![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on June 13, 2005, at 9:24:36
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards » Nikkit2, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2005, at 6:54:09
A few questions I would pose to people involved with other boards that don't have the problems PB has.
1. Are the boards set up and operated by a physician who uses "doctor" as a screen name?2. Do the boards use public sanctions as a remedy to discourage posting of information that will be left on the server even though the person who posted the information is excluded from further posting?
3. Do the boards use the term "Be Civil" to describe expectations for compliance with terms of service?
4. What role to peers play in administerng the peer support groups?
5. Is any part of the terms of service written in a first-person voice?
6. Do any of the boards rely on terms of service that say an administrator does not know what to expect of participants until something happens contrary to administrative expectations?
Posted by Nikkit2 on June 13, 2005, at 10:50:27
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by so on June 13, 2005, at 9:24:36
>
> 1. Are the boards set up and operated by a physician who uses "doctor" as a screen name?In some cases, yes they are. 4 I have set up have been as "out of hours peer support" for some high profile Therapeutic communities, and as such a "run" by Doctors, but they only act in the role of moderator.
>
> 2. Do the boards use public sanctions as a remedy to discourage posting of information that will be left on the server even though the person who posted the information is excluded from further posting?Yes. They have One week "time out" periods, and also posting bans based around dialectical behaviour therapy, and the model run by their TC.
> 3. Do the boards use the term "Be Civil" to describe expectations for compliance with terms of service?
Not those exact words no. But something similar.. "Please support the methods of our TC" is one phrasing used.. Normally the "slap" would consist of wording that points out exactly what the problem was. But, these are smaller communities, and the moderators have much more time.> 4. What role to peers play in administerng the peer support groups?
They are the general day to day moderators, but the Doctors involved always have the final say. I don't how how familiar you are with the general idea of TC's, in that the "patients" have much more say in all aspects and can infact vote another "patient" out entirely.
>
> 5. Is any part of the terms of service written in a first-person voice?There are no "terms of service" as such. Just guidelines that they would like people to stick to.
>
> 6. Do any of the boards rely on terms of service that say an administrator does not know what to expect of participants until something happens contrary to administrative expectations?Yes. In everything to do with the boards it very clearly says that this is all very new, and that ideas and methods will change as time goes on, including things that you can be given a time out for, or a warning for. often, you don't know something is wrong until you face it. Like in IT, you don't always know something will go wrong until it goes wrong.
Nikki
Posted by Nikkit2 on June 13, 2005, at 10:58:27
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by Nikkit2 on June 13, 2005, at 10:50:27
That I have never come across *any* internet message board, in 14 years of using them, that had NO problems..
Nikki
Posted by partlycloudy on June 13, 2005, at 14:14:52
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by Nikkit2 on June 13, 2005, at 10:50:27
Nikki, I'm really glad you posted this and gave us all a perspective on how other boards are run. I'm particularly pleased that you posted in the first place! You bring so very much to this place.
pc
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 13, 2005, at 15:51:16
In reply to Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by Nikkit2 on June 13, 2005, at 5:52:11
> I'm getting the feeling that there are some here that would be incredibly happy to see PB and all its boards closed once and for all.
>
> Does anyone else feel like this?I don't, not at present. There was a while ago where one or more expats made it clear that was their goal.
> I'm really really failing to understand why people can't just sit back and be really thankful we have been given a place for PEER SUPPORT (remember, this is NOT a therapeutic setting) and leave it at that.I'm so thankful too, and though there have been many times I've been frustrated and furious with Dr. Bob, the longer I've been here the harder it is for me to imagine being in Dr. Bob's position and maintaining the disposition he does.
I do think though, that the kind of accusations and reccomendations Dr. Bob recieves must not be unique. Other webmasters must recieve the same treatment, it's just that here it's open for everyone to see and comment on.
It was Dr. Bob's decision to make the admin board open to everyone, and I'm sure if he didn't want it that way he have no problem shutting it down, as he's not let our outrage change his firm decisions before. That helps me feel better about what goes on here.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 13, 2005, at 18:09:22
In reply to Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by Nikkit2 on June 13, 2005, at 5:52:11
> I'm getting the feeling that there are some here that would be incredibly happy to see PB and all its boards closed once and for all.
Not me. Though I do think it's time to review some of the guidelines, and maybe even the procedures for how guidelines are set.
Posted by Phillipa on June 13, 2005, at 18:43:26
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards » Nikkit2, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 13, 2005, at 18:09:22
Oh no! Not close PsychBabble! It's the only place I come to unwind and discuss problems. I've learned so much here. Sometimes I really and truly forget it's not the "real" world. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 3:29:13
In reply to Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by Nikkit2 on June 13, 2005, at 5:52:11
> Out of all the other peer support sites I am involved in ... none of the others have people who seem quite so desperate to have it run *their* way.
