![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 42 to 66 of 71. Go back in thread:
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 Happyflower asserts that she was told that her old DNP was no longer valid under the new guidelines.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 :)
Posted by verne on April 30, 2007, at 1:31:00
In reply to Re:PDNPs PDNTMs and proposed PDNPAMWMN, posted by zazenducke on April 29, 2007, at 20:53:38
I think I'm allowed to respond to a thread without addressing anyone. I'd rather not mention your name, yet may very well be responding to you. I see nothing terribly wrong with that.
Perhaps, this is time for a warm WWBD moment!
Verne
Posted by Bottomfeeder on May 1, 2007, at 19:45:14
In reply to Blocked » Happyflower, posted by Racer on April 23, 2007, at 0:48:01
Did I miss the post about how long Happyflower is blocked for? Hope you are doing okay HF and hope to see you back when your block is over. Take care.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 1, 2007, at 21:50:24
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Bottomfeeder on May 1, 2007, at 19:45:14
Dr. Bob only just came back to the boards today. He should set the length, but I don't know when he will. I think it's tentatively at 2 weeks now, though.
10derHeart, posting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Happyflower on May 4, 2007, at 19:52:12
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Bottomfeeder on May 1, 2007, at 19:45:14
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2007, at 15:50:51
In reply to Please be civil » Ralph.U.K, posted by Racer on April 24, 2007, at 14:58:56
> Dr Bob has final authority regarding all administrative actions on this site, and may choose to adjust any and all deputy actions.
When you're blocked, you're not supposed to post, so I'm going to block this name, consider the length of your previous block [tripled], and delete follow-ups to this post.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceThanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2007, at 17:25:02
In reply to Please be civil » MCK, posted by Racer on April 28, 2007, at 18:50:15
> Dr Bob is always the final authority on this site, and he may choose to adjust this deputy action.
Sorry, but I've decided to make this a block instead.
previous block: [3] weeks
period of time (at that time) since previous block: 1 week
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 1 week, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's [3] - 0 = [3] weeks. And if we triple that, that's [9] weeks.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceThanks,
Bob
Posted by karen_kay on June 17, 2007, at 19:46:10
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » MCK, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2007, at 17:25:02
Posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 19:12:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » MCK, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2007, at 17:25:02
This isn't related to these blocks, I haven't even looked at them yet. It's just an observation I've always wanted to make. (Maybe should have put it in its own thread.)
I don't think this line that always appears in the standard blocking formula posting makes sense, or at least in enough cases to leave it in for *every* block:
> clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
...because, it has been affirmed that once a poster has ever received a PBC, at any time -- could have been weeks or months ago or longer -- they can then be instantly blocked with no warning thereafter. It varies greatly as to whether a poster will in fact get a PBC or Please Rephrase before the block at hand.
Many seem to be under the impression that there is *always* a warning first *somewhere* -- on another of the boards if not the one the block occurred on -- very close to the time of any block for a person.
But since it has been confirmed that that is not always the case, I don't think it puts a fair light on things to leave in the block calculation line above, which makes it sound like in that case and every case each person DID have time to "not understand and make effort to reply." And for some people who have received multiple blocks with no more prior warnings, you would have to be forever re-using whatever their original reaction was to their original (or a distant) PBC, to fill in that answer. Just doesn't sit right by my logic...
Posted by karen_kay on June 18, 2007, at 20:22:54
In reply to Re: line from block formula that should be removed » Dr. Bob, posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 19:12:55
well then.....
i wasn't aware of that.. i always thought one was given a warning (pbc, please rephrase, ect.) on each thread before issued a block.
didn't that used to be the case?
severely confused!!!!
kk
Posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 20:52:57
In reply to is that the case now? » confuzyq, posted by karen_kay on June 18, 2007, at 20:22:54
Nope, always has been that way! That's another of the things that many historical admin protests have centered around, when unequal rules application is being alleged: How some get warning (after warning after warning, in some cases), but others... BOOM! outta nowhere (or at least far-away-where), if they've ever received a PBC.
(Mostly this is when bob is active, to my recollection.)
Even if the same person does keep doing what is clearly a violation, I still think that including "didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no" in every block calculation post can be misleading, as it could be referencing a reaction the person did or didn't have months or years ago. Unlike the other lines of criteria in the block formula, which always do apply to that particular instance.
In cases where it's apparently been decided that no more warnings are deserved, that line should be removed or altered. Or just have "N/A" after it. (But we never do "give up" on anyone, do we? So let's not auto-insert that line which will make it look like once again, they could have learned/halted the escalation to block; could have "not understood and made effort to reply," but didn't.)
As far as the blocks on this thread, which aren't cases of the above (so why did I put this here, go figure!), normally I would have commented that it looks like there is now one more thing people can worry about being applied inequally: the possible length of time between transgression (in these cases, April) and reprimand coming down. Because til now, it has always been almost a de facto rule that if bob missed something uncivil, he would "leave the past in the past" and not revisit any situation beyond just days later.
But, I didn't say that, due to the new "notify" procedures and all that. Whereby bob & deputies must go through what could be tons of notifications about possible incivilities, then make determinations. I guess that's going to make the window of opportunity for reprimand a lot bigger.
Oh, here's a smiley so you know I'm a nice fun person... :0)
> well then.....
>
> i wasn't aware of that.. i always thought one was given a warning (pbc, please rephrase, ect.) on each thread before issued a block.
>
> didn't that used to be the case?
>
> severely confused!!!!
>
> kk
Posted by karen_kay on June 19, 2007, at 12:41:05
In reply to Re: is that the case now? » karen_kay, posted by confuzyq on June 18, 2007, at 20:52:57
1. youre' a nice, fun person (hence the smilie face ;) (i didn't doubt that at all dear. and please don't be offended by my loose use of the word dear, darling. i find it endearing and often wish more people would call me dear. i do have doe-like eyes, you know. now, off to more important things, though i must say my eyes are very important and i could go on about them all day long...
2. hmmm, i wasn't even aware of the fact that one could just *BAM* be blocked because they were warned back in 1874 to be civil, when referring to a certain political candidate as a jerk. that's interesting.
3. another hiss. and it's not directed at you. swear.... i'm finding that the saying 'ignorance is bliss' is so very true. then again, i don't mind it so much when i'm blocked, moreso i mind it when others are blocked.
i'd like to say thank you for bringing this to my attention, but as i said earlier, i'm starting to prefer ignorance, as well as hissing. my duckie taught me to hiss and i think there's something to that.
i hope this came out the way i intended it to. you're very helpful. i likie you. will you marry me? (there, that about sums it up, i think.) i hope you don't take anything i said as insulting, i didn't mean for it to come across that way. i've got a piercing that i fear is blocking a chakra (yes, i finally figured out how to spell it) and i'm ready to rip it out.
sincerely, dearly and almost weary,
kk
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.