![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 43 to 67 of 118. Go back in thread:
Posted by Declan on May 9, 2007, at 20:49:37
In reply to Re: Deputy action on this thread » Racer, posted by henrietta on May 9, 2007, at 20:31:23
FWIW, I think that people, sometimes, left to their own devices, will tear each other to bits.
And for what?
Maybe there's been unfairness.
Escalating blocks were unfair.
Maybe sometimes there is a group psychology that can make it hard for people to see clearly.But to suggest thst deputies are operating in bad faith seems over the top to me.
Posted by Quintal on May 9, 2007, at 21:04:06
In reply to Re: Deputy action on this thread, posted by Declan on May 9, 2007, at 20:49:37
>FWIW, I think that people, sometimes, left to their own devices, will tear each other to bits.
So would it be ethical to stand by, watch, and do nothing?
Q
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2007, at 21:21:48
In reply to Re: Deputy action on this thread » Racer, posted by henrietta on May 9, 2007, at 20:31:23
> Some cry BULLY as they continue to subtly bully others. Some cry NARCISIST as they exhibit blatantly narcissistic behavior. Some play the "I'm not touching you game" as they accuse others of torturing them with the "I'm not touching you game".
You've been asked to be civil before, so I'm going to have to block you from posting for one week.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
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 Declan on May 9, 2007, at 21:21:56
In reply to Re: Deputy action on this thread » Declan, posted by Quintal on May 9, 2007, at 21:04:06
No, that's why I posted....because I did not feel that Henrietta's post was helpful.
You're up late.
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2007, at 21:31:11
In reply to Re: Deputy action on this thread » Quintal, posted by Declan on May 9, 2007, at 21:21:56
> No, that's why I posted....because I did not feel that Henrietta's post was helpful.
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
FWIW, I think everyone, in their own way, is trying to be helpful. It's just that different people have different ideas of what is needed.
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 Quintal on May 9, 2007, at 21:31:59
In reply to Re: Deputy action on this thread » Quintal, posted by Declan on May 9, 2007, at 21:21:56
Good for you Declan.
Q
Posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2007, at 21:35:33
In reply to Re: Deputy action on this thread » Declan, posted by Quintal on May 9, 2007, at 21:31:59
This is a question only. So the last time I read a post of Bob's was when he was going to Texas and wanted to meet for coffee and fae couldn't go? Thanks Phillipa ps a long time ago.
Posted by Quintal on May 9, 2007, at 21:42:49
In reply to ReQestion, posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2007, at 21:35:33
Dr. Bob posted on the Admin board on the 1st and 7th of this month, yet apparently did not speak to his deputies. This is what the thread is about as far as I know.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070423/msgs/754861.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070423/msgs/756470.htmlQ
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2007, at 21:45:17
In reply to ReQestion, posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2007, at 21:35:33
No, he posted on top of this board.
And I've received a few emails from him.
I believe he's trying to head in this direction, and he is aware of this thread.
I hope that puts people's minds at rest a bit. It does mine. :)
Posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2007, at 21:45:44
In reply to Re: ReQestion » Phillipa, posted by Quintal on May 9, 2007, at 21:42:49
Quintal yes and then he went off on some long explanation of all these support groups mostly on Cancer. Wonder why? Love Phillipa
Posted by fayeroe on May 9, 2007, at 21:47:01
In reply to ReQestion, posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2007, at 21:35:33
> This is a question only. So the last time I read a post of Bob's was when he was going to Texas and wanted to meet for coffee and fae couldn't go? Thanks Phillipa ps a long time ago.
i opted for a reception with Ann Margaret and Quentin Tarrentino..........:-)
Posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2007, at 21:47:31
In reply to Re: ReQestion » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2007, at 21:45:17
Well I'll look and wait til he gets here he will not believe it. Love Phillipa thanks for the heads up.
Posted by Phillipa on May 9, 2007, at 21:52:06
In reply to Re: ReQestion, posted by fayeroe on May 9, 2007, at 21:47:01
I remember. Love Phillipa
Posted by karen_kay on May 9, 2007, at 21:58:21
In reply to Re: ReQestion, posted by fayeroe on May 9, 2007, at 21:47:01
will you marry me.... and make certain i'm in grindhouse 2?
oh, pretty please?
now, i'm being as serious as my name is kk. i'll take you to see les claypool with me. promise!
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2007, at 22:34:02
In reply to Damn, Dinah. This freedom's addictive! :^) (nm) » gardenergirl, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2007, at 9:08:27
My therapist would give you a big grin, gg.
Maybe I should send *you* some bodhi tree seeds. :)
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2007, at 22:35:09
In reply to Absa-....- lutely ;) » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on May 9, 2007, at 22:34:02
I was referring to freedom, nothing else.
