![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 9:05:10
How would you prefer this site to operate - with or without rules of civil conduct?
This is meant to be an either / or question.
Let's not discuss the details of the rules at this point, but just the desirability of having any rules at all.
I need some time to think about this for myself. I was here before and after the appearance of the rules of civility, so I can compare the intercourse that occurred between members of the community during both eras. For me, it is a difficult choice. For others, perhaps it is not so difficult.
So, then, as a starting point:
Rules or no rules?
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on June 14, 2009, at 11:34:10
In reply to Rules or No Rules?, posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 9:05:10
I would prefer a simple general statement about what is expected of posters here: courtesy and respect towards others, kindness towards everyone, and especially towards persons who appear to be in crisis, respectful tolerance of views that are different from one's own.
When these general guidelines are NOT followed, posters or deputies can take note of that fact. I think it would be ideal if the PROBLEM is stated and clarified, but with the SOLUTION being left up to the poster. Asking posters for specific actions, such as apologizing or changing their language, is a very poor outcome. It doesn't allow the poster in question to think about his actions and then decide what action he thinks will best correct the situation. If we do things this way, everyone should feel respected, even during times of conflict resolution.
I think that if everyone does that, we won't need any blocks. Blocks, even short ones, depart from the model I've been describing in the direction of an authoritarian model, in which Bob and the deputies assume the role of knowing how to solve a given problem better than any of us do. I don't believe they do know how to do that; in fact, they invariably make errors which are hurtful and damaging. If we follow the model of trusting posters to resolve problems themselves, blocks would probably be needed rarely, if ever.
Posted by Phillipa on June 14, 2009, at 12:28:17
In reply to Simple ones..., posted by twinleaf on June 14, 2009, at 11:34:10
I agree. Ever posted something had posters remorse and when go to apologize after thinking it over find you can't as you're blocked. In real life it isn't like that. Is it? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 12:32:53
In reply to Simple ones..., posted by twinleaf on June 14, 2009, at 11:34:10
Hi.
If I am to understand your entire post as you have intended it to be understood, you are in favor of having no rules, is this correct?Except for when...
> blocks would probably be needed rarely, if ever.
This act requires at least one rule to be in enacted.
So, you *are* in favor of having at least one rule, with deputies mobilized to help avoid its enforcement.
I thought it might have been easier to answer my original question with an either/or answer without offering entire models of how this website might otherwise be operated. I really wasn't trying to flex my ego so much as set up a dialectical approach to understanding how things are now and how we might prefer them to be.
Now, if I am to understand your sentiments as they appear here in your writings taken in their entirety, you are indeed in favor of having rules, is this correct?
Your model does sound idyllic. I would prefer the term "moderator" to "deputy", though. I just don't think that we can develop a patronage of exclusively idyllic individuals for your model to work properly.
- Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I would prefer a simple general statement about what is expected of posters here: courtesy and respect towards others, kindness towards everyone, and especially towards persons who appear to be in crisis, respectful tolerance of views that are different from one's own.
>
> When these general guidelines are NOT followed, posters or deputies can take note of that fact. I think it would be ideal if the PROBLEM is stated and clarified, but with the SOLUTION being left up to the poster. Asking posters for specific actions, such as apologizing or changing their language, is a very poor outcome. It doesn't allow the poster in question to think about his actions and then decide what action he thinks will best correct the situation. If we do things this way, everyone should feel respected, even during times of conflict resolution.
>
> I think that if everyone does that, we won't need any blocks. Blocks, even short ones, depart from the model I've been describing in the direction of an authoritarian model, in which Bob and the deputies assume the role of knowing how to solve a given problem better than any of us do. I don't believe they do know how to do that; in fact, they invariably make errors which are hurtful and damaging. If we follow the model of trusting posters to resolve problems themselves, blocks would probably be needed rarely, if ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by 10derHeart on June 14, 2009, at 12:47:00
In reply to Rules or No Rules?, posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 9:05:10
Posted by twinleaf on June 14, 2009, at 13:08:27
In reply to Rules or No Rules? » twinleaf, posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 12:32:53
Hi...
I actually didn't notice your "rules-no rules request. I think what I'd like is more along the lines of "guidelines",so that suggestions for solving a "problem", if there is one, can be discretionary, taking in to account the many factors which exist in each situation. So, I guess I come down on the side of "no rules"-at least no absolute ones. But that doesn't mean that we wouldn't all have to work hard to keep our site functioning as close to the ideals of the guidelines as possible,
I know it does sound idyllic, but these ideas came from a real place- my son's pre-school. Little three year olds were told that they had done something that hurt another person- in my son's case, he would usually get so excited about what he was doing that he would knock down other people's blocks by running into them. He was always informed about it, but never told "no" or "that was bad". Instead, he would always be asked, "what do you think would be the best thing to do about this?" It would take a while, but he could always come up with good ideas like, "I'll help her build it up again."
