![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 66. Go back in thread:
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 16:19:46
In reply to Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 19:49:50
you raise an excellent point, gabbii. even if it's in the subject line there's no guarantee that the person it's directed to will see it. i don't always look at all the posts on all the boards. i think this speaks to the need for there to always be at least one warning before blocking someone who's posted to someone who DNP'd them. or at the very least, evidence that they were aware of the DNP when they did it.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:09:06
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 16:19:46
Though people do get a warning before they get a blocking.
I wonder if someone has broken a DNP before and then claimed they never saw the DNP request...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:20:29
In reply to Dr. Bob, do you want to revisit your lax DNP rules, posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 16:14:27
It would be good to revise them - but I don't see how it is crucial.
The message is:
If someone requests you not post to them then do not post to them.
How hard is that?
If you have issues about whether they are allowed to request you not post to them it is probably wise to have a discussion with Dr Bob and WAIT until you get a response from him.
Clear as day I would have thought...
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 18:27:24
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, do you want to revisit your DNP rules » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:20:29
yes, well, whether it's crucial or not, that's not the point of this thread. i'm not asking whether i can ignore someone's DNP -- just whether the rules should be changed for the future. i kind of think that they should be.
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 18:34:30
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:09:06
I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about giving people warnings before they are blocked. At least not a DNP warning. (They might've gotten a warning for being uncivil or something, then six months later they violate a DNP--without necessarily even knowing about it--and boom.)
Posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:48:05
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 18:34:30
Ok. Maybe I'm wrong - but I thought you were warned specifically for violating DNP before being blocked for it.
But maybe it also depends on the nature of the post. Dr Bob probably goes easier on apologies than personal attacks, for instance.
But I have been warned for it
And then blocked on a subsequent occasion.
And I think same for Larry.
Thats why I don't get how the situation was different.
I mean, I get that the circumstances around which the DNP was issued may or may not be ok...
But either way he was requested to not post - and then he did. Same as me, same as me.
Posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 20:45:25
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:48:05
I'm not talking about larry or you. i'm just talking about in general. hypothetically.show me where larry got warned, though. i'd like to see it.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 9, 2005, at 22:12:41
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » alexandra_k, posted by crushedout on July 9, 2005, at 20:45:25
> show me where larry got warned, though. i'd like to see it.
hi crushed...pretty sure this is the post with the *official* warning from Dinah from that day....http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511949.html
Posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2005, at 1:32:52
In reply to Harassed FAQ and Lar's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on July 9, 2005, at 14:20:58
My bad.
Thanks for moving my previous post to the appropriate thread. Every now and then I'm reminded that you're a good guy and you genuinely care about people.
Okay, enough of that; now back to the Larry war.
-- Ron
Posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2005, at 2:30:22
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, do you want to revisit your DNP rules » crushedout, posted by alexandra_k on July 9, 2005, at 18:20:29
Hi Alexandra_k,
> It would be good to revise them - but I don't see how it is crucial.
I disagree. It's absolutely crucial.
> The message is:
> If someone requests you not post to them then do not post to them.
> How hard is that?Not hard at all so long as everyone knows the rules. But therein lays the problem. Generally speaking, each and every poster on this site does not necessarily have time to comb through every post to track down when and where Dr. Bob might have changed the rules via an edict hidden away somewhere within the text of a post buried in a long drawn out thread.
Instead, what we rely upon are the written rules of the site as listed in the policy sections of the FAQ. If Dr. Bob wakes up one morning and feels like changing the rules, then the appropriate changes need to be made in the FAQ.
Further, any enforcement actions taken by Dr. Bob should be based solely on the rules as written in the FAQ. Clearly, in the case of our friend Larry Hoover, the enforcement action was not based on the applicable written rule. Larry did not harass anyone within the posts in question.
-- Ron
Posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 9:07:13
In reply to Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » alexandra_k, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2005, at 2:30:22
>
> Further, any enforcement actions taken by Dr. Bob should be based solely on the rules as written in the FAQ. Clearly, in the case of our friend Larry Hoover, the enforcement action was not based on the applicable written rule. Larry did not harass anyone within the posts in question.
