![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by zenhussy on June 17, 2009, at 11:17:22
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » twinleaf, posted by SLS on June 17, 2009, at 4:19:22
Posted by zenhussy on June 17, 2009, at 11:46:49
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » twinleaf, posted by SLS on June 17, 2009, at 4:19:22
couple of interesting snips from the article:
"...the other kids realize that **the bully is someone who has a problem managing his or her behavior**, and the victim is someone they can protect."--Dr. Robert Sege, chief of ambulatory pediatrics Boston Med. Center, speaking about Dan Olweus' work on bullying from the early 70's.
"How about helping the bullies, who are, after all, also pediatric patients? [schools are suspending and expelling bullies] without paying attention to helping them and their families learn to function in a different way." --Perri Klass, M.D. author of article
http://tinyurl.com/n6xmer --link to NYTimes article
Posted by SLS on June 17, 2009, at 11:48:30
In reply to more nurturing for whom? 'bullies' are posters too (nm) » SLS, posted by zenhussy on June 17, 2009, at 11:17:22
First of all, I resemble that remark.
Secondly, your remark is a reminder that an idyllic society might not be possible with bullies and trolls extant. However, rules governing posting behaviors can reduce the hurt they might like to inflict. This increases the safety of the posting environment, and allows a vulnerability that I don't remember seeing prior to the the enactment of the rules of civility. I think it is a shared allowance of each other to become vulnerable that nurtures growth.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 17, 2009, at 12:11:41
In reply to http://tinyurl.com/n6xmer NYTimes bullying article » SLS, posted by zenhussy on June 17, 2009, at 11:46:49
While you are here, perhaps you could share your thoughts on the desirability of Psycho-Babble to have posting rules.
Do you think there should be posting rules of some sort?
- Scott
Posted by zenhussy on June 17, 2009, at 12:14:46
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » zenhussy, posted by SLS on June 17, 2009, at 12:11:41
Posted by SLS on June 17, 2009, at 12:36:16
In reply to archives show years of our thoughts on this matter (nm) » SLS, posted by zenhussy on June 17, 2009, at 12:14:46
Thank you.
- Scott
Posted by fayeroe on June 17, 2009, at 13:26:40
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by twinleaf on June 16, 2009, at 22:52:13
> As you know, I prefer the term "guidelines" because of the implied flexibility, but it does mean pretty much the same as "rules"
>
> The example you gave would come under a general guideline of failing to treat others with respect. If you felt hurt by this comment, you could say so, and ask the person who said it to make amends so that you no longer felt hurt. This might take several tries back and forth, as well as maybe some cooling-off time. The deputies could just observe while this gets worked out. I know there would be some instances when the deputies would need to take a more active role, but having them jumping in all the time to tell us when we are "wrong" and what we should do to make things "right" can be quite a put-down in and of itself. If the deputies do get involved, I would like to see them help the posters work out their differences, not by telling them what to do, or by administerings PCBs or blocks, but by giving friendly reminders of the importance (necessity) of working things out.
>
> If we leave the posters at the center of conflict resolution, each one will, hopefully, eventually get what they need from the other. If the administrators take over, we will get odd situations, like the ones in some of the older threads here, where Bob asks poster #1 to apologize to poster #2. The first poster does so, but the second poster says that he does not feel hurt and that no apology is or was necessary. Errors like this illustrate that the posters themselves know what is needed in a given situation better than the administrators possibly can.Don't forget Bob was pressing posters to get another poster to apologize to other posters. That appears to have gone over like a lead balloon. The posters who were in the thread were uncomfortable with his idea.
I certainly would never, ever tell another poster that "you need to apologize" to blank.....
>
>
Posted by gobbledygook on June 17, 2009, at 14:33:02
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by twinleaf on June 16, 2009, at 22:52:13
At this point, I am more concerned about the rules/guidelines for the administrators. What are the current rules in place for the administrators?
