![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 102. Go back in thread:
Posted by twinleaf on March 21, 2008, at 17:17:02
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Toph on March 21, 2008, at 16:56:30
You're right! I was thinking of how posts would feel to Dinah if she continued to be active on this thread. But I see that I've made a spurious separation between people who are angry and people who offer useful ideas. I agree with you- the best ideas often come from people who are really p****d off.
Posted by Toph on March 21, 2008, at 17:46:08
In reply to yep...... » Toph, posted by twinleaf on March 21, 2008, at 17:17:02
If noticed when I really need to hear something from my wife, coworkers, friends and clients is when one of them is really pissed at me for some reason. : )
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 0:22:47
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions » Dinah, posted by adelaide curtis on March 20, 2008, at 22:56:28
> why cant you take a "suggestion" with out feeling hurt and threaten to run away from this thread?
I know Dinah already replied, but I'd still like to ask you to rephrase that. Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others -- even deputies -- to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 2:20:18
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions » twinleaf, posted by Sigismund on March 20, 2008, at 14:41:41
Hi, everyone,
This is a great idea for a thread. We're not going to be able to do everything that's suggested, but I'm confident that we can put positive energy to good use!
I mentioned in my other post that I think responsibility and dependency are underlying issues. So I'm especially pleased that a number of suggestions address that already. Briefly, I think depending less on me would make the board less affected by my absences. But who else would posters depend on? The deputies, of course -- but also each other. I'm open to suggestions about the deputy system, but though they're here more than I am, there are still only a few of them. So I'm particularly interested in suggestions about how posters might be able to help. And how I and the deputies can facilitate that.
--
> How about something where a reader of the post is the one who identifies a post as offensive (though administration has to agree). This through a post or a button.
>
> Also, it would be nice if the poster and the offended were given some time (a day or two) to work things out through discussing the incivility, an apology or retraction.
>
> A system which involves posters policing themselves is more complicated than rigid rules, but better, IMO. It may also be too idealisic and unmanagable, sadly.
>
> TophThis is actually the direction I was moving (prematurely). Why do you think it might be too idealistic and unmanageable? Let's try to come up with a way to make it work. It does depend on posters notifying us of "fouls". Is that a responsibility posters will be reluctant to accept?
--
> 1. The question of fairness and equality in giving out PCBs and blocks. ... Possible solutions include not giving PCBs immediately, having posters who feel they have been treated badly use the notification capability, and looking more at the overall picture so as to apply any warnings or blocks evenly.
>
> twinleafThis has been a concern since before there were any deputies. IMO, the deputy system has really helped with this, now it's not just me deciding, we have a group that can discuss things. We try to monitor ourselves and each other, and to be guided by the rules and not our emotional reactions. And of course to be open to feedback.
The deputies worry about bias, too. Sometimes they won't take an administrative role in a thread in which they have a poster role.
Toph also mentioned not acting immediately. I'd prefer an apology or a retraction to a PBC or a block, too, but sometimes if we don't act right away, things escalate. So that can be hard to balance.
--
> 2. Having the deputies develop some guidelines about their responsibilities that go beyond punitive actions. Specifically, some guidelines could be developed to meet the needs of individual posters during times of high stress. I am thinking of supportive efforts towards posters who begin to feel too anxious or unsafe to post, and calming, reassuring efforts towards posters who are feeling angry, unappreciated or misunderstood here.
>
> twinleaf> 3. In a time of crisis, I think it would be really nice to see the deputies and the "older members" lend themselves to calming the members that are obviously very upset.
>
> 4.I believe that helping people feel safe is more important than a PBC when the person isn't really very responsible for what's happening in their heart and head. Diffusing a situation shows compassion and the poster knows they have been heard.
>
> 7. It would be really cool if by looking at what has happened in the past few days the posters could committ to not "stirring the pot" as that is very upsetting to people who want to see a solution...not more conflict.
