![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 121 to 145 of 173. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 13:19:56
In reply to Re: how far this has gone... » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 12:29:25
> I'm afraid I haven't been able to be supportive because past posts and personal relationships add another layer to any babble interaction.
There certainly can be lots of layers, which can make it really hard. Thanks for doing your best!
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 14:17:48
In reply to Re: how far this has gone..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 13:19:56
> There certainly can be lots of layers, which can make it really hard. Thanks for doing your best!
>
> BobYou just about made me cry there Dr. Bob, that's a first. Thank you, I have been trying my best (though the results may not look like it) it's been really really hard.
Thank you for the acknowledgement it meant a lot
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:32:54
In reply to Re: sidewalk skipping, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2005, at 0:03:30
But Dr. Bob, Lar's last block was for a completely different sort of violation of the civility rules. Surely that makes a difference?
And surely you know Lar well enough by now to know that he does *not* intentionally disobey the rules. He doesn't post while blocked, for example.
He misunderstood the application of the DNP rule. A misunderstanding that seems quite reasonable considering that you are again asking people for a reason for their DNP request, which you didn't a week ago. (And personally, I don't think you should be doing now.)
How about a compromise that will suit everyone?
You can change the FAQ on the DNP to state that a DNP is an option that you prefer people not to use, that you would prefer that they first try to work out their differences, but that if a DNP is requested it should be honored. And it should not be perceived as an endorsement by the administration of the idea that the receiver of a DNP has done anything wrong.
Then you could post examples of what would or would not be a violation of the DNP.
For example, which of the following would be considered violations of the DNP?
"I disagree with XXX's statement, and I think that green is the best color for walls."
"I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."
"I regret that XXX and I have never agreed on wall color."
"You have always preferred blue while I like green for walls."
"It has been stated that blue walls are best. I personally prefer green walls."
Once the FAQ accurately reflect the actual application of the DNP, a poster violating the DNP should be given a Please Honor the Do Not Post, and a statement of the consequences of future DNP violations.
And you can lift the remainder of Lar's block, with the condition that it will be added on to any additional blocks he receives for the same violation.
I still believe different violations from normally guideline abiding citizens should start over from scratch as far as block length.
As far as people being willing to help others before being blocked, I am always willing to try to help as best I can by Babblemail, if anyone has any questions about posts. But the trouble comes when they don't realize their post is questionable, don't you think?
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:44:51
In reply to Re: co-existing, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 16:01:09
> Speaking of co-existing, that may also apply to John and me...
>
> Bob? Would you mind clarifying?
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:49:24
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by AuntieMel on July 8, 2005, at 12:23:40
As a clarification, that's the way I tend to talk. I use a lot of qualifiers, in general. I'm sorry if that led to confusion in this circumstance.
What I usually (see I'm doing it again), mean by putting in qualifications is "I follow admin actions very closely, and I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on, but if I'm wrong, Dr. Bob will correct me and I don't want to look foolish (or arrogant) so I'll put in some qualifying words so that if I'm wrong I can save face."
Now, you see? That sounds horribly arrogant, and would be vastly improved by many many qualifiers.
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:55:28
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by TofuEmmy on July 9, 2005, at 6:57:01
Emmy, you don't have to do that, and no one wants you to do that that I'm aware of.
I value your contribution to Babble, and more personally, your support and friendship to me.
My point is that the FAQ should be revised for clarity, and that blocks for completely different violations should start from scratch.
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:08:19
In reply to Re: co-existing » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 15:32:11
Posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
In reply to Re: sidewalk skipping » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:32:54
And I think she's making a ton of sense here. Dr. Bob, I hope you will heed her words of wisdom. And please don't let me endorsing her let you think any less of what she said. Because it shouldn't.
Posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 19:32:41
In reply to Dinah is a brilliant woman, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
>
Yes she is!
> And I think she's making a ton of sense here. Dr. Bob, I hope you will heed her words of wisdom.And please don't let me endorsing her let you think any less of what she said. Because it shouldn't.
>Sad/funny, that's kind of the thing I would say.
((Crushed))
And Dinah, Bless you and your little dog too..
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:33:14
In reply to Dinah is a brilliant woman, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
I need to talk with you more often. :)
You asked me a question somewhere, but I can't find it. About "you"? You were right. I was working from memory, and I think it was "we" when I went back and looked. But I think Dr. Bob answered the overall question, and it was his interpretation that really mattered.
