing it, I consider the application contrary to civility. You couldn't tell someone to shut up, right? But, you can DNP them. Permanently, if you feel like it.
> >
> > 5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?
>
> I think this has been addressed, although I don't recall what the official penalties might be.It should be the same as everything else. One warning, then you're blocked.
> Generally, there are limits here regarding complaints of any sort against other Babblers. There are rules regarding how many times you can report another Babbler's posts, if those posts are found acceptable. I'm not sure what Dr Bob has decided on regarding DNPs, but I'm sure he has limits on them, as well.
It would be nice to know. And, as the DNPs themselves are public, so should disciplinary acts related thereto.
> It is his hope that a DNP is the last resort, and is only used if nothing else has resolved the conflicts between two Babblers.
Last resort. Exactly. The first notice of a problem should not be a DNP. That should be punishable, as uncivil.....there *is* an implication that the recipient of a DNP has conducted themselves inappropriately. The allegation should not be a "free shot".
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on April 23, 2007, at 18:34:03
In reply to 11K posters to choose from...., posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 17:19:27
> How about answering the questions posed?And I don't feel particularly inclined at this moment to provide answers out of the goodness of my heart.
gg
Posted by Ralph.U.K on April 23, 2007, at 21:04:18
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » Racer, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 18:22:06
The ability to post to someone does not always mean open communication. I've had more satisfying conversations with trees than with some of those with the dubious gift of speech.
A person in a manic state or certain disorders of personality can cause people to become unknowingly beligerant and self important. They will insist that if they were only listened to, the stupid would finally come to see their wisdom.To someone on the recieving end this can be exhausting and feel abusive. They have every right to request that somewhat not post to them.
I've only been on a couple of boards that have the Do not Post policy or reasonably close rule, and I've never seen it as punitive or a way to take the mickey out of someone it's a simple mature way to resolve an unresolvable situation.
Never have I been tempted to stay within the rules on a technicality but ignore the plea behind the request and speak around them, that's highly disrespectful. What desperate need is it that forces one to demand the right to speak to every single poster, no matter how uncomfortable the poster may be?
On a web forum I would be very uncomfortable demanding to speak to someone who I knew didn't want to hear from me. What does that say? My desire, my RIGHT to speak to you trumps your feelings about me. In life some things need to be resolved, on a web forum it's about the exchange of story and opinion, and bloody hell that should be an option! We're not planning emergency exits for jet planes for Chr*st sake.
I recieved a D.N.P once. It didn't send me up a gum tree. I hae enough respect for other members to acknowledge that their sensitivities may not be mine own, and they are entitled to the safety of not having them belittled because I can't fathom the reasoning behind them, or intellectualize the poor fools out of feeling that way.
Mr. Hoover I've seen you on many boards, and have been at times awestruck at the amount of energy you expend just hammering at people to agree with you. Typically it escalates or descends to the obfuscating debating school jargon, and then to that of the courts.
If that doesn't work you'll try another tactic, and then another and then finally you pull to what looks to me, like verbal abuse or contempt, depending upon which board it is and what's permitted. I've felt harassed by watching and had fantasies of putting my hand over your mouth. I hear posts as well as see them. I see a connection between that, and your very personal reaction to the D.N.P.
Those who "obey" you are coddled and fawned over, until they cross a line. Not once over many years (face it you're everywhere) have I ever seen you acknowledge another's point, or say something akin to "I'll think about that"
Call it what you will sir, there may be many words involved but it's not open communication.
I'm not clear on the rules here, I hope that was at least a passable attempt at propriety.
A quote on the rules of effective writing which springs to mind presently.
I can't recall the author but I think the advice stellar.
If you are reading your own writing and find a line of which you are particularly proud, strike it out-
immediately.
Posted by Racer on April 24, 2007, at 14:58:56
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers...., posted by Ralph.U.K on April 23, 2007, at 21:04:18
>
> Mr. Hoover I've seen you on many boards, and have been at times awestruck at the amount of energy you expend just hammering at people to agree with you. Typically it escalates or descends to the obfuscating debating school jargon, and then to that of the courts.
