![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 64. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on June 20, 2007, at 13:25:24
In reply to Re:sep dep post names, posted by kninelover on June 20, 2007, at 10:46:17
>
> i also like the idea of a poster not being able to post as a deputy on his/her threads, or threads commented on by them..
> they must use the "notify" button like regular posters..that won't happen.
>
Posted by scratchpad on June 20, 2007, at 13:42:48
In reply to separate deputy posting names, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2007, at 1:33:30
I would like deputies to have separate names from their posting names, i.e. Deputy #1, Deputy #2.
Scratchpad
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 20, 2007, at 13:46:57
In reply to separate deputy posting names, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2007, at 1:33:30
I don't think so! It is hard enough trying to keep everyone straight!
Posted by Happyflower on June 20, 2007, at 13:56:25
In reply to separate deputy posting names, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2007, at 1:33:30
I think different names would be great idea, but the duputy names should be confidential of who deputy one, and two are. If there was only "deputy " that would even be better.
That way there would be less tension going torwards the deputies in general and it would keep the deputies "in check" with each other making sure they apply the rules fairly to everyone.
Also with the rules changing, I think it would be a good idea to review all the rules with the deputies and make changes in writing. And it would be great if all Babblers were notified of changes if any.
Posted by muffled on June 20, 2007, at 20:45:58
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names » Dr. Bob, posted by Happyflower on June 20, 2007, at 13:56:25
not 1 or 2.
But ANONYMOUS.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH.
I never thot of that.
I think anonymity would be GREAT.
That should take some pressure off deputies I would think????
Posted by zenhussy on June 20, 2007, at 21:10:17
In reply to Re:sep dep post names, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2007, at 10:18:35
zenhussy wrote: there is much potential for confusion with this suggestion.
>>>Thanks for your input. How might it be confusing? Can you give me an example?
Bob<<how might it be more simple? can you give an example of what sep. dep post. names would accomplish?
Posted by kninelover on June 20, 2007, at 21:58:01
In reply to Re:sep dep post names---input still NO » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on June 20, 2007, at 21:10:17
...posting with "deputy" would help to draw lines between boundries and friends..
if a "named" deputy blocked my best friend i may not want to read his/her next post...or maybe looking for uncivilties on her/his next post and wonder why there are so many glass houses in the hood..
Posted by Racer on June 21, 2007, at 0:01:47
In reply to DUH! YA! Just sign them as deputy..., posted by muffled on June 20, 2007, at 20:45:58
> not 1 or 2.
> But ANONYMOUS.
> DUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH.
> I never thot of that.
> I think anonymity would be GREAT.
> That should take some pressure off deputies I would think????Hey, Mufflie,
I suggested that a while ago, before I was a deputy, because it seemed like a good idea to me. But now, I think I'm more inclined towards the semi-anonymity of Deputy 1, etc.
I'm guessing that part of Bob's reason for this is so that he can scan the boards briefly, and see right away where deputy action has taken place. That makes sense to me, considering he has had limited time lately for that side of what he does. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have him direct energy towards the back room stuff -- maintaining the code, improving functionality, security stuff, etc -- than do the board thing, so anything that makes it easier for him to do his job seems like a good idea to me.
On the other hand, I also want Bob to be able to see, right away, which deputy took which action. That's just about accountability, and there are other ways to address that issue, too. So, I would vote for Deputy 1, Deputy 2, etc. My guess is that most people who figure out who each of us is, though, and so we may as well use Deputy PostingName.
At least, that's my very confused thinking tonight...
Racer, posting as a very tired, rather confused, halfway sentient Babbler...
Posted by muffled on June 21, 2007, at 15:54:56
In reply to Re: DUH! YA! Just sign them as deputy... » muffled, posted by Racer on June 21, 2007, at 0:01:47
> I suggested that a while ago, before I was a deputy, because it seemed like a good idea to me. But now, I think I'm more inclined towards the semi-anonymity of Deputy 1, etc.
>
> I'm guessing that part of Bob's reason for this is so that he can scan the boards briefly, and see right away where deputy action has taken place. That makes sense to me, considering he has had limited time lately for that side of what he does. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have him direct energy towards the back room stuff -- maintaining the code, improving functionality, security stuff, etc -- than do the board thing, so anything that makes it easier for him to do his job seems like a good idea to me.*I agree with you there. The deputies have done a good job in Bobs absence, and as long as bob is willing to keep up on deputy actions and support his deputies properly, I think its better w/o him really. This does not mean I don't like him or think he is a bad person ;-}
Its nice when he's around and all, but I think running this place properly given that he seems to have little time these days is a priority.