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:34:14
In reply to Dinah is a brilliant woman, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
See, not so brilliant. :D
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:37:02
In reply to Re: Dinah is a brilliant woman-Dinah » crushedout, posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 19:32:41
Thanks Gabbi.
I thought I'd keep the subject line going. lol.
Poor lolli. She's looking poorly again. Time for her meds.
Posted by TamaraJ on July 11, 2005, at 19:37:27
In reply to Dinah is a brilliant woman, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 18:28:24
So good to see you back Dinah!!
Posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 19:37:31
In reply to Re: Dinah is a brilliant woman-Dinah » crushedout, posted by gabbii on July 11, 2005, at 19:32:41
Posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 19:40:10
In reply to :), posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:33:14
thanks for confirming that. i thought i was right but i was so perplexed by the whole thing -- i'm never sure if i'm not missing something.as to the first thing you said, yes! you do need to talk with me more often! :-)
Posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 19:42:07
In reply to Above for » crushedout, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:34:14
yes, you are. even einstein, i bet, when he babbled, would occasionally forget to check the "add name of previous poster" box.
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:45:11
In reply to ;D » Dinah, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 19:42:07
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:47:15
In reply to Re: Dinah is a brilliant woman - I agree!!!, posted by TamaraJ on July 11, 2005, at 19:37:27
It's delightful to be back, and nice to see you again.
Posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 19:51:39
In reply to Re: Dinah is a brilliant woman - I agree!!! » TamaraJ, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 19:47:15
were you away or just distancing from babble?
(how might i redirect this portion of the conversation to social? partly just to advertise your brilliance on more than one board :-D)
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 2:49:57
In reply to Re: Dinah is a brilliant woman - I agree!!! » Dinah, posted by crushedout on July 11, 2005, at 19:51:39
> (how might i redirect this portion of the conversation to social? partly just to advertise your brilliance on more than one board :-D)
Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050708/msgs/526565.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:04:41
In reply to Re: sidewalk skipping » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 17:32:54
> Lar's last block was for a completely different sort of violation of the civility rules. Surely that makes a difference?
In general, some difference, yes. Because they might be unaware. But Larry wasn't unaware.
> He misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
Even after it was clarified?
> How about a compromise that will suit everyone?
>
> You can change the FAQ on the DNP to state that a DNP is an option that you prefer people not to use, that you would prefer that they first try to work out their differences, but that if a DNP is requested it should be honored. And it should not be perceived as an endorsement by the administration of the idea that the receiver of a DNP has done anything wrong.The difference is that anyone could request a DNP for any reason? That came up before. I'm afraid there would be too many then.
> For example, which of the following would be considered violations of the DNP?
This one:
> "You have always preferred blue while I like green for walls."
Not these:
> "I disagree with XXX's statement, and I think that green is the best color for walls."
>
> "I regret that XXX and I have never agreed on wall color."
>
> "It has been stated that blue walls are best. I personally prefer green walls."And this one I think is ambiguous as it stands:
> "I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."
> a poster violating the DNP should be given a Please Honor the Do Not Post, and a statement of the consequences of future DNP violations.
So "no" wouldn't mean "no"? That would be fine with me, if that's what everyone would like...
> I still believe different violations from normally guideline abiding citizens should start over from scratch as far as block length.
How would "normally" be defined?
> As far as people being willing to help others before being blocked, I am always willing to try to help as best I can by Babblemail, if anyone has any questions about posts. But the trouble comes when they don't realize their post is questionable, don't you think?
I agree, what could be done then?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:42:42
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:04:41
> > Lar's last block was for a completely different sort of violation of the civility rules. Surely that makes a difference?
>
> In general, some difference, yes. Because they might be unaware. But Larry wasn't unaware.That seems like something of an assumption. I realize you have to use assumptions all the time. But being aware that a civility rule exists doesn't mean you understand the permutations of its applicability.
>
> > He misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
>
> Even after it was clarified?You mean my post explaining common useage? I'm not sure he saw that as definitive. He was going by the FAQ. Perhaps if you saw my post and agreed with it you could have put a more official stamp on it.