Any theories about why that might be?
> This model won't suit everyone, in the same way that other models won't suit everyone. But, I do believe there is something out there for everyone.
Or about whom this model might suit better, or less well?
Bob
Posted by Nikkit2 on June 14, 2005, at 4:20:53
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 3:29:13
Now, I'm not saying the other boards run better, I'm just giving this alternate view point.
Maybe its because the other boards are generally based around the Therapeutic Community Model, and are used by people who are familiar with that. And also, the people there are there in order to heal themseves, in order to fight towards being well. I think the majority of people here are doing that, but I also believe there are a number who aren't striving towards that goal. Its much more about support than education - eg, the advice that is given here, alot of the time wouldn't be allowed on the boards I am talking about (eg, someone couldn't say drug x is better than y though they could say "I got better results from drug x than y.. though, some of the TC's involved you have to be entirely medication free)
maybe, because these other boards do have fairly strict guidelines (one example, if you have the urge to self harm you may write about it, but if you DO self harm and write about it, you get a 24 hour block from the site) people know exactly what the boundries are.. where as here, s you have shown a certain amount of flexbility and leniacy over the years, people feel more able to question you - though maybe they don't realise the pain they cause to other posters.
Plus, another aspect I'd not though about, in about 75% of the boards, the posters do actually know the doctors involved in real time, so maybe that makes it harder to rebel against them.
Also, finally, at the other boards it much easier to simply get rid of trouble makers that cause pain to others regularly. After a number of warnings, the group, as a whole, can vote the distruptive member out.
But, ofcourse, they are much smaller groups.
Nikki
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 10:56:47
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by Nikkit2 on June 13, 2005, at 10:50:27
> posting bans based around dialectical behaviour therapy, and the model run by their TC.
Then that would imply the administrator is administering a therapeutic activity, which in the case of networked TC's could involve administering therapeutic activities in multiple jurisdictions responsible for the licensing the practice of therapeutic activity.
> > 3. Do the boards use the term "Be Civil" to describe expectations for compliance with terms of service?
>
> Not those exact words no. But something similar.. "Please support the methods of our TC" is one phrasing used..> I don't how how familiar you are with the general idea of TC's, in that the "patients" have much more say in all aspects and can infact vote another "patient" out entirely.
I am very familiar with the theory, practice and origins of the approach. I've seen them come and go.
> There are no "terms of service" as such. Just guidelines that they would like people to stick to.
>
> > 6. Do any of the boards rely on terms of service ...?
>
> Yes.
Posted by Nikkit2 on June 14, 2005, at 11:10:15
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 10:56:47
"I am very familiar with the theory, practice and origins of the approach. I've seen them come and go."
Am I to presume you're not much of a fan of TC's then?
As for coming and going, two of the ones I have worked with have been running fo 20+ years and are highly thought of in the UK. I have seen, first hand, friends who have gone through the TC process and have literally had their lives saved.
OK. Would you rather we discussed the non-TC type ones.
What about another I helped set up and moderate (I no longer participate in it though). One of the moderators is a Doctor (Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist and one of the leading doctros involved in Personality Disorder in the UK). he is simply a moderator, nothing more, nothing less. he has the same "powers" as the three non-professional morderators - the three of us who are moderators are the people who set it up in the first place. He offers no support to members (though he does offer support to us moderators) at all, and signs his posts Dr G.At that group we have 500+ members, around 150 of whom are generally active at any one time.
If someone breaks the rules, they get one warning. If they break them again they're out. We do readmit people, but only after they have apologised and shown understanding for why they were booted.
Like I say though, I've never known anywhere that is free, that has people so adamant that they want the rules their way and not the owners. I've never known it in a pub, or a club, or an art gallery either.
Nikki
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 12:37:41
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards » so, posted by Nikkit2 on June 14, 2005, at 11:10:15
> Am I to presume you're not much of a fan of TC's then?
Being a fan of something is not always condusive to dispassionate research. I have a durable interest in the model, which sometimes has been show to be very effective or which sometimes can consume large amounts of time and energy without producing any documentation of results.
> As for coming and going, two of the ones I have worked with have been running fo 20+ years and are highly thought of in the UK.Are these two among the seven or eight you say you helped set up?
> OK. Would you rather we discussed the non-TC type ones.
I did not so indicate, but.... I would need references or citations to accurately discuss my perspective of things that otherwise I can only know about through your representations.