If he can't run it properly, he should shut it down IMHO.We babblers can find each other elsewhere.
>
> On the other hand, I also want Bob to be able to see, right away, which deputy took which action. That's just about accountability, and there are other ways to address that issue, too. So, I would vote for Deputy 1, Deputy 2, etc. My guess is that most people who figure out who each of us is, though, and so we may as well use Deputy PostingName.*meaning like what you do now? Yeah, it is clear to me when they are or are not a deputy. You guys are good about posting when your being deputy. I was wondering why i have so little problem separating the deputies self, from their babbler self. And it occured to me its cuz I am somewhat split (not DID, but split), and so it seems utterly normal to me to adress you guys in whatever mode you are in. And bless your hearts, its never come back on me to my knowledge, that something I've said eg to 'Racer' hasn't ended firing up 'deputy Racer' to come after me!!!!LOL. Which isn't to say it won't happen, and thats OK. ;-}
I'm not quite sure bout what you mean by Bob being able to know right away as to which deputy did what? Why it would matter really? Could he not know some other way who took action, if he cared to find out? Does it really matter? But I take your word on it as you must know better than I the reasoning why.
>
> At least, that's my very confused thinking tonight...**LOL, I been confusing people at my kids school today with the tortuous paths of my thots today! Its funny to see the look on their faces of disbeleif that the person they know to be relatively rational(if weird) rambling in such an odd fashion! Oh well. I don't worry bout it, I just laugh, cuz WTF else can I do!!!:-)
>
> Racer, posting as a very tired, rather confused, halfway sentient Babbler...OK babbler Racer. Hope you doing OK. Always nice to hear from you.
You take care,
Muffled
Posted by muffled on June 21, 2007, at 15:56:58
In reply to Re: DUH! YA! Just sign them as deputy... » Racer, posted by muffled on June 21, 2007, at 15:54:56
what about future deputies???
Could they be anonymous from the get go?
Make them dep 1 and 2 etc?
Then noone would have a clue who they were.....maybe....babbles pretty small town....ROFL!!!
M
Posted by kninelover on June 21, 2007, at 17:45:58
In reply to oh, another thot..., posted by muffled on June 21, 2007, at 15:56:58
love the idea...
Posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2007, at 22:22:21
In reply to Re: oh, another thot..., posted by kninelover on June 21, 2007, at 17:45:58
I think the idea of Deputy l,2,3,4, etc is excellent. Bob would know but we wouldn't. No deputy pressure that way. Then they can use their posting names and post away. Love Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2007, at 22:23:00
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 20, 2007, at 13:46:57
> It might be confusing if they forget to switch posting names...
>
> sunnydaysThat's definitely true, but there could be an extra reminder or something when they post as deputies, so I think forgetting would be unlikely.
> I don't think so! It is hard enough trying to keep everyone straight!
>
> MidnightBlueYou mean if they post as numbers, right? I do think it's important to be able to keep everyone straight...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on June 22, 2007, at 8:31:31
In reply to Re:sep dep post names, posted by fayeroe on June 20, 2007, at 13:25:24
But it has happened. Many, many times.
We get constant notifications (or emails before notifications) saying something like "please look at this. I don't feel comfortable doing it myself since I'm involved on the thread"
> >
> > i also like the idea of a poster not being able to post as a deputy on his/her threads, or threads commented on by them..
> > they must use the "notify" button like regular posters..
>
> that won't happen.
> >
>
>
Posted by muffled on June 22, 2007, at 15:05:02
In reply to Re:sep dep post names » fayeroe, posted by AuntieMel on June 22, 2007, at 8:31:31
*You are referring to you deputies notifying each other?
I can see how it would be a conflict of interest if your involved on the thread(sigh, NOTHER prob w/being deputy..:-(
This happens in my small town area in local politics. So many on council end up with conflict of interest, so many times they can't vote.There doesn't seem to be any good answer to this prob. Guess if there were a bout 6 deputies f/t equivalent, then maybe that would be better? But WHO's gonna want to be a deputy????? Not me, sorry.Not my time or place, I got enuf on my plate. But I wonder.....if it was anonymous, mebbe there's a babbler or two, who has time, that might be willing to help out? If it was anonymous, the shyer ones might step up? Dunno. There's some really great people here that I think would do a great job....its just alot to ask of someone I guess.Many hands make light work as the saying goes....