>
> fayeroe> One thing that could be useful is that if someone is posting in an angry manner, that someone writes to him/her and asks in a friendly way if there is anything wrong because the posts come across as angry.
>
> SigismundThose are all great examples of ways in which posters might be able to help (if they're not already). Someone doesn't need to be a deputy -- or even an older poster -- to reach out to, support, calm, or reassure someone else, to diffuse a situation, or just not to stir the pot.
Bob
Posted by Sigismund on March 25, 2008, at 14:10:34
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 1:20:18
Reading over old posts from, I think, 2005, I was interested to note a couple of things.
Firstly, the number of people posting was very high.
Secondly, there seemed to be more tolerance for disputes. I don't suppose this made things more peaceful but there may have been fewer blocks and that may have indirectly led to less resentment.When people are blocked for expression of opinion, whether because of 'generalizing' or because a particular view is perceived to be threatening from another position, it feeds the perception that certain viewpoints are unwelcome here.
Consider the Politics Board. Some points of view (Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden, Ceauscescu) are so far beyond the pale that one can say what one likes (the truth, at any rate) without fear of offense (to any of their supporters?).
I'm not sure if you can advocate the bombing of Iran, but you can't criticize those who advocate it, and I'm not sure how you could characterize the proposal without being seen to be offensive.
Posted by Toph on March 25, 2008, at 15:36:03
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 1:20:18
> > A system which involves posters policing themselves is more complicated than rigid rules, but better, IMO. It may also be too idealisic and unmanagable, sadly.
> >
> > Toph
>
> This is actually the direction I was moving (prematurely). Why do you think it might be too idealistic and unmanageable? Let's try to come up with a way to make it work. It does depend on posters notifying us of "fouls". Is that a responsibility posters will be reluctant to accept?
>Idealistic, because it assummes that we all have the well-being of this community and each member at heart. Unmanagable because precident seems to be a valued aspect of fairness here - at least I see people comparing former decisions with subsequent ones. Consistency and equal justice under the law would appear to be sacrificed here, not by design but because some speech will be found objectionable while later similar speech may be overlooked. This is fine with me, but I can envision a lot of complaining about inconsistency.
I don't think most participants will have a problem with the responsibility of policing the site, especially if buttons allow anonymous objections. It may be tougher for moderators who may have felt that they were merely upholding a rule in a sort of impersonal way, but under the new system inarbitrating an individual's greivance it might seem that they are more personally involved when justice is more selective.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 20:51:46
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Toph on March 25, 2008, at 15:36:03
> When people are blocked for expression of opinion, whether because of 'generalizing' or because a particular view is perceived to be threatening from another position, it feeds the perception that certain viewpoints are unwelcome here.
Uncivil viewpoints, or expressions of viewpoints, are in fact unwelcome here...
> I'm not sure if you can advocate the bombing of Iran, but you can't criticize those who advocate it, and I'm not sure how you could characterize the proposal without being seen to be offensive.
>
> SigismundIt seems to me it should be possible to express in a civil way (with I-statements, for example) support for bombing or for alternatives to bombing.
--
> Idealistic, because it assummes that we all have the well-being of this community and each member at heart. Unmanagable because precident seems to be a valued aspect of fairness here - at least I see people comparing former decisions with subsequent ones. Consistency and equal justice under the law would appear to be sacrificed here, not by design but because some speech will be found objectionable while later similar speech may be overlooked. This is fine with me, but I can envision a lot of complaining about inconsistency.
>
> TophConsistency and fairness have been and will continue to be important to people here.
It wouldn't require *everyone* to care about the well-being of the community, just enough people to keep all the boards covered.
The general idea (there might be exceptions) would be that if no one notified us about something, we'd consider it OK with everyone, and if something was OK with everyone, then it would be OK with us. If posters thought something was overlooked, they would be empowered to notify us. And it would be their responsibility to do so.