Posted by fayeroe on May 9, 2007, at 23:16:48
In reply to just one question... » fayeroe, posted by karen_kay on May 9, 2007, at 21:58:21
> will you marry me.... and make certain i'm in grindhouse 2?
>
> oh, pretty please?
>
> now, i'm being as serious as my name is kk. i'll take you to see les claypool with me. promise!only if i get to make out with les claypool!!!(not to hurt YOUR feelings or anything, but it is les claypool we're talking about)
Posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 5:45:28
In reply to Surveys, and names, and I statements, Oh my!, posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2007, at 19:35:40
C'mon. I'm all in favor of being careful with the rules, and I've repeatedly spoken out in support of the deputies who, imho, are doing a fine job overall.
But where did this "more leniency for incivility to Dr. Bob" standard come from? This is "civil" within the context of the site's rules?:
"How absolutely shameful and self-centered.
(Belated note to self: Duh! Why in the world would someone with this personality type give a rat's *ss? Rolls eyes and shakes head at the rampant idealism.)
It's true this is finger-pointing and accusing. There is no hedging or compassion for whatever internal state is driving the narcissism."
So, calling Dr. Bob out as a shameful and self-centered narcissist is not uncivil? In comparison to so many PBCs I've seen, that's remarkable. While Dr. Bob might be more tolerant of criticism directed toward him, does such forbearance justify intentionally demeaning character attacks?
Civility is civility, end of story. The standards should not be variable.
Greywolf
Posted by karen_kay on May 10, 2007, at 6:09:13
In reply to Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » gardenergirl, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 5:45:28
some very nasty things long ago (as an attempt to be blocked) with no results. i don't believe i was even asked to be civil. it took me telling miss gabbs to f off before getting that block i so needed.
perhaps it's always been that way. and that's when he was on the boards quite often. perhaps he likes attention? i'd find the post, but i'm lazy. but, i think it's been that way. he seems to not care when people are reffering to him.
Posted by tofuemmy on May 10, 2007, at 6:30:03
In reply to Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » gardenergirl, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 5:45:28
I don't think GG believes what she said is civil. I think she just became so irked, she doesn't currently care if she is blocked or not. Been there. Done that.
In the old days, Bob was open game. We could vent on him without penalty. It was quite cathartic. At some point (a couple years ago I think), he musta gotten fed up and did start blocking people for being uncivil towards him.
I think the current deputies are waiting for Bob to decide what to do about this issue. Historically he has seemed to want to be "The Decider" in new or unusual situations.
em
Posted by fayeroe on May 10, 2007, at 8:09:08
In reply to Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » gardenergirl, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 5:45:28
> C'mon. I'm all in favor of being careful with the rules, and I've repeatedly spoken out in support of the deputies who, imho, are doing a fine job overall.
>
> But where did this "more leniency for incivility to Dr. Bob" standard come from? This is "civil" within the context of the site's rules?:after all of the years of Bob not being CIVIL to the posters/deputies, by too many examples that i care to list for you here, i think GG can say whatever the hell she wants to about and for him. i've been here longer than you and seen so mighty strange deals that he's pulled.
>
> "How absolutely shameful and self-centered.how shameful and self-centered is it to answer an unwitting and vulnerable poster's serious question with a question?
>
> (Belated note to self: Duh! Why in the world would someone with this personality type give a rat's *ss? Rolls eyes and shakes head at the rampant idealism.)
>
> It's true this is finger-pointing and accusing. There is no hedging or compassion for whatever internal state is driving the narcissism."we can't see Bob's hands. maybe he points fingers too.
>
> So, calling Dr. Bob out as a shameful and self-centered narcissist is not uncivil? In comparison to so many PBCs I've seen, that's remarkable. While Dr. Bob might be more tolerant of criticism directed toward him, does such forbearance justify intentionally demeaning character attacks?i've seen worse here.............
>
> Civility is civility, end of story. The standards should not be variable.and history is history.
fayeroe
Posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 8:54:39
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » greywolf, posted by fayeroe on May 10, 2007, at 8:09:08
Respectfully, I think posting here for more than 3 years gives me the minimum qualifications to post my thoughts on what I've seen here during that time.Also, note the quotation marks I put around gg's comments. Your interlineated comments are addressing statements she made.
While I understand the need to vent, I think it creates a fairness issue when the deputies take a hands-off policy against comments that are clearly uncivil regardless of their feeling that Dr. Bob is open to criticism. It makes the administration of rules look inconsistent, and it gives rise to the inevitable speculation that "if I had said the same things, I would have been blocked."
It seems unfair to issue PBCs and blocks to posters who make far less confrontational and uncivil remarks, yet let these comments slide. A commitment to fairness requires an understanding that even the appearance of a double-standard diminishes faith in the rules administrators.
