![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 58 to 82 of 118. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:21:59
In reply to i once told him... » greywolf, posted by karen_kay on May 10, 2007, at 6:09:13
Posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:24:14
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » fayeroe, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 8:54:39
strong statement that bears repeating...
>>>>> A commitment to fairness requires an understanding that even the appearance of a double-standard diminishes faith in the rules administrators. <<<<<
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:28:08
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » greywolf, posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:24:14
Precisely. Which is why PBC'ing gg when others have not been PBC'd for the same thing would have provided an appearance of double standards that we did not wish to give. It's Dr. Bob's site, and it's Dr. Bob in question here. Since he did reply, is aware, surely it is up to him?
Posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:38:40
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » zenhussy, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:28:08
as for how other deputies decide to interpret their "duties" is another matter entirely
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:42:32
In reply to beef has always been with head honcho not you » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:38:40
Just remember that any portion of that other matter that could lead any deputies to feel accused or put down should not be posted directly or by clear implication.
Posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 10:45:26
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » greywolf, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:21:49
Dinah,
I respect and appreciate the deputies for the time and care they invest in administering a site that is undoubtedly more difficult to manage than most others. I can also understand the frustration generated when you're in a situation where everyone wants to do the right thing, but the support you need might not be as timely as some would like it to be.
But I think it was Madeleine who asked in this thread what one is to do in such a situation. My opinion is that there is plenty of freedom to raise critical issues and needs, but that civility need not be thrown out the window in the process.
Personally, I could not care less if action was not taken against gg because I understand at least part of her frustration. However, it does seem obvious to me that not enforcing the civility rules in this situation may create frustration for others, especially when an essential premise of the site's civility rules is understanding not only the plain message of your statements, but also the potential consequences of the way your message is conveyed to sensitive recipients (e.g., "triggers").
In my view, civility requires not only a concern for targeted recipients of your message, but also for all of those who may view or participate in the discourse. If this discussion is allowed to become personally derogatory simply because Dr. Bob is involved, how long will it be until other posters decide to start throwing adjectives at him, too? And when that peculiar type of incivility expands, doesn't it detract from the positive nature of the overall experience here?
All I'm saying is that the heartfelt criticisms of Dr. Bob's administration of this site could have been stated without the personal attacks, and that the deputies could have addressed the personal attacks without undermining the main message.
In any event, I still appreciate all of the deputies' efforts to make this a quality site.
Greywolf
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:48:02
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob?, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2007, at 9:58:05
> I know because I don't care. I can't imagine escalating anger, because I don't really give a hoot about any consequence.
:-) Here's to nonattachment. Or is it unattachment. I still don't understnd the difference. It did occur to me that attachment to my nonattachment might constitute attachment. But then my brain died like that computer in Star Trek.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:52:45
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 10:45:26
I thank you for your thoughtful reply and appreciate that you have valid points. And I especially appreciate *how* you said it. I urge Dr. Bob to consider your points when he gives us guidelines on how to respond to posts directed at him.
Posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:55:24
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:48:02
gg>>>because I don't really give a hoot about any consequence. <<<
dinah>>>Just remember that any portion of that other matter that could lead any deputies to feel accused or put down should not be posted directly or by clear implication.<<<
well if the deputies don't give a fig then where does that leave the community? if the police join in the riot does that make it okay? because they were uniformed before the riot does that protect them after? can they easily return to enforcement after engaging in _______behaviours that are outlined as not okay in the FAQ?
did their year of training involve any scenarios similar to THIS very thread?
inevitable state of affairs.....just wonder what took it this long to arrive
Posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:00:11
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:55:24
what does it say about the culture surrounding "bad to tell" secrets? That's a good point zen.
What does it say about a community who lives with these "secrets" and fashions communications and consequences around these "secrets".
It has been something I had always intuited, but felt silenced to speak about, because of the strong - oh so, very strong, culture.
I think the civility does not equal truth speaks volumes.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:03:37
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:55:24
No, that's not what we mean, zen. We of course give a hoot about civility guidelines.
I guess I shouldn't have brought that dialogue to Admin, it wasn't an admin dialogue. It's a zen (I guess) thing that my therapist is very proud of me about. Although I'm somewhat less plesed about it, but he says that's good, because I have no attachment to the process.
I'll clearly never be a therapist, because I don't understand that at all.
It simply has to do with personal freedom, not disregard of rules. Can you ever imagine me not caring about rules?
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:08:49
In reply to perhaps, more importantly -, posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:00:11
Clearly civility does not equal truth.
I am fat. That is truth.
Context would matter a lot. Were my doctor to say that I'm over my weight limit, and it would do my health good to weigh less, that would be civil even if he put it rather strongly. If my husband were to say he loves me and wants me to be with him for a long time and would like me to exercise and watch what I eat, that would be loving. If a friend told me I shouldn't wear that dress because it pointed out how fat I was, that wouldn't be terribly civil, although likely true. If someone walked up to me out of the blue and told I was fat and disgusting, that would be completely uncivil. No matter how much truth is involved.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:12:55
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly - » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:08:49
I should have said, clearly to me. Which is what I meant.
Posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:13:19
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly - » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:08:49
I understand that. Completely.
But what gg touched on was secrecy and relief at speaking about something that resonates for her (& others I suspect) strongly.
Why was she prevented from articulating this previously? (rhetorical question - don't answer, please)
Why are criticisms of babble workings/decisions silenced or perceived to be silenced?
I guess this is a bigger question than what's civil/what's not scenario.
True, civility needs to be strived for, but there's also a balance.
Not to say that all is malicious intent or any. I don't know. But I have a deep distrust of people who say they have best interests in mind, when in fact - actions prove otherwise.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:19:59
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly -, posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:13:19
> But I have a deep distrust of people who say they have best interests in mind, when in fact - actions prove otherwise.
"Actions prove otherwise" is a conclusion that might lead others to feel accused or put down.
I appreciate the discussion of ideas, but that one sentence needs to be restated to be in accordance with site guidelines.
Dr. Bob, of course, has oversight over all deputorial decisions, and my choose to adjust this or any one.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
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.