> We get constant notifications (or emails before notifications) saying something like "please look at this. I don't feel comfortable doing it myself since I'm involved on the thread"
>
>
>
> > >
> > > i also like the idea of a poster not being able to post as a deputy on his/her threads, or threads commented on by them..
> > > they must use the "notify" button like regular posters..
Posted by confuzyq on June 22, 2007, at 22:52:21
In reply to separate deputy posting names, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2007, at 1:33:30
I think it would help to know where you stand on application of the civility rules to posters vs. deputies. If only by omission it would appear that more latitude for the latter might be ok with you. In that case, the increased anonymity of Deputy 1, Deputy 2 etc. could allow situations to escalate more.
Also, it seems like it might cause even unintentional back-up of oneself on a thread, if no one could tell it was the same person who may have been in disagreement with something there previously.
If this was done, I think I agree that having just one "Deputy" name could afford a good system of internal checks and balances.
Just a few thoughts.
Posted by confuzyq on June 22, 2007, at 23:08:18
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names » Dr. Bob, posted by confuzyq on June 22, 2007, at 22:52:21
But yes there would be potential up-sides for all parties too... I've let some things get to me lately so I guess I'm not sure where I stand, and don't mean to focus on potential down-sides. I hope you understand.
Posted by zenhussy on June 23, 2007, at 21:10:30
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2007, at 22:23:00
>>>I do think it's important to be able to keep everyone straight...
Bob<<<
agreed! yesterday over on social the newly created Deputy sign in was used---(field tested?): General reminder about sensitivity and content Deputy Racer 6/22/07 [new member]
then today in post on admin this was written "That's just one deputy, talking about the experience of that one deputy." [msg #765264 admin] but not signed in as deputy.
when applying deputy interpretation of babble law will they sign in as deps? but when talking about dep. 'experience' no sign in as dep? is that how it will go?
hard to keep straight already!
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on June 24, 2007, at 20:40:31
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2007, at 22:23:00
Hello
Well I think that it'd be a good idea, I think it might help remove any deputy bias against or for particular posters, particulary if we didn't know what their deputy and other posting names were (and the deputies didn't tell us either). So I'm in favour, but then again, I'm not a deputy, so I don't know how it would feel for them. But I think it'd be good - they could do a bunch of checks in 'deputy mode' and then switch and be in 'not deputy mode'. It would be good as long as the deputies didn't reveal their other posting identities. It might even be worth a shot of just having, say 'deputy1, deputy2' etc. So no-one except the deputies and you would know who the real deputy was. I think that might help to make deputies more impartial and reduce any bias they might have..... hhmmmmm?
Posted by Honore on June 24, 2007, at 23:26:10
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on June 23, 2007, at 21:10:30
I personally prefer the system we already have, where deputies use their own names, but put "acting as deputy"-- or whatever the phrase is.
I prefer to know who did what, not only because it helps me understand my world-- which is of paramount importance--and trust the actions of people. I may disagree, but I can come to see the inner logic of a real person, to understand, and accept the point of view as a responsible, reliable part of how that person sees the world.
I believe that individuals see things differently, and that it's important to acknowledge that reality-- and the reality that Dinah or GG or Racer did x, y, or z. We know these are individual judgments, not the impersonal weighing of facts by unknown Decider(s) imposing absolute or impartial judgments- from the stars-- We know they aren't distanced and detached. I couldn't pretend to believe or feel comfortable with such disjunctive roles for people here.
In the world of Deputies #1,2,3, etc, that knowledge (that they are actual posters with whom I have online relationships) would leave me very unsure, and suspicious, about what they've done, and how to relate to them as posters-- My feeling is that there's a lot of honesty and reliability in a system of real relationships, even with different roles-- and all that becomes unclear and somewhat dishonest to me in the proposed way of doing things.
I'm sure everyone will have guesses, possibly incorrect ones, about which deputy did anything-- and it's freeing and lighter to know who's done what, when, why, to whom. I don't like the prospect of suspecting that someone I like or trust has done something I deeply disagree with. Most importantly, I'm left without any way of resolving that with the person-- short of asking what seems to become an invasive and unfair question-- ie was it you who did such and such.
I mention that, because the problems arise when a particular person-- poster, or deputy, feels blamed or put in the wrong. I know that's an aspect of any system of rules, and enforcements. But knowing who it is gives us a way of making sense, of coming to a better place, of working through, rather than being left with confusion and uncertainty in our minds.