Greywolf
Posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2007, at 9:58:05
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » fayeroe, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 8:54:39
If my post were about anyone else here and in most cases beyond, it certainly would be regarded as uncivil. If I were an active deputy reading it about anyone here or beyond, I'd certainly PBC the [my] post. There is significant past prececent, however, for Dr. Bob allowing a great deal of criticism towards him. If I were an active deputy reading the post about Dr. Bob, I would leave it to him to address. A search of the archives would turn up several such instances. To the best of my knowledge, any administrative action I've taken towards posts critical of Dr. Bob has been when there is something else about the post that's uncivil, i.e. a poster posting while blocked, vulgar language unasterisked, or criticisms of others besides Dr. Bob. I'm sure someone could fine an exception. There are always exceptions and inconsistencies. But that has been my general rule of thumb regarding posts critical of Dr. Bob. Of course the other deputies may have other standards by which they make these decisions.
I certainly don't expect to be treated any differently by Dr. Bob because I am a deputy, though on leave at the moment. When I wrote the post, I was fully aware that there may be consequences, and I accepted that possibility when deciding to write how and what I did. That was my conscious decision. I have to say I was surprised by how hard I had to work to NOT use I-statements. So my post was not without thought. It was not written in the heat of some moment.
I realize it might have been startling to see a post like that from me given my role here. As a deputy, I felt quite constrained at times by the need for, I don't know, decorum and discretion. As just me, I feel liberated from those constraints, though again, I must accept any consequences that may come from posting more freely.
Saying what I did felt like sharing a long held, "it would be bad to tell" secret. It would not be far from the mark to say it had therapeutic value for me to write that, though there are other reasons I wanted to say what I did.
I never expected my post to generate so many comments. I'd hate to see conflict among community members flare up because of my statements, though I realize I have no control over that.
I suppose that about covers it for me.
gg
PS to the person who asked me how I know I would not escalate behavior out of anger about a consequence (paraphrasing heavily): I know because I don't care. I can't imagine escalating anger, because I don't really give a hoot about any consequence. A PBC, a block, some other? Whatever happens happens, and I can't imagine it changing my not giving a hoot at this point. Not giving a hoot is a pretty good feeling, at least in this case. There's always the chance I could be wrong about myself, of course.
Posted by madeline on May 10, 2007, at 10:19:45
In reply to Surveys, and names, and I statements, Oh my!, posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2007, at 19:35:40
I wholeheartedly support the deputies right to not only ask for, but demand Dr. Bob's attention to this site.
I mean it just seems to me that they signed on to be a deputy with the understanding that their efforts would not be the only ones that support the administrative efforts of the site.
I say this simply because this lack of support has consequences and they are manifesting right now in this thread.
I mean it has lead to what seems to be a deliberate decision on the part of a deputy to violate the civility rules of this site in an attempt to elicit that support.
It has also lead to the other deputies' decision to not only allow the self-admitted violation but to have to sanction another poster who questioned their decision.
But, then again, what does one do in a situation like this? How would any one of us have handled it?
I can say with much certainty that the deputies aren't trying to set up a situation in which their decisions appear to set a double standard. I also don't think that their decision not to enforce the rules of this site is based on whether or not they agree with what a poster/deputy is saying.
I think what we have here is a desperate set of circumstances in which the deputies need our support because they aren't getting what is entitled to them.
Come on everyone lets step up to the plate here...
M
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:21:49
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » fayeroe, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 8:54:39
It's not a hands off stance.
For the record, I knew already that Dr. Bob had been told about the post. And yesterday after the thread expanded, I contacted him and told him what the deputies had decided and why (although he probably already knew), how there might be an appearance of it being something other than what it was, and my concerns about that. I did hear back from him and he did say he'd look at it. It's his choice in what order to address the board issues, which was sort of the point of gg's post.
It has been handled exactly as we handle all similar matters.
As Racer said, that doesn't mean that it's open season on Dr. Bob. He has historically been lenient, but not beyond measure. And the civility rules against other posters (including deputies) and the board posters in general, jumping to conclusions about deputies, etc. still are in effect. As are the rules about replying to gardenergirl.
I understand and did understand that there might be confusion over the poster and postee, and what was responsible for our leniency. I explained that to Dr. Bob. Had he wished me to do something specifically, I daresay he'd have included that in his reply. I certainly implied that guidance would be welcome in my email. I'm thinking he wants to look at it first. If he wishes to clarify to us the parameters of what is and what isn't allowable to him either by example or explicit instruction, we will enforce those rules with *everyone*.
I hope this clears up the issue of "deputy inaction".
I was very happy to have a reply from Dr. Bob, and at this point urge everyone on all Admin issues to have a bit of patience. It'll take a while for him to get through all this, I'm sure.
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.