We thought this was such a great way to bring up children that we adopted it, full-time- at home. Now our son is a young experimental string theorist at Princeton. He is much loved there; I think it is, in part, because he knows how to be truly respectful of others while giving equal respect to his own needs as a person and a man.
If it worked so well for three year olds, what would you think about our chances?
Posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 13:12:42
In reply to Re: Rules or No Rules? » SLS, posted by twinleaf on June 14, 2009, at 13:08:27
> If it worked so well for three year olds, what would you think about our chances?
Adults have many, many years to learn how to be sh*tty to each other.
:-(
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 13:15:10
In reply to Re: Rules or No Rules? » SLS, posted by twinleaf on June 14, 2009, at 13:08:27
Twinleaf,
I do like a lot of what you have to say, and would like to see much of it incorporated into the Preamble to the Constitution of the United Boards of Psycho-Babble.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 4:56:08
In reply to Re: Rules or No Rules? » twinleaf, posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 13:15:10
Posting Rules - Why or Why Not?
This is probably a better way to have asked the question.
------------------------------------------------
I think that having posting rules would help keep the community safe from people whose prime ambition it is to inflict hurt upon others.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 5:04:24
In reply to Rules, please. (nm) » SLS, posted by 10derHeart on June 14, 2009, at 12:47:00
If this thread gains no interest, I would interpret this as being either:
1. There is a dislike of the original post or of its poster.
2. A general approval of the presence of rules of civil communication on Psycho-Babble.
- Scott
Posted by seldomseen on June 15, 2009, at 5:22:52
In reply to Rules or No Rules?, posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 9:05:10
I prefer that there be rules at psychobabble. The notion of some unmoderated board for support and education about mental health issues (and others) seems very, shall we say, counterintuitive to me.
In my opinion, there is only one rule at babble - "Be nice". That's it. Just be nice.
It seems so simple, yet evidentally is laden with all sorts of definitions, derivations and deviations that it can get confusing I guess.
Seldom.
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 5:44:21
In reply to Re: Rules or No Rules?, posted by seldomseen on June 15, 2009, at 5:22:52
> I prefer that there be rules at psychobabble.
Me too.
> The notion of some unmoderated board for support and education about mental health issues (and others) seems very, shall we say, counterintuitive to me.
Rules offer protection of the particularly emotionally vulnerable from what might be what can hurt them worst or all - words.
> In my opinion, there is only one rule at babble - "Be nice". That's it. Just be nice.
I've been here when there were no rules. There was certainly a majority of niceties. However, flame wars did occur often, and transients did visit offering nothing but hate and hurt.
> It seems so simple, yet evidentally is laden with all sorts of definitions, derivations and deviations that it can get confusing I guess.
It certainly feels heavy at times.
- Scott
Posted by fayeroe on June 15, 2009, at 8:13:33
In reply to Rules - Why or Why Not?, posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 4:56:08
I think that having posting rules would help keep the community safe from people whose prime ambition it is to inflict hurt upon others.
- ScottAn intriguing statement, Scott.
Do we have many ? Or just a few?
I'm curious how you determined that their sole ambition is to hurt others?I guess I don't know them.
Pat
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 8:36:42
In reply to Re: Rules - Why or Why Not? » SLS, posted by fayeroe on June 15, 2009, at 8:13:33
>
> I think that having posting rules would help keep the community safe from people whose prime ambition it is to inflict hurt upon others.
>
>
> - Scott
>
> An intriguing statement, Scott.
>
> Do we have many ? Or just a few?
> I'm curious how you determined that their sole ambition is to hurt others?
>
> I guess I don't know them.
>
> PatPat, these people are usually transients. I believe they are sometimes called trolls. How do I know that sociopaths exist? I never met one, I don't think. I can't be sure, though. I have met trolls, however. They are all over the unmoderated Web boards and Usenet.
For whatever value it may have - from Wikipedia:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
- Scott
Posted by fayeroe on June 15, 2009, at 12:43:19
In reply to Re: Rules - Why or Why Not? » fayeroe, posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 8:36:42
> >
> > I think that having posting rules would help keep the community safe from people whose prime ambition it is to inflict hurt upon others.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > An intriguing statement, Scott.
> >
> > Do we have many ? Or just a few?
> > I'm curious how you determined that their sole ambition is to hurt others?
> >
> > I guess I don't know them.
> >
> > Pat
>
>
>
> Pat, these people are usually transients.A transient is something who is just passing through, is that correct? How would adm apply the "rules" to them..they might not stay around very long.
I believe they are sometimes called trolls. How do I know that sociopaths exist? I never met one, I don't think. I can't be sure, though. I have met trolls, however. They are all over the unmoderated Web boards and Usenet.I did NOT ask you if there were sociopaths here? Absolutely not. Do not put words in my mouth.
There will always be trolls. I know about trolls.
>
> Pat
>
>
> - Scott
>
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 14:54:54
In reply to Re: Rules - Why or Why Not?, posted by fayeroe on June 15, 2009, at 12:43:19
> > Pat, these people are usually transients.