> Like I say though, I've never known anywhere that is free, that has people so adamant that they want the rules their way and not the owners. I've never known it in a pub, or a club, or an art gallery either.I could cite several on-line communities with ownership structures similar to this one and in which there is more debate over how they are operated, and which have much more structured systems of adjudicating those matters that arise for debate. But I am not here to provide information about other communities -- i'm primarily interested here in unique aspects of how this one is operated.
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 12:54:03
In reply to Re: other peer support sites » Dr. Bob, posted by Nikkit2 on June 14, 2005, at 4:20:53
> though maybe they don't realise the pain they cause to other posters.
There are other ways to look at cause and effect, which can include analyzing the source of the pain and other possible causes which can include the way a person reacts to events that don't meet their expectations.
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 14, 2005, at 17:12:02
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 12:37:41
> Are these two among the seven or eight you say you helped set up?I didn't say I had helped set up TC's, I said I helped set up out of hours internet peer support groups.
> I did not so indicate, but.... I would need references or citations to accurately discuss my perspective of things that otherwise I can only know about through your representations.Sorry, I'm not willing to disclose the details of the sites. Also, you wouldn't qualify to join any of them, and none can be read by non-members.
Have you considered setting up your own board, where you could dictate the rules?
I guess I am failing to see why you want to change PB so much, when its not your time or money going into it.
Nikki
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 21:00:01
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards, posted by NikkiT2 on June 14, 2005, at 17:12:02
>
> Sorry, I'm not willing to disclose the details of the sites.I'm not asking for details. I am adept at locating sources when I need information. I was instead responding to your statement "Would you rather we discussed..." which prefaced your comparative of other sites you are involved in. I am saying that to reply substantively to your suggestion of a topic for discussion regarding administration of networked communities, I would need to independently review sources. I stated that my primary concern here involves this site, which, unlike the sites you mention, can be read by anyone with Internet access.
> and none can be read by non-members.
Then at least in that regard, none of the ones to which you refer seem similar to Psychobabble.
> Have you considered setting up your own board, where you could dictate the rules?The descriptive verb for my role in most of the community communication I facilitate is usually something other than "dictate." Most of the facilities I have set up I have no ambition of owning. I have found that community ownership (even the way the Crown owns statutory services though I prefer other collective models) sometimes provides qualities not always found in individually owned endeavors.
> I guess I am failing to see why you want to change PB so much, when its not your time or money going into it.
>
What one sees sometimes depends on how one directs their focus. Apparently you can recognize that some of my time goes into this board. If I'm not mistaken, you have an interest in how I budget my time. Why do you invest time in other boards? If you further contemplate why you invest your time in on-line message boards you might better understand why I invest my time, if you are interested in understanding and supporting my goals.>> I also believe there are a number who aren't striving towards that goal.
In a therpuetic community, cross-talk analyzing other members commitment to certain goals is sometimes consistent with the purpose of the venue. Especially in a therapeutic environment that provides a degree of safety for members because it is not available for reading by anyone with internet access, such cross talk can help members review their commitments. So far, perhaps becuase of the environment of trust needed to make them work, therapuetic communities oriented toward mental health issues have not widely used open asynchronous networks.
> none of the others have people who seem quite so desperate
To some people familiar with communities in which members have a strong interest in administration of the community, such people don't always "seem" so desperate.
>there is occasionally a dissenting voice, and usually this voice gets abusive
Because of historical differences in the way populations assemble as communities, different parts of the world tend to foster various cultural tendencies. Distributed networks can bring these cultural propensities in close dialectic proximity. In the United States, dissent is highly valued, and in the past 50 years, the value of dissent has appreciated. From experience, we have learned to productively utilize several means of dissent other than abuse.
> two of the ones I have worked with have been running fo 20+ years
I'm trying to get my mind around what networked communities were doing 20 years ago. TCP was about three years old, IBM released the 80386 processer, the NSF took over administration of ARPA and established an acceptable use policy. There were at that time about 2,000 hosts. Sometime between then and 1990, when the number of hosts reached about 300,000 and CERN developed the World Wide Web, I recall a well-documented suicide of a member of the dissenting e-mail groups that challenged the NSF education-and-research-only policy and established freewheeling newsgroups. Those e-mail lists are published somewhere - I recall them because they are a landmark in the evolution of asynchronous networked communication and the particular suicide of a member who had been involved in growing dialectic controversy is often-cited marker identified by those who have studied the way discourse developed in those groups.