I bring this up not to throw accusations at anyone here, but I find that I'm not able to separate the issue of the "rules for the posters" from the
"rules for the administrators". Obviously there are basic rules of civility that each poster should abide by, but the real issue for me is the rules
for the administrators in policing these interactions.The real hurt I've experienced in myself and observed in others has come from the way the rules are interpreted and carried out. Sure I've been
hurt here and there by certain posts, but honestly, I have felt much, much more pain when I have watched certain posters receive what I felt was
unfair and excessive punishment for posts that were benign or misinterpreted.My perception is that the rules have been carried out inconsistently and subjectively, with one person having the power to be "judge, jury, and
executioner" when the warnings/blocks are issued. Even though the warnings/blocks are issued with the statement: "The administrator is always
free to override deputy decisions...feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error," how many cases can Bob actually review
with his busy schedule? And when he does review a case, Bob is not around enough to keep up with and understand all the dynamics of the boards
to know the details of who and what led to the warnings and the blocks - leaving him to rely on one person's judgment.Consequently the current mechanisms and rules in place make me feel fearful and distrustful of the admins judgments - whether they're trying their
best or not under difficult conditions, etc. I sympathize with their position as they must make judgments on posts that are not always clear cut,
but open to interpretation. However, it is ultimately the poster who suffers through the humiliation and rejection in the end, whether misinterpreted
or not. I understand that we are all human and errors will be made, but when the consequences of these errors result in painful psychological harm,
I have to question whether giving one person all of this authority is wise.So, as I'm writing this, Twinleaf, I'm thinking this is where your ideas regarding guidelines would work well:
"If you felt hurt by this comment, you could say so, and ask the person who said it to make amends so that you no longer felt hurt. This might take several tries back and forth, as well as maybe some cooling-off time. The deputies could just observe while this gets worked out. I know there would be some instances when the deputies would need to take a more active role, but having them jumping in all the time to tell us when we are "wrong" and what we should do to make things "right" can be quite a put-down in and of itself. If the deputies do get involved, I would like to see them help the posters work out their differences, not by telling them what to do, or by administering PCBs or blocks, but by giving friendly reminders of the importance (necessity) of working things out.
If we leave the posters at the center of conflict resolution, each one will, hopefully, eventually get what they need from the other. If the administrators take over, we will get odd situations, like the ones in some of the older threads here, where Bob asks poster #1 to apologize to poster #2. The first poster does so, but the second poster says that he does not feel hurt and that no apology is or was necessary. Errors like this illustrate that the posters themselves know what is needed in a given situation better than the administrators possibly can." -Twinleaf
Ava
Posted by BayLeaf on June 17, 2009, at 21:01:48
In reply to archives show years of our thoughts on this matter (nm) » SLS, posted by zenhussy on June 17, 2009, at 12:14:46
about a decades worth! :-)
Posted by BayLeaf on June 17, 2009, at 21:06:31
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » zenhussy, posted by SLS on June 17, 2009, at 12:11:41
"While you are here..."
whatcha mean? ya think zen's going somewhere?? I can't imagine why you'd say such a thing? Zen is an ever present member of this community! :-)
bay
Posted by fayeroe on June 17, 2009, at 21:21:17
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » SLS, posted by BayLeaf on June 17, 2009, at 21:06:31
> "While you are here..."
>
> whatcha mean? ya think zen's going somewhere?? I can't imagine why you'd say such a thing? Zen is an ever present member of this community! :-)
>
> bayI noticed that..of course Zen isn't going anywhere. I wonder what brought that on?
Posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 5:32:47
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » BayLeaf, posted by fayeroe on June 17, 2009, at 21:21:17
> > "While you are here..."
> >
> > whatcha mean? ya think zen's going somewhere?? I can't imagine why you'd say such a thing? Zen is an ever present member of this community! :-)
> >
> > bay
>
> I noticed that..of course Zen isn't going anywhere. I wonder what brought that on?
>Do I really have to explain that it is a figure of speech?
My efforts here are sincere, if not, perhaps misguided.
Thanks.
The archives are yesterday.