>
>Hi Ron,
I absolutely agree that rules should be directly stated in one place such as the FAQ or perhaps even a section entitled "rules of the site". However, I'm not sure I agree that Larry's posts did not harrass anyone. I think Emmy did feel harrassed, or I doubt she would have said a word. And she asked for assistance multiple times before any resolution. Whether that meets some standard of what harrassment consists of or not, I do not know. But I think Emmy's feelings and the fact that she did ask Lar not to post should count for something.I also do not think Lar intended to harrass Emmy or anyone else, and I agree with everyone else that six weeks is too long for the alleged infraction, especially if it was an infraction of a poorly specified rule.
Perhaps a system of block length based on the infraction would be appropriate.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 9:32:31
In reply to Re: Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob » crushedout, posted by 10derHeart on July 9, 2005, at 22:12:41
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:42:52
In reply to Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » alexandra_k, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2005, at 2:30:22
I think people tend to notice DNP requests because they typically occur within the context of a heated discussion. The poster is posting to the thread and someone else responds to what they have said with a DNP request. I think people tend to find them as they look for responses to their posts.
That being said it is surely possible to miss one.
I'm not so happy with the 'free for all' DNP requests either. I have had a few of those when I do not believe I have done anything wrong. Nevertheless I have honoured the request because I figure DNP means DNP. Well... I got blocked for breaching one not so long ago. I intended it to be comments to the general reader. Dr Bob saw it as being directed. Unfortunately he can't make admin decisions based on peoples intentions (or people would attack others and say 'I was only intending to vent my frustration'). So as far as the content of my post went... I could see that there is an ambiguity there.
And the lesson of the story is that you have to be VERY careful posting after reading the post of someone who has requested DNP. You have to be VERY careful that your post will not be seen as a reply to that persons post.
DNP means DNP
That being said I did struggle with not seeing what I had done to deserve a DNP. But I just figured they needed time out. And so that should be respected.
It is a shame when people throw them around.
But that being said... Its their decision I suppose. Better to get a DNP request than to have them snap and attack me.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:55:11
In reply to Re: and after that, he didn't post. (nm) » 10derHeart, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 9:32:31
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/508196.html
then
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/508404.html
And then in the very next post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/508409.html
Which, while being an apology is yet another post to Emmy.
So this latest bit really was just the latest bit in a very long and complicated saga...
And how many warnings is one supposed to get before being blocked????
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:56:09
In reply to Re: but unfortunately before that he did., posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:55:11
i don't think...
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:10:35
In reply to Re: but unfortunately before that he did., posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:55:11
You would understand Larry's point of view.
You and Gabbi and Dinah did a lot of 'do not post' with 'undirected' apologies over a very long time.
Posted by thuso on July 10, 2005, at 11:15:02
In reply to Do not post in the Subject Heading- Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 8, 2005, at 19:49:50
> Someone mentioned this before, but as the DNP is taken so seriously, I think it would be a good idea to specify that it has to be in the subject line.
>
> I wouldn't have known Henrietta had requested that I not post to her until someone told me recently, I still don't know where it is, but that's not important I trust the person who mentioned it.
> It likely wouldn't have been an issue, but if it was someone I posted to regularly it easily could have been.
> Or perhaps you should allow the D.N.P'd person to at least acknowledge that they've seen it?I agree with you. I can completely understand how someone could be unaware of a DNP even if it is in the subject line. Is it possible that Dr. B could create a DNP page where it lists who has a DNP against who and a link to the official DNP post? That way each person could check it on their own to see if their name is there. And if they disagree with the nature of the DNP, they could bring it up in Admin. Since DNP's are public knowledge anyways, this wouldn't cross any privacy lines.
Or could it be a DNP page where the person could fill in a form showing the name of the person they are invoking the DNP on, the thread in question, and the reason the person wants the DNP? Then it could be added to what I mentioned above. An email could then be sent to the person being DNP'ed letting them know about the request.