From the context, though, it seems you must be discussing both face-to-face and networked groups, both support type, including those you say you helped set up, and some TCs that must have been around for some time before they began using network technology. And as you say, none of them are like psycho-babble or even like the early e-mail communites at least insofar as they are read by members only.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:50:14
In reply to Re: Out of interest - closing all PB boards » so, posted by Nikkit2 on June 14, 2005, at 11:10:15
> the people there are there in order to heal themseves, in order to fight towards being well. I think the majority of people here are doing that, but I also believe there are a number who aren't striving towards that goal.
How can you tell what someone's goal is?
> Its much more about support than education - eg, the advice that is given here, alot of the time wouldn't be allowed on the boards I am talking about
>
> these other boards do have fairly strict guidelinesSo stricter might be better?
> Plus, another aspect I'd not though about, in about 75% of the boards, the posters do actually know the doctors involved in real time, so maybe that makes it harder to rebel against them.
How might that make it harder?
> Also, finally, at the other boards it much easier to simply get rid of trouble makers that cause pain to others regularly. After a number of warnings, the group, as a whole, can vote the distruptive member out.
Is it getting them out or keeping them out? Does it work to let the group vote? Do people get scapegoated?
> But, ofcourse, they are much smaller groups.
How do you think size makes a difference?
> I've never known anywhere that is free, that has people so adamant that they want the rules their way and not the owners. I've never known it in a pub, or a club, or an art gallery either.
You've seen this at places that charge, though?
Maybe they're more adamant if they care more? Or if their opinions matter more? Or do you have a theory? Sorry about all the questions!
Bob
Posted by Nikkit2 on June 15, 2005, at 7:44:17
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 1:50:14
> How can you tell what someone's goal is?You can't, it was just conjecture. But my thoughts are that someone that is committed to being part of a 18 month TC programme is likely striving towards some kind of recovery (though we could then get into the whole issue of "what is recovery".. Very fresh in my mind as I am currently setting up training around this area!! A colleague wrote a wonderful chapter in a book on the subject actually, I'll see if she will mind if I reproduce it here)
>
> So stricter might be better?Clearer would be better, I think we all agree on that here. But I don't know about stricter would work within PB.
>
>
> How might that make it harder?In that the doctors who are also moderators, do have a therapeutic relationship eith the members of the board, even though they don't carry those relationships over to the board itself.
>
> Is it getting them out or keeping them out? Does it work to let the group vote? Do people get scapegoated?Because the TC's all work pretty democratically, the issue of scapegoating hasn't really reared its head in the virtual setting yet. If there are problems occuring, they are obviously very lucky to be able to take these to the group sessions in real time, and discuss them through.
>
> How do you think size makes a difference?Well, definately, in that the moderators only have around 30 or so messages a day to check, rather than the hundred or more that would be posted here.
>
> You've seen this at places that charge, though?I have, yes. Theres quite alot of it goes on at a large chat / message board site I use - Its actually now the longest running chat site on the internet, and it charges for extra's (eg, you can use the majority of boards and rooms for free, but by paying you get private rooms, can set up your own public rooms, get to have a fancy coloured user name, email addresses etc). theres often a fair amount of dissent on the "rules" there, but the theme of the place is *very* different to here!!!
>
> Maybe they're more adamant if they care more? Or if their opinions matter more? Or do you have a theory? Sorry about all the questions!Well, obviously, we have to understand that if someone is a regular here, then the chances they suffer from some form of mental illness if pretty high. So, someone suffering from, say, a narcissistic disorder which is co-morbid with another disorder, is probably more likely to come here and be a dissenter. One of the sites does have some problems from someone with Narcistic Personality Disorder, and amusingly he is a moderator at two other sites.. And he undertakes the moderator roles incredibly well. But the sites he is simply "another member" he can be quite troublesome.
As for payment making a difference.. well, I think if someone actually pays for a service, rather than just have the service provided for them for free, they feel they do have more say in the rules and regulations.Hope I'm making sense.. bashing this out in my lunch break - probably while Chicago is eating breakfast (-6 hours I think I'm working out now *L*)
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 1:33:17
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by Nikkit2 on June 15, 2005, at 7:44:17
> Its actually now the longest running chat site on the internet, and it charges for extra's
May I ask how much? :-) Thanks for all the input,
Bob
Posted by Nikkit2 on June 16, 2005, at 6:47:06
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2005, at 1:33:17
$45US a year.. Obviously its MUCH cheaper for us Brits with the strong strong pound at moment!! So most of us have stocked up on a couple of years while its cheap for us to do so!
Actually.. this is a really interesting thought that takes into account the "private boards" issue.