> > How about a compromise that will suit everyone?
> >
> > You can change the FAQ on the DNP to state that a DNP is an option that you prefer people not to use, that you would prefer that they first try to work out their differences, but that if a DNP is requested it should be honored. And it should not be perceived as an endorsement by the administration of the idea that the receiver of a DNP has done anything wrong.
>
> The difference is that anyone could request a DNP for any reason? That came up before. I'm afraid there would be too many then.I doubt that anyone requests a DNP for no reason at all. Desiring to disengage or trying to avoid blowing up and being uncivil is an internal reason (having to do with the requestor rather than the requestee), but it seems valid. Even if it is later rescinded. After all, the whole thing is somewhat subjective anyway. Since if you consider that someone is harassing another poster, I imagine you act under the civility guidelines.
>
> > For example, which of the following would be considered violations of the DNP?
>
> This one:
>
> > "You have always preferred blue while I like green for walls."
>
> Not these:
>
> > "I disagree with XXX's statement, and I think that green is the best color for walls."
> >
> > "I regret that XXX and I have never agreed on wall color."
> >
> > "It has been stated that blue walls are best. I personally prefer green walls."
>
> And this one I think is ambiguous as it stands:
>
> > "I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."Yet this is the one that Lar was blocked under. The use of "we" in context of the rest of the post. As you said, it is ambiguous. Wouldn't a clarification that it was not acceptable or a short block have been sufficient? A second post of the same sort would have brought longer consequences.
>
> > a poster violating the DNP should be given a Please Honor the Do Not Post, and a statement of the consequences of future DNP violations.
>
> So "no" wouldn't mean "no"? That would be fine with me, if that's what everyone would like...No would mean no. It's just no with a warning. Especially in the early stages of a rule which is still being worked out. I advocate the same thing for some of the other new rules. The three post rule, the three complaint rule, etc.
>
> > I still believe different violations from normally guideline abiding citizens should start over from scratch as far as block length.
>
> How would "normally" be defined?Careful Dr. Bob. You don't want to be uncivil here, and if I were Lar, I think I'd take that personally and feel a bit put down. Given the number of posts that Lar so generously makes, and his overall attempts to not only live within the civility guidelines, but to help clarify them to others and help maintain the board stability, I think normally would fit this situation.
>
> > As far as people being willing to help others before being blocked, I am always willing to try to help as best I can by Babblemail, if anyone has any questions about posts. But the trouble comes when they don't realize their post is questionable, don't you think?
>
> I agree, what could be done then?
>
> BobI don't know that anything can be done, except requesting rewordings, if that is applicable. Or explaining the rules, if that is applicable. Before lengthy blocks.
I am aware that you value Lar's input as much as anyone, and I appreciate your recent expressions of that. I hope that Lar understands that as well, and can find it in his heart to come back to Babble. I know all of us, you included, would feel the loss.
Just as all of us, you included, would feel the loss of Emmy, or any of the people involved in and hurt by this administrative discussion. And I appreciate your recent expressions of that as well.
Posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 9:24:24
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 3:04:41
> The difference is that anyone could request a DNP for any reason? That came up before. I'm afraid there would be too many then.
Dr. Bob,
In our recent exchange on this subject, I was saying just that: that I thought the guideline you were approving was too broad ("just wanting to disengage") and you disagreed with me (implicitly if not explicitly) and I accepted that. Now you're changing your mind? I don't see how wanting to disengage puts any limit on the DNP. That's not a *reason* -- that what you *do* when you DNP -- you disengage.
If you can't even make up your mind what the rule is, how on earth was Larry supposed to know what it is, especially when he can't be expected to read every single one of your posts and keep up with your state of mind?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 9:50:10
In reply to Re: Larry Hover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 9:24:24
Posted by crushedout on July 12, 2005, at 11:17:57
In reply to Re: Larry Hoover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:42:42
> > And this one I think is ambiguous as it stands:
> >
> > > "I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."
>
> Yet this is the one that Lar was blocked under. The use of "we" in context of the rest of the post. As you said, it is ambiguous.Excellent point, Dinah. Dr. Bob, you are saying at once that Larry *knew* (or should have known) he was violating the DNP but that you *yourself* think it's ambiguous! How does that make any sense? If you don't know if that's a violation, how could *he* have known?
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.