>
> If that doesn't work you'll try another tactic, and then another and then finally you pull to what looks to me, like verbal abuse or contempt, depending upon which board it is and what's permitted.Please don't post anything here which could lead someone to feel accused or put down.
If you have any questions regarding the civility guidelines at this site, please check out our FAQ, at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil Follow ups regarding this issue can be posted here, on the Administration board, and should of course be civil.
I'm very sorry to offer a "PBC" on your very first post here, and I hope you won't feel unwelcome because of it. You are welcome here.
Dr Bob has final authority regarding all administrative actions on this site, and may choose to adjust any and all deputy actions.
Racer, acting as deputy for Dr Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on April 24, 2007, at 16:07:52
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » Racer, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2007, at 18:22:06
Lots and lots about this in the archives, just waiting for someone to use their time to search...
> > > 1. What is the status of old DNPs?
> > >
> > > Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines. Why? Could it be made enforceable?
> >
> > All she'd have to do is to post the DNP request again, and inform Dr Bob and the deputies. It would be helpful to have a link to the offending post in the private message to Dr Bob and the deputies, but it needn't be posted on the board. In fact, it really shouldn't be posted on the board.Yep, private.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/717905.html
"If you do feel harassed and see this a last resort, could you let me know, **by babblemail or email**, what it is that makes you feel that way and what steps you've already taken to address this? Then I'll post something if I'm going to enforce this."
>
> I still am not clear on the status of old DNPs. I take it that all are unenforceable, unless renewed under the current guidelines?I can't find my notes about this, but I believe the idea that prior PDP's might not be enforceable came out during a deputy chat with Dr. Bob. We were trying to get clarification from him about his statement regarding possibly not enforcing a PDP. I believe Dr. Bob affirmed that *potentially non-enforceable* applied to old PDP's as well, meaning he would want to know the circumstances surrounding the request before deciding about an enforcement request. Essentially, he is applying his newer, "I may not enforce it" standard retroactively. Here is when the "I may not enforce it" concept came into play: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/718115.html
Dinah may remember this more accurately than me or have better access to notes from that date. I think Racer's recommendation of reaffirming a past PDP if one wants it to still be in place and enforceable is a good suggestion. That way you will know one way or another, though probably not in a timely manner the way things stand.
I also agree with Racer that for those who are under the condition of a prior PDP, it would be safer civility-wise to continue to refrain from posting to that person, especially if the PDP was enforced in the past. Dr. Bob may enforce an old PDP if it came up. That's what I plan to do, anyway. Of course what others do is up to them.
>
> > > 2. How is the recipient of the DNP to know the status of such a request?
> > >
> > >Or for an adminstrator to send an email to the person who is supposed to honour the request?
> >
> > Only Dr Bob has access to registration information for people who post here. The deputies cannot email anyone, we can only use Babblemail if it's turned on. Therefore, while it would be nice to have notifications sent, we do not have the ability to do so.
>
> I was just trying to make suggestions. I understand that this one may not be feasible, but that does not mean that a more formal process is unreasonable. Clarity is an important issue, for some.And perhaps someday you will get one: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685870.html
"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?"
and http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686320.html
Of course I'm not holding my breath for this one or for trigger flags.
However, according to the FAQ, admin will post a response to the PDP request if it's going to be enforced. Frankly, I think one should be posted either way, especially given the time it takes to get a response. I assume that response would be posted to the message where the PDP was issued. Personally, when I was active as deputy, I did not take on deciding about PDP's because I didn't feel clear enough about the rule to administer it properly. I left the few we've had this year for Dr. Bob.
>
> > >
> > > 4. What happens during the time a DNP is posted, and it is pending administrative validation?
> >
> > I think it's probably worth erring on the side of caution here, and just not posting to someone who has asked you not to.I agree.
>
> Circular argument. If the former is false, the latter is moot.But you won't know if the PDP is going to be enforced. Anyone is welcome to gamble on "testing it" in the intervening time, but there are risks to acting on that need. I do think that these requests should be answered by admin in a timely manner to minimize "limbo" time.