Bob
Posted by muffled on March 25, 2008, at 20:58:05
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 20:51:46
>The general idea (there might be exceptions) would be that if no one notified us about something, we'd consider it OK with everyone, and if something was OK with everyone, then it would be OK with us. If posters thought something was overlooked, they would be empowered to notify us. And it would be their responsibility to do so.
* a person outta be able to rat on themselves cuz otherwise noboddy gonna much like em cuz then if noboddy rat and noboddy do nothing then they get to thinking that person get special treatment and noboddy likes a person who is like that.
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2008, at 21:54:15
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 20:51:46
> The general idea (there might be exceptions) would be that if no one notified us about something, we'd consider it OK with everyone, and if something was OK with everyone, then it would be OK with us. If posters thought something was overlooked, they would be empowered to notify us. And it would be their responsibility to do so.
>
> BobBut the "no one" and "everyone" and "posters" would include current and former deputies, right?
I'm not sure why you think it is good for the community to know that if you get PBC'd, it's because a fellow poster turned you in.
I have any number of other reservations about the idea.
Posted by MidnightBlue on March 25, 2008, at 22:26:42
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 20:51:46
Dr. Bob,
I feel I am being more civil by not ratting or tattling on someone. Yes, if someone is suicidal and I am very concerned about them I will report it. But I do not want to have to police my peers. That is not why I come here.
MidnightBlue
Posted by Sigismund on March 26, 2008, at 13:43:44
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on March 25, 2008, at 23:26:42
Trial by jury and Lord of the Flies are both types of community involvement in the setting of standards.
I don't know.
I don't like to rat on people and don't like the idea of people doing it.
But I do like the idea of standards that reflect the community.
If I agree with them.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 26, 2008, at 17:26:28
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on March 25, 2008, at 23:26:42
> But the "no one" and "everyone" and "posters" would include current and former deputies, right?
I really value the current and former deputies and their contributions to Babble. But I'd like to focus here on "regular posters".
--
> I'm not sure why you think it is good for the community to know that if you get PBC'd, it's because a fellow poster turned you in.
>
> Dinah> I feel I am being more civil by not ratting or tattling on someone. ... I do not want to have to police my peers. That is not why I come here.
>
> MidnightBlueI see notifying us of an uncivil post as pro-community (helping to keep Babble civil), but I do understand that it could also be seen, both by the poster who posted the post and the poster who notified us, as anti-poster (getting someone in trouble).
Bob
Posted by Toph on March 26, 2008, at 17:38:52
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 26, 2008, at 17:26:28
> I see notifying us of an uncivil post as pro-community (helping to keep Babble civil), but I do understand that it could also be seen, both by the poster who posted the post and the poster who notified us, as anti-poster (getting someone in trouble).
>
> BobI would see it as anti-post or anti-phrasing, or anti-word, not anti-poster.
Posted by Sigismund on March 26, 2008, at 17:40:55
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 26, 2008, at 17:26:28
There have been administrative decisions that were, IMO, not transparent, meaning that the reason given for the block was not the real one as I saw it.
With community involvement there is the potential for scapegoating and victimisation. Group dynamics can be dreadful.
Posted by muffled on March 26, 2008, at 17:44:09
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 26, 2008, at 17:26:28
and mebbe I get bit.
But I got NO prob of notifying deps if I feel a post has hurt another poster.
There is ratting in the 'street' sense, then there is civilized people trying to help in keeping order.
So ratting over every small slight is not what I might do, but if it was escalating and posters were trying to help and it was getting out of hand, the 'notify is ok.
If its blatantly hurtful, then notify is OK, if for no other reason than to validate hurt poster.
I think too much in this world we turn a blind eye, we say 'its not MY problem, its not MY job, its not MY responsibility, its not MY kid etc etc.
So for example, w/in an elementary school environment, I am a parent, but if I see something that causes me concern, I WILL notify someone, or take action myself. I add to the school community. There is a core group of parents that do this, and we are told we are appreciated, so it must be OK.
So I think in my exalted opinion that there is NOTHING WRONG with notifying, and I think its then up to admin what they gonna do about it.