Just two ideas. Maybe there's an easier way, but I don't read every post and can easily miss a DNP.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:58:03
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » Ron Hill, posted by gardenergirl on July 10, 2005, at 9:07:13
I agree, I think what makes a person feel harassed is personal and can't be decided by a set of rules.
Posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:59:02
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:10:35
I wondered about that too..
Posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 12:04:37
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on July 10, 2005, at 11:59:02
Posted by TamaraJ on July 10, 2005, at 13:35:08
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » Ron Hill, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:42:52
Sorry, but I have to agree with AuntieMel's comment in the thread above, and reiterate that I would think of all people you would understand Larry's point of view. I am so confused, my head is spinning. I am trying to reconcile what you have been saying during this discussion and other recent ones on this subject, with your statement in the thread where Larry was blocked (this was after the two, three? times you violated Gabbi's DNP requests were raised):
"All I know...
Is that those kind of requests tend to produce a 'f*ck that I'll continue just to spite you' kind of response.
I'm not proud of that...
But there it is."http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512722.html
I am also trying to figure out why, in spite of Gabbi asking you not to post to her in the following post/thread, you did so in a subsequent thread?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512971.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/523027.html
I guess I must be missing something . . .Tamara
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 18:59:53
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on July 10, 2005, at 10:10:35
> You would understand Larry's point of view.
I think I do understand Larry's point of view.
I also think I understand another point of view, however, where he repeatedly posted to someone after a DNP request and was blocked for that.
> You and Gabbi and Dinah did a lot of 'do not post' with 'undirected' apologies over a very long time.'Undirected'. That is the key.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 19:46:23
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on July 10, 2005, at 13:35:08
They aren't directed.
It was hard because Gabbi also had a tendency to say
'do not post to me'
'I take it back'
'do not post to me'
'I take it back'From memory... I broke the DNP once - and genuinely apologised straight after (I may well have been warned for that).
Aside from that I didn't break the DNP request.
I appreciate that Gabbi thinks I did...
But I didn't.
At least, I didn't think I had...
And I wasn't blocked for posting to her.I don't see why people are suprised about my perspective on this. In fact, I really can see that the situation between me and Gabbi and Dinah is very similar to the situation between Emmy and Larry.
But I tried to learn something from the block and move on.
Its either that or rail about it.
And I fail to see what good the latter does.
Blocks are hard. They bring up a lot of childhood stuff. Both for me and for Larry and for most people I suppose. But that being said it is up to the poster whether they want to explore that and try and sort it or whether they want to blame others and are determined to NOT see the other point of view.
I don't know where I'd be at if my block had have been for 6 weeks instead of 1 week...
But I choose to learn from this.
In general... I respect the rules. I believe they protect me (and indeed they have protected me) from other peoples attacks. I might not agree with them on every point... I might not agree with all of Dr Bob's determinations... But, in general I feel that he does a far better job of being consistent and fairly predictable than either myself or a group of other posters could do.He isn't perfect.
But I choose to believe he does his best.
And I choose to do my very best to leave my sh*t in the past where it belongs.
And I choose to not get into complicated discussions about nit picking over the rules.
A little personal responsibility can go a long way...
Posted by crushedout on July 10, 2005, at 22:36:42
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob: Revise your DNP written rules in the FAQ, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 19:46:23
I have to agree with Tamara. The irony of you, alex, saying "DNP means DNP" seems overwhelming.And the whole point of the current controversy is (1) it's not clear at all when we get to use the DNP (I guess you're saying we should be allowed to whenever we want? it's not clear) and (perhaps more importantly, in the Larry/Em case, or just in general) (2) once there is a DNP, what *is* violating it? do you have to use the word "you"? can you talk about the person as much as you want as long as it's clearly in the third person?
it's not clear cut at all, which is why so many people are upset about larry's block, i think. and i don't understand how you saying "DNP means DNP" makes any of it clearer.
Posted by crushedout on July 10, 2005, at 23:01:35
In reply to Re: I would think of all people » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 18:59:53
oh yes, explain that important distinction to us, alex. i still do not understand it. sounds suspiciously like a technicality to me.
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.