> A transient is something who is just passing through, is that correct?
How would adm apply the "rules" to themThey wouldn't stay around for more than a few posts before being blocked under the current system. That's pretty transient, yes.
>..they might not stay around very long.
I don't think that this type of gamble protects well enough.
> I believe they are sometimes called trolls. How do I know that sociopaths exist? I never met one, I don't think. I can't be sure, though. I have met trolls, however. They are all over the unmoderated Web boards and Usenet.
> I did NOT ask you if there were sociopaths here?
In your previous post, contained the following exchange:
"
> > I think that having posting rules would help keep the community safe from people whose prime ambition it is to inflict hurt upon others.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > An intriguing statement, Scott.
> >
> > Do we have many ? Or just a few?
> > I'm curious how you determined that their sole ambition is to hurt others?
"How I determined that the sole of ambition of some people is to hurt others is to know that, at the very least, sociopaths exist. There are also many other non-sociopaths whom are similarly dedicated. I hope that helps amplify my choice in making that statement. It helps answer your three questions. Remember, we are not looking at the community as it is now. We are talking about all of cyberspace with access to the World Wide Web who can register here and have their sadistic fun.
> Do not put words in my mouth.
I hope you can see that this was not my intention.
> There will always be trolls. I know about trolls.Yes.
What do propose Dr. Bob do about them, if anything?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 20:15:20
In reply to Re: Rules - Why or Why Not?, posted by fayeroe on June 15, 2009, at 12:43:19
Pat, I forgot to ask you:
Rules - Why or Why Not?
You did not stipulate in your previous posts your fundamental position on this issue.
I am not sure that I agree with the details of the content of the rules or the way they are implemented, but I am in favor of their use in general.
- Scott
Posted by Ladyraven on June 15, 2009, at 20:17:42
In reply to Re: Rules - Why or Why Not?, posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 14:54:54
Posted by 10derHeart on June 16, 2009, at 0:01:38
In reply to Rules - Why or Why Not?, posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 4:56:08
Maybe this isn't what you are after, or asking, but I reread what I wrote to ron in a thread above:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/894678.html
...and I see it pretty much covers my feelings on why I am comfortable with the type of guidelines Dr. Bob favors here.
I think it's better if this is my last post in this thread, though. I was thinking it's far more important to leave this to the rest of the community. I mean, for me - and just for me - I feel uncomfortable delving into this too much because I am a deputy. I know I am a poster, too, but still.... I'd rather hear from others who aren't [seen as] part of the administration. I really want to just listen.
I commend you for trying to discuss this, Scott.
Posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 5:17:40
In reply to Re: Rules - Why or Why Not? » SLS, posted by 10derHeart on June 16, 2009, at 0:01:38
10derHeart,
I fully appreciate and respect your decision to depart this thread at this time. Thanks for chiming in and casting a vote.
Everyone,As I see it, after parsing words, we have no votes in favor of having this website operate without a set of rules. If I am mistaken regarding the sentiments of anyone who has posted along this thread so far, please be explicit and respond now with your vote for desiring that this website operate without rules. A follow-up comment as to why would be helpful.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 7:22:12
In reply to Rules - Why or Why Not? » Everyone » 10derHeart, posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 5:17:40
> As I see it, after parsing words, we have no votes in favor of having this website operate without a set of rules.
I realize that this is not a democracy, but it might still serve a purpose to perform this exercise to arrive at a set of suggestions. Dr. Bob might witness an evolutionary process that follows a path different from his own, yet is no less reasonable. I think this dialogue can only help rather than hurt. I am already pondering some changes in the way punitive measures could have been developed using a more traditional paradigm. But, for me, I would like to defer that discussion until there is more feedback on the desirability of having any rules at all. Then we can more toward what the moderation of the website should look like. I don't think this excercise is moot.
If people want change, here is an opportunity to be specific as to what changes they would like to see be made.
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on June 16, 2009, at 14:44:35
In reply to Re: Rules - Why or Why Not?, posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 7:22:12
I think it would be wonderful to have a discussion about what kinds of rules (or guidelines) we think would help this site function at its best. This could be independent of whether any changes are made, or not-it would be just our views about what would work best for everyone.
Did you say that you wanted more opinions re rues/no rules before starting on that?
Posted by SLS on June 16, 2009, at 14:51:47
In reply to what sort of rules?, posted by twinleaf on June 16, 2009, at 14:44:35
> I think it would be wonderful to have a discussion about what kinds of rules (or guidelines) we think would help this site function at its best. This could be independent of whether any changes are made, or not-it would be just our views about what would work best for everyone.
>
> Did you say that you wanted more opinions re rues/no rules before starting on that?
LOLYou beat me to the punch.
I started another thread below.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Kath on July 6, 2009, at 20:01:32
In reply to Rules or No Rules?, posted by SLS on June 14, 2009, at 9:05:10
This is the end of the 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.