This thread is today, as yesterday no longer has much influence.
Tomorrow might be different than today because of today.
So far, I don't see that many people actually want to participate seriously in these discussions, so perhaps we should just "let things go"?
Personally, I do well in either type of environment - moderated or unmoderated. However, I prefer a moderated environment because it provides for a higher percentage of on topic discourse and less vulgar flaming. Something about Psycho-Babble is wrong, though, and I was thinking that it might be worth the effort to discover what that is. For me, evidence that there is something wrong with Psycho-Babble is that droves of good people left within months of the advent of the rules of civility.
Unfortunately, a sizable portion of the community is NOT here to participate in this thread as many members do not visit Administration.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 6:23:10
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 5:32:47
To look at things from another angle:
Which of the current rules should be abandoned?
- Scott
Posted by Frustratedmama on June 18, 2009, at 8:23:55
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 6:23:10
I was wondering if this was an infraction? someone posted this in response to me earlier in the year and it still bothers me......
"A way has been revealed to me that could open a new life where you could sing a new song. You could have a new heart and a new spirit and a new mind, not like the one that you describe here, but one of peace and joy.
It has been revealed to me that there is a great gulf separating two worlds, one side the world of death and another side the world of life and peace. And it has been revealed to me that one can break on through to the other side."It was in response to feelings of suicide- I assumed the poster wanted me to go through with it- which might be the right choice at this time. I keep myself alive though for the sake of my child- but every time I read this post I wonder....
Posted by SLS on June 18, 2009, at 8:35:58
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by Frustratedmama on June 18, 2009, at 8:23:55
> It was in response to feelings of suicide- I assumed the poster wanted me to go through with it- which might be the right choice at this time. I keep myself alive though for the sake of my child- but every time I read this post I wonder....
I'm certainly glad you didn't hurt yourself. I don't care what your motivations were. For what it's worth, in my way of thinking, I'm not sure that there is much guarantee of anything except for what exists in the moment, including joy and peace. I'll let the moderators (called "deputies" on this website) suggest how you should handle this sort of thing and where best to locate this post.
Thanks for your input.
- Scott
Posted by floatingbridge on June 18, 2009, at 21:41:19
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by Frustratedmama on June 18, 2009, at 8:23:55
Some infractions, IMHO:
Bullying (not strong opinion, mind you)
Encouraging or condoning suicide or other self-harming
Hate speech
Basic incivility (personal attacks)
I'm here because there is a high quality (information, civility) to the posting and because it is moderated. Unmoderated boards can devolve to a real free-for-all.
Candace
Posted by rjlockhart04-08 on June 18, 2009, at 23:35:40
In reply to Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 14:49:51
Can I tell Racer, is she still here? what happened....throught a vortex going through "this time.....boom! where am i?"
This poster was the most valued, in my case of ever being here. And ready to make some bent belief's straight, because there was stuff hitting the fan, 2006, 2007...2008. Eventaully that "person" who is "You", evolves, throw's all the residue of the past in the trash. Yet, you know all about, where you born, due! yet, the turmoil that was caused in a distress for help for someone to be there, couldnt take place even through it was "being made" by posters. Evacuation Sequence, back in 2006 failed. You know that movie Alien, if she didnt get out of that ship...., glad she wasnt me. Adios and Muchacho's! Should of left everything behind, forgot about it.
So is this reiencforing stronger rules of, everyone knows my writing, yet, back a couple years ago....it was diffrent through the brain, metaphorhizied into a better form. DNA adaption.
You know i'll post stuff, then...??? no one awnser's, well at least it was wonderful info for people to read, say "naaa" next post.
Deputy Rjlockhart?
after me Deputy Racer make up?
Racer......come back!
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:24:39
In reply to Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 14:49:51
Infractions:
1. Actual words, not intent. In therapy, people learn that they can't mind read. One shouldn't have to mind read here.
2. Sarcasm directed towards a person. Sarcasm is easy to detect. Sarcasm employs actual words. Therefore, #2 is in line with #1.