So, at this site (which I really don't want to name in public for personal reasons!), non members can access any message boards / chat rooms that are open to everyone.. But paying members can then set up up to 6 rooms (which can be either message boards or chat rooms) of their own, which can be completely private (passworded), open to only other members, or open to everyone. So non-members can enter passworded rooms too if the room owner has given them the password.
Also, one feature I do like is members can "register" more than one name (6 in fact at that site), so you can have a "secret" name for asking embarrassing questions..
Plus, members have private mail rooms (for sending messages to and from other members)..
Ofcourse, its a very different site, and not connected to mental health at all (though, as with any site, its something discussed a fair amount!)
Nikki
Posted by AuntieMel on June 16, 2005, at 17:10:31
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by Nikkit2 on June 15, 2005, at 7:44:17
-6 hours is correct. I'm in the same time zone as Chicago and anytime I need to know the time over there (quite often as we have offices there) I just look at my watch and look straight across (180 deg) for the time there.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 1:06:23
In reply to Re: other peer support sites » Dr. Bob, posted by Nikkit2 on June 16, 2005, at 6:47:06
> $45US a year..
You pay by the year? Rather than $3.75 a month?
> at this site ... non members can access any message boards ... that are open to everyone.. But paying members can then set up up to 6 rooms ... of their own, which can be completely private (passworded), open to only other members, or open to everyone.
Are there just paying members and non-members, or are there non-paying members, too? Here, we have posters and lurkers...
How large is that site? Are there moderators?
So maybe one way to do it would be to give people access to private boards if they pay?
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 18, 2005, at 2:53:55
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 1:06:23
> > $45US a year..
>
> You pay by the year? Rather than $3.75 a month?Actually, I got it slightly wrong, its $55 as year.. but you can pay for shorter periods - I C&P'd this..
# $20.00 - 4 months
# $30.00 - 6 months
# $55.00 - 12 months (Pay for 11, 1 is free.)
>
>
> Are there just paying members and non-members, or are there non-paying members, too? Here, we have posters and lurkers...Well, people that pay are members, those that don't, aren't! *l* Both can post in any room they are "allowed" to post in.. and they have a large collection of lurkers too..
>
> How large is that site? Are there moderators?There are around 1100 paying members at the moment .. Its fairly huge, and like I said before, is actually now the longest running chat site on the internet (it recently got awarded that honour when a sister site closed down). I've been there 8 years and I'm not classed anywhere near an old timer *L*
As for moderators. Each person is responsible for their own room. There are 3 people that own the site that make all the final decisions, but the rules are clearly laid down, and anyone breaking those get a straight out ban - though its very hard to really enforce. Legal action has been taken against posters though in the past, and the owners can shut down any rooms / boards that aren't adhering to the rules. The rules though are more there to cover legal issues than "civility" though. Theres no general civility rule, but you can ban anyone you like from your own rooms for any reason you like!
>
> So maybe one way to do it would be to give people access to private boards if they pay?
>
> BobIts definately a possibility. I think others would be much more against this idea though.. Obviously, I'm used to the whole idea after 8 years at this other place.
Its been really nice by the way Dr Bob to have this discussion with you :)
Nikki
Posted by so on June 18, 2005, at 9:07:59
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by NikkiT2 on June 18, 2005, at 2:53:55
Of course, these paid sites are not mental health support sites.
IRC is the oldest Internet chat protocol, dating back to 1988. The first IRC server (and still running) was tolsun.oulu.fi.
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 18, 2005, at 9:57:07
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by so on June 18, 2005, at 9:07:59
I did say it wasn't mental health. I'm simply giving an example of a pay site as Dr Bob asked for it..
And IRC is a chat protocol like you said, not a chat *site* on the world wide web. It was the world wide web I was refferring to.
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:29:20
In reply to Re: other peer support sites, posted by NikkiT2 on June 18, 2005, at 2:53:55
> its $55 as year.. but you can pay for shorter periods
>
> # $20.00 - 4 months
> # $30.00 - 6 months
> # $55.00 - 12 months (Pay for 11, 1 is free.)OK, $5 a month, with a discount for a year...
> > How large is that site? Are there moderators?
>
> There are around 1100 paying members at the moment ..
>
> Each person is responsible for their own room. There are 3 people that own the site that make all the final decisions ... Theres no general civility rule, but you can ban anyone you like from your own rooms for any reason you like!Do all the rooms belong to members, or are there "community" spaces, too? Do all members keep their own rooms going, or do some just post in others'?
> Its been really nice by the way Dr Bob to have this discussion with you :)
Likewise, it's interesting to hear about exotic foreign boards. :-)
Bob
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.