FAIR??? I know I have somehow scooted under the radar more than once. Not so sure why, just know that it is so. SO, if that is unfair, then NOTIFY!!! Its up to US to make it fair, WE HAVE that option. I do not mind a justified PBC, its fair enuf if I have screwed up.
So while I do not like the role of RAT, I am (mebbe not here so much cuz I not around), but IRL I DO take responsibility for things in a more global sense.
I think if more did that, the world would be much safer, much kinder, and in the long run respectful....but then again...:-)
MEBBE I FULLA IDEALISTIC SH*T!!!!! LOL!!!! My eyes ARE brown....
:-)
Posted by muffled on March 26, 2008, at 17:51:19
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Sigismund on March 26, 2008, at 17:40:55
> There have been administrative decisions that were, IMO, not transparent, meaning that the reason given for the block was not the real one as I saw it.
>
> With community involvement there is the potential for scapegoating and victimisation. Group dynamics can be dreadful.*see, its always been thus...I just don't see this sorta stuff. Its like I am blind to it. I know I have disagreed with some descicions, but thats as far as it goes in my peabrain...
Can we scapegoat? I thot it would be in admins hands??? the choice to take action...or not?
Do they HAVE to take action upon notification????OK THAT would be VERY different,,,,
sigh....
I am a bear of very little brain...
Posted by Sigismund on March 26, 2008, at 18:03:13
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by muffled on March 26, 2008, at 17:51:19
>Do they HAVE to take action upon notification????
Quite right.
Of course not.
Posted by fayeroe on March 26, 2008, at 18:09:14
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 26, 2008, at 17:26:28
> But the "no one" and "everyone" and "posters" would include current and former deputies, right?
*********I really value the current and former deputies and their contributions to Babble. But I'd like to focus here on "regular posters".************
We are trying to focus on the posters, but it's confusing to see the term "former deputies" included in alot of posts.
And you aren't addressing the issue. Why are the "former deputies" referred to so much in the deputy administrator's posts?
I understand that you value them and that would be expected.
I am concerned when a former deputy replies to a poster's concerns and it comes across as if there is still "authority" there, why is this?
One more thing and then I'll quit. I've noticed that some of those posts have been extremely "snarky" and I don't like that. I wonder why does that gets by without a PBC?
Thank you.
P.S. I appreciate your last apology!! :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 26, 2008, at 18:26:02
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on March 26, 2008, at 18:09:14
> I would see it as anti-post or anti-phrasing, or anti-word, not anti-poster.
>
> TophExcellent! That's how I see it myself.
--
> With community involvement there is the potential for scapegoating and victimisation. Group dynamics can be dreadful.
>
> SigismundI agree. And people here may be all too familiar with scapegoating and victimization already. That's why I think it would be important for me and the deputies, imperfect though we are, to continue to make the decisions about blocks.
--
> I got NO prob of notifying deps if I feel a post has hurt another poster.
> There is ratting in the 'street' sense, then there is civilized people trying to help in keeping order.
> So ratting over every small slight is not what I might do, but if it was escalating and posters were trying to help and it was getting out of hand, the 'notify is ok.
> If its blatantly hurtful, then notify is OK, if for no other reason than to validate hurt poster.
> I think too much in this world we turn a blind eye, we say 'its not MY problem, its not MY job, its not MY responsibility, its not MY kid etc etc.
> So for example, w/in an elementary school environment, I am a parent, but if I see something that causes me concern, I WILL notify someone, or take action myself. I add to the school community. There is a core group of parents that do this, and we are told we are appreciated, so it must be OK.
> So I think in my exalted opinion that there is NOTHING WRONG with notifying, and I think its then up to admin what they gonna do about it.
> FAIR??? I know I have somehow scooted under the radar more than once. Not so sure why, just know that it is so. SO, if that is unfair, then NOTIFY!!! Its up to US to make it fair, WE HAVE that option. I do not mind a justified PBC, its fair enuf if I have screwed up.