>
> I was considering the case where a DNP lands out of the blue. It could be perceived as, "You shut up, or else!" "Forever, if I so choose." There could have been a misunderstanding. There could yet be no evidence that someone is even becoming upset, to that point in time. If a DNP is to be a last resort, and open communications is to be encouraged, how does jumping to a full blockade serve these ideas?That's what Dr. Bob wants to assess on a case by case basis, apparently.
>
> First one to push that DNP button gets all the power.If you let them. I believe it was zen who posted recently not to borrow anyone else's pain. I would add to that, don't hand them your power.
> And, as I've raised repeatedly, without verification of harassment and alternate efforts to settle things.
That has not been a consistent requirement.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685870.html"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."Dr. Bob's new procedure seems to be a way to assure (himself at least), that the PDP is indeed a "last resort" as he calls it.
> > > 5. Why isn't improperly issuing a DNP any kind of offense?Improper as in not following the procedure, or as in making a request that Dr Bob decides not to enforce should someone decide not to honor that request?
> > I think this has been addressed, although I don't recall what the official penalties might be.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/684701.html
"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..."Mutual desire to engage...another sticky wicket.
>
> It should be the same as everything else. One warning, then you're blocked.
>
> > Generally, there are limits here regarding complaints of any sort against other Babblers. There are rules regarding how many times you can report another Babbler's posts, if those posts are found acceptable. I'm not sure what Dr Bob has decided on regarding DNPs, but I'm sure he has limits on them, as well.(Anyone want odds on a limit of 3?) ;)
>
> It would be nice to know. And, as the DNPs themselves are public, so should disciplinary acts related thereto.
>
> > It is his hope that a DNP is the last resort, and is only used if nothing else has resolved the conflicts between two Babblers.
>
> Last resort. Exactly. The first notice of a problem should not be a DNP. That should be punishable, as uncivil.....Punishable? Sheesh. There's no punishing in baseball! ;)
> there *is* an implication that the recipient of a DNP has conducted themselves inappropriately. The allegation should not be a "free shot".
Implication or inference?
Reminding someone of the rules and asking them not to break them would be perfectly appropriate for a first time. Making it so that can't break them for a period of time is also appropriate if it continues.
I think the whole, "I might decide not to enforce it" pretty much set this rule up for failure. But that's just me.
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 24, 2007, at 16:30:17
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers...., posted by gardenergirl on April 24, 2007, at 16:07:52
Thank you for your efforts. I really wouldn't have even known where to look for those posts. I got too many false positives.
After reading those links, I am more confused than ever. How is it even possible to have mutual PDPs? The second party could only accomplish the act by violating the first request.
And from this little exchange, it sounds like Bob is also troubled by what I was raising.....
> If someone posted a DNP to me, when all I had done was disagree sligtly with their point, I would feel pretty
Which is a reason to limit them...
Bob
I have a headache.
Lar
Posted by Ralph.U.K on April 24, 2007, at 16:41:04
In reply to Please be civil » Ralph.U.K, posted by Racer on April 24, 2007, at 14:58:56
I must confess in order that I may approach the great spirit with clean hands and a pure heart.
The mates and I were simply having a time of it, a game we call -Fervens Aer- Bets were on to see how many posts before "ad hominem" was used. Extra points for "humble" or a variation of "I'm not speaking for myself but for the wounded silent" I get the Guiness tonight.Ta!
Posted by gardenergirl on April 24, 2007, at 16:48:04
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on April 24, 2007, at 16:30:17
My hair's doing this humidity dance. It's not pretty.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 26, 2007, at 6:59:04
In reply to Re: Yes, quite finished » Racer, posted by Ralph.U.K on April 24, 2007, at 16:41:04
> The mates and I were simply having a time of it, a game we call -Fervens Aer-
Forgive me if I don't join in your levity. While you were wiping foam from your lip, I was slogging through completing my dead parents' tax returns.
BTW, I'd not have traded that which you did, for a pint of gold.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 26, 2007, at 7:24:04
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers...., posted by gardenergirl on April 24, 2007, at 16:07:52
> > First one to push that DNP button gets all the power.
