Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 21:47:01
In reply to Re: Ok, » Dinah, posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 21:20:58
Oooh. I've gotten confused again. I think I understand your shorter posts best. (Gee, maybe that's why I like Dr. Bob's style.) I'm sorry. But I'll give it a try, and if I've messed up, I hope you forgive me.
> Well, that would tend to address some of your concerns, though. More inclusion of other people wouldn't necessarily mean the end of Hsiung's unique methods -- such as public sanctions for the "good" of the group, or an obligation to own ones own emotions and those of others. It just might require that he better explain why he prefers those methods.
>
But why can't he give that? Or others who understand? Not that I don't see outside input as helpful at times. I really like it when he has Kali Munro as a guest expert. She once managed to explain something to him that I just couldn't manage to put in the right words.
>
> It could resolve one concern of mine, which is his unprovoked defense of the theoretical feelings of hypothetical people. Of course, concerned citizens interested in consistency could still bring matters to him that could potentially offend hypothetical people.
>
I don't actually mind protecting hypothetical people. For example, members of some minority groups may not be posting on Babble at any given moment, but I would still wish to have their concerns given consideration.> For the most part, I don't see that as a system I would immediately find faulty. It is a standard feature of many bulliten board softwares, and many administrators choose to enable the feature.
I'm all for making Dr. Bob's job easier.
>
> i can't really say where my "set-point" would be for accepting his administrative style modified to resolve my concerns. That might make it difficult to use my concerns as part of a guide for what to improve if I don't present a stationary target, but it would be reasonable to seek to resolve concerns I present without seeking my ultimate approval.Yes, certainly. In fact none of us will be given ultimate approval. Or a guarantee that our concerns will be resolved. If we want that, I imagine we have to start our own board.
> After all, support in the group is provided by members for members, not by members for the administration.
Exactly!!! And not by the administration for members!!!
> If I represent members who are particularly hard to please, vote for me, I'll represent you well, maybe.
I didn't quite understand that sentence as a whole. But was that perchance a quomma? My husband has a book of grammar humor that includes quomma humor.
>
> We might agree, you and I, on part of the "more involvement" thing. I would rather see less administrative smileys, and more suggestions on how to comply with his personal preference short of sanctions for people who don't meet his standard.Actually, we're in agreement there. I've long lobbied for more use of the Please Rephrase, and explanations of what the Please Rephrase might entail on the part of Dr. Bob's expectations. And Dr. Bob has listened to that concern of mine (and others of course) and has given both explicit and informal Please Rephrases with alternate suggestions.
> That could be where other administrators expand the overall administrative capacity, if they were hands on admins, and not just aides in developing policy. I think you might try as member who happens to be a deputy, but your suggestions sometimes have just not been consistent with his requirements, no matter how you try.
Hmmm... I don't see that I'm out of step with Dr. Bob all that often. You may have seen it once or twice, especially on Faith Board matters. But if it happens often, I'd appreciate your pointing it out. Because I'd like to know if my belief that I have a reasonably good grasp on the civility rules, their application, Dr. Bob's habits, and sundry related issues is a delusion on my part. I don't *think* so, because Dr. Bob often validates my perceptions. Admin issues are something of an avocation of mine. But sadly I find that my attempts to help in this area often fall flat, and I am not infrequently seen as a know it all busybody who should leave the matters to Dr. Bob. Not that anyone says so, of course. But trying to help often leads to more grief on the part of myself and the posters than it leads to good outcomes. I don't often act as deputy, in keeping with the very strict deputy escalation clause.
> i think it might have more to do with what side of the bed he gets up on, how generally bothersome a particular poster is, and a posters reputation or group standing, no matter how he tries in his own mind to be consistent.
I appreciate your willingness over the course of this discussion to ascribe better motives to Dr. Bob. I think Dr. Bob is actually not particularly likely to block a poster for being objectively disruptive, often to the dismay of fellow posters. Only for violating board guidelines. He has received more flack for that than he has for blocking popular posters, I think. It's one of the reasons that I trust, respect and admire him.
>
> Eliza has proven it possible to develop strict algorithms for dealing with some kinds of language.I can't say, having just "conversed" with Eliza, that I would recommend that Dr. Bob be more like it.
I won't get into your PBC, other than to say I didn't find it incompatible with board guidelines. I'm sorry if my explanation of "I" statements left you flat, but I think it more or less accurately represents Dr. Bob's viewpoint.
But shall we agree that I won't get into your PBC if you don't critique my writing?
> What I mean to say, of substance, is that even if he were training professional subordinates to do his job, the questions that come up of how to deal with particular statements could lead to better understanding on his part of the limits some members encounter understanding his perspective -- maybe it would make him a bit less trustworthy to embody those less desirable traits you said you trust him to demonstrate. He might be more flexible in resolving questions with peers in the privacy of his office than he is on line in a durable database. Maybe.
>
>
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe this is his characteristic style. But... wouldn't it be just as good to tell him that people don't always understand the civility guidelines, to ask him to use more Please Rephrases with explanations, and to ask fellow posters who do understand (and there are many) to help out where they can.In fact, he really does seem to be doing that more often.
poster:Dinah
thread:491889
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/502011.html