> So while I do not like the role of RAT, I am (mebbe not here so much cuz I not around), but IRL I DO take responsibility for things in a more global sense.
> I think if more did that, the world would be much safer, much kinder, and in the long run respectful....but then again...:-)
> MEBBE I FULLA IDEALISTIC SH*T!!!!! LOL!!!! My eyes ARE brown....
> :-)Thank you for expressing that so well. I too see it as a way of adding to the community.
If we weren't notified of every small slight, and some didn't receive administrative attention, it wouldn't be the end of the world. And could even be seen as reflecting the values of the community.
--
> I am concerned when a former deputy replies to a poster's concerns and it comes across as if there is still "authority" there, why is this?
Maybe because they really know the rules and how things work?
> One more thing and then I'll quit. I've noticed that some of those posts have been extremely "snarky" and I don't like that. I wonder why does that gets by without a PBC?
Maybe because no one notified us? :-)
> P.S. I appreciate your last apology!! :-)
>
> fayeroeI appreciate your saying so, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to get back on track.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2008, at 18:34:22
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 26, 2008, at 17:26:28
I just hope your integrity matches my own.
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2008, at 18:49:52
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Sigismund on March 26, 2008, at 13:43:44
The trouble with standards that reflect the community is that the community can be formed as much by the standards as the standards are formed by the community.
For example, as civility standards get looser, those who prefer a more civil environment may just go elsewhere, leading to a further changing of civility standards.
I know I read a few bulletin boards that I would never want to post on due to the standards that the community has apparently agreed upon. Yet the administration of those sites may consider that the standards have been set by the community, rather than that the community has been set by the standards.
I came to babble, posted on babble, and have stayed on babble, due to the supportive and civil environment established by Dr. Bob.
I see a loosening of standards, along with unequal enforcement based on popularity, and the anger now directed at Admin being directed everywhere as being but three of the reasons that the Babble Dr. Bob is envisioning does not appeal to me.
But clearly I like the civility standards, or I wouldn't be a deputy. So my beliefs may not reflect those of other posters.
But to tell the truth, I see no real point to posting any of this, since once Dr. Bob is set on an idea it's as good as done.
Posted by muffled on March 26, 2008, at 19:05:37
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2008, at 18:49:52
Mebbe it will be OK?
M
Posted by Toph on March 26, 2008, at 22:35:58
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2008, at 18:49:52
> For example, as civility standards get looser, those who prefer a more civil environment may just go elsewhere, leading to a further changing of civility standards.
>Why do you assume that civility standards will get looser? Its possible that the community will be as equally or more intolerant of incivil speech as before.
But if your correct that things get looser, why will that not necessarily also mean better? Some once thought a woman speaking her mind was incivil. That loosened in this society for the better IMO. In the past if someone said, "I feel like such and *ss sometimes," they were told to be civil. If no one were to be offended by that in the future, I would consider that an improvement, for example.
Sometimes change is good. But for certain, you never know until you try. Babble isn't for everyone. Maybe some of those I miss will return.
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2008, at 23:19:21
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Toph on March 26, 2008, at 22:35:58
No doubt.
I don't at all believe that looser is necessarily better. But I am aware that many do.
And so the face of Babble will change.
And while I may not believe personally it is for the better, I speak for no one else but myself. Perhaps as far as the entire rest of the world is concerned, it may be better. I make no judgment about that.
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2008, at 23:27:17
In reply to (((dinah))), posted by muffled on March 26, 2008, at 19:05:37
I'm sure it will be just fine.
See, that's why I'm frustrated. I feel like I did really well at not trying to change the course of the Mississippi. I did the ultimate in acceptance of the inevitable.
Yet here I am.
And I didn't want to be here.
So I'm frustrated.
But I'm sure Babble will be just fine.
I've said everything I wanted to say on the topic, for some quixotic reason I don't quite understand.
I'm finished speaking on it now.
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.