>
> If you let them. I believe it was zen who posted recently not to borrow anyone else's pain. I would add to that, don't hand them your power.If that principle was generally applied, this rule would have no basis for existence.
Lar
Posted by MCK on April 28, 2007, at 18:10:28
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on April 26, 2007, at 7:24:04
> If that principle was generally applied, this rule would have no basis for existence.
>Yeah
***And if no one disagreed there would be no wars either**What GG proposed was good advice it's not a rule.
Not everyone has the same ability to own their power, therefore some need protection.
Very few D.N.Ps are requested on this board and because twice (that I've seen) you've been reprimanded for not honoring them, yet each time you blamed not your behavior for the block, but the poster, or technicalities within the rule itself.
I find it near impossible, despite what you say, to ken you are fighting anyone's battle but your very own.
It's straightforward, if someone doesn't want you to post to them, have enough respect to leave them alone. It's not about what you can get away with according to the DNP book of rules, it's about respect. The result desired from a DNP request is clear and simple, and It's not about you.
Posted by Racer on April 28, 2007, at 18:50:15
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on April 28, 2007, at 18:10:28
> Very few D.N.Ps are requested on this board and because twice (that I've seen) you've been reprimanded for not honoring them, yet each time you blamed not your behavior for the block, but the poster, or technicalities within the rule itself.
> It's not about what you can get away with according to the DNP book of rules, it's about respect.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you need more information about the rules, please review the civility guidelines on the FAQ, located at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Dr Bob is always the final authority on this site, and he may choose to adjust this deputy action.
Racer, acting as deputy to Dr Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 29, 2007, at 6:08:54
In reply to Re: Just a couple of those answers.... » Larry Hoover, posted by MCK on April 28, 2007, at 18:10:28
>
> > If that principle was generally applied, this rule would have no basis for existence.
> >
>
> Yeah
> ***And if no one disagreed there would be no wars either**
>
> What GG proposed was good advice it's not a rule.What GG proposed was facile. It did not address the issue that even Dr. Bob has become concerned about.
> Not everyone has the same ability to own their power, therefore some need protection.
Actually serving as justification for my retort. Think about it. I've been supporting protection on both sides of the dispute.
> I find it near impossible, despite what you say, to ken you are fighting anyone's battle but your very own.
In the context of your series of posts to me, I cannot believe that a constructive dialog is possible. A selective recounting of history does not benefit me or this board. Please do not post to me any more.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2007, at 8:46:14
In reply to Please do not post to me » MCK, posted by Larry Hoover on April 29, 2007, at 6:08:54
If you feel it has not been honored, please contact administration.
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2007, at 8:49:22
In reply to Please do not post to me » MCK, posted by Larry Hoover on April 29, 2007, at 6:08:54
> What GG proposed was facile. It did not address the issue that even Dr. Bob has become concerned about.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
As clarification the second sentence would have been fine, in my opinion.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by zenhussy on April 29, 2007, at 11:00:04
In reply to Request noted » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on April 29, 2007, at 8:46:14
Posted by Declan on April 29, 2007, at 18:43:16
In reply to Please be civil » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on April 29, 2007, at 8:49:22
I can't imagine wanting to post to someone who clearly did not want to hear from me.
At the same time I'd rather just ignore other posters I couldn't stand.
But now that I think of it, there have been none of them.
Sometimes I have thought 'so and so is just a <whatever>' and of course I have felt angered, but I've never been able to see for myself the advantages that DNPs are supposed to bring.Maybe I'd rather keep the authorities out of my likes and dislikes (which anyway are a bit suspicious)?
Posted by zazenducke on April 29, 2007, at 20:53:38
In reply to DNPs, posted by Declan on April 29, 2007, at 18:43:16
Dr Bob has added a P for Please to the official notification to prevent hurt feelings.
I never got a PDNP. I think I would be glad to honour it.
I got a Please Don't Torture Me and I was happy to oblige.
I would like to have a Please Don't Post About Me Without My Name for people who write open letters to the board about unnamed posters :)
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.