3. Encouragement of suicidal behaviors, self-injurious behavior.
When an argument breaks out, what should happen? As Deputy Dinah did, so we should do: immediately move the argument over to administration (or a board specifically for hashing things out). As soon as someone has made a move to do that, no one should be able to continue to make comments about it after the fact in the main boards, and especially not as side notes in a message that is primarily not about the argument.
> Hopefully, the diplomatic talents of the moderators will obviate the need for giving warnings and enforcing rules by imposing blocks. However, there are bound to be some posting behaviors that will be in the best interests of the Psycho-Babble community to proscribe.
>
> The current punitive system might not be well conceived, but we can defer that issue for another thread.
>
> What posting behaviors do you think should constitute sanctionable infractions?
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 12:27:58
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » SLS, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:24:39
> Infractions:
>
> 1. Actual words, not intent. In therapy, people learn that they can't mind read. One shouldn't have to mind read here.
>
> 2. Sarcasm directed towards a person. Sarcasm is easy to detect. Sarcasm employs actual words. Therefore, #2 is in line with #1.
I don't understand how one could possibly detect sarcasm without some supposition of the writer's intent. From where I sit, that sets #2 in opposition to #1.gg
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 21, 2009, at 19:52:14
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 12:27:58
Oh, you're right. Sarcasm is *so* hard to detect.
(My tone of voice for demonstrative purposes only and not for offense).
> > Infractions:
> >
> > 1. Actual words, not intent. In therapy, people learn that they can't mind read. One shouldn't have to mind read here.
> >
> > 2. Sarcasm directed towards a person. Sarcasm is easy to detect. Sarcasm employs actual words. Therefore, #2 is in line with #1.
>
>
> I don't understand how one could possibly detect sarcasm without some supposition of the writer's intent. From where I sit, that sets #2 in opposition to #1.
>
> gg
Posted by SLS on June 21, 2009, at 20:13:01
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 21, 2009, at 19:52:14
> Oh, you're right. Sarcasm is *so* hard to detect.
>
> (My tone of voice for demonstrative purposes only and not for offense).Sarcasm is sort of like a pornography. It is hard to define for legal purposes, but I know it when I see it.
It really is a tough call, but Dr. Bob seems to make sarcasm one of his pet peeves. I guess he feels that he knows it when he sees it, too.
Unless the sarcasm is completely undisguised, it is difficult to pull out any one sentence from a post as an example of the sarcasm contained within it. Yet, it is sarcasm that can sometimes cut the deepest.
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 20:41:19
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 21, 2009, at 19:52:14
My point is that you can't have #1 and #2. You can't have it both ways. If you indeed want to only consider the words themselves, then you cannot make assumptions or inferences about tone and/or intent.
gg
Posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2009, at 21:39:17
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 20:41:19
An example for me is that being from CT originally and now being in the South what up North wasn't sarcasm there but is here. Constanting insulting my husband but that is not the intent. Boy if again up there don't think I could again spar every conversation. We use hands up there too down here none. Phillipa
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 0:54:07
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction?, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2009, at 20:41:19
I got what you meant. My point, by example, is that words have connotative and denotative meaning. So #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive, at all.
> My point is that you can't have #1 and #2. You can't have it both ways. If you indeed want to only consider the words themselves, then you cannot make assumptions or inferences about tone and/or intent.
>
> gg
>
Posted by gardenergirl on June 22, 2009, at 1:18:53
In reply to Re: Rules - What constitutes an infraction? » gardenergirl, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 0:54:07
> I got what you meant. My point, by example, is that words have connotative and denotative meaning. So #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive, at all.
And so if I were to reply with something like, "Gosh, you're so smart", how would you determine whether I am being sarcastic or sincere using just the words themselves?
gg
>
> > My point is that you can't have #1 and #2. You can't have it both ways. If you indeed want to only consider the words themselves, then you cannot make assumptions or inferences about tone and/or intent.
> >
> > gg
> >
>
>
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.