Honore
Posted by confuzyq on June 24, 2007, at 23:41:47
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names, posted by Honore on June 24, 2007, at 23:26:10
> I'm sure everyone will have guesses, possibly incorrect ones, about which deputy did anything-- and it's freeing and lighter to know who's done what, when, why, to whom. I don't like the prospect of suspecting that someone I like or trust has done something I deeply disagree with. Most importantly, I'm left without any way of resolving that with the person-- short of asking what seems to become an invasive and unfair question-- ie was it you who did such and such.
>
> I mention that, because the problems arise when a particular person-- poster, or deputy, feels blamed or put in the wrong. I know that's an aspect of any system of rules, and enforcements. But knowing who it is gives us a way of making sense, of coming to a better place, of working through, rather than being left with confusion and uncertainty in our minds.
>... has it accomplished that lately...
Posted by Honore on June 25, 2007, at 4:56:48
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names » Honore, posted by confuzyq on June 24, 2007, at 23:41:47
It has for me, many times.
I think we see instances where there's a breakdown-- but aren't as aware of times when things do get worked out in a helpful way, or, more, how the overall sense of reliability works effectively to give deputy decisions respect.
There a lot of respect and support for deputies, even if it isn't universal.
Honore
Posted by scratchpad on June 25, 2007, at 6:49:34
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names, posted by Honore on June 24, 2007, at 23:26:10
> I personally prefer the system we already have, where deputies use their own names, but put "acting as deputy"-- or whatever the phrase is.
>
> I prefer to know who did what, not only because it helps me understand my world-- which is of paramount importance--and trust the actions of people. I may disagree, but I can come to see the inner logic of a real person, to understand, and accept the point of view as a responsible, reliable part of how that person sees the world.
>
> I believe that individuals see things differently, and that it's important to acknowledge that reality-- and the reality that Dinah or GG or Racer did x, y, or z. We know these are individual judgments, not the impersonal weighing of facts by unknown Decider(s) imposing absolute or impartial judgments- from the stars-- We know they aren't distanced and detached. I couldn't pretend to believe or feel comfortable with such disjunctive roles for people here.
>More often than not, deputies consult amongst each other regarding civility questions; but just one deputy will make the response.
If another deputy has already been a participant in the thread in question, they keep out of it. (This is practice and not a rule.)There is consensus, even if doesn't look that way because of how the individual deputies post.
Scratchpad, formerly deputy ClearSkies
for information purpoises only!
Posted by Dinah on June 25, 2007, at 8:07:00
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names, posted by Honore on June 24, 2007, at 23:26:10
That's how I tend to feel about it too.
It's astonished me that people appear to be against personal accountability as deputies. Do we really want deputies in masks? While I fought the concept for a long time, I've grown to see that whether I'm posting as poster or as deputy that the fact that I'm a deputy can't be overlooked either by other posters or by myself, and that I feel a certain responsibility to Dr. Bob to post in such a way that won't cause him trouble. It's almost like being a minister or public official more than having a job where you can take off the badge. I'm not sure if I like that, in fact considering that I was dragged to this point kicking and screaming I am reasonably sure I don't. But I've conceded that it's true, will I or nill I.
I must confess that I fail to see how posting as Deputy #_ would make me more impartial or accountable for my actions as deputy. It certainly wouldn't affect any feelings I might have. It's the job of a deputy not to act on any personal feelings, and if people had ever seen the agonizing going on backstage about whether something meets the technical standards of incivility I don't think anyone could think that doing so was standard operating procedure at all. Maybe I'm missing something, or don't understand.
I would not wish to post as Deputy#_. I take responsibility for my actions both as deputy and poster. And I know what's in my heart and mind and if I ever post anything as either that I feel does not do my good (to me) name justice, I feel the responsibility to apologize and repair.
I just don't understand this at all. Any of it.
Posted by muffled on June 25, 2007, at 9:49:12
In reply to Re: separate deputy posting names » Honore, posted by Dinah on June 25, 2007, at 8:07:00
((((Dinah)))
I have afeeling the thot was just to try and offer deps some protection from harassement and negative scruntiny.
As you said, when in a higher profile position, your more on the firing line as it were :-(
Goes with the territory I guess.
Just wish it weren't so hard being a deputy :-(
Like a cop friend of mine said, you just goto have thick skin and try and let stuff roll off...
Not so easy I understand.
Just no easy answers I guess.
I guess one thing I would like to say is i think its important for Bob to be clearly backing up and supporting his deputies....but he here more now, so mebbe he will.
I say again, that I think deps been doing a GOOD job. I think deps show more restraint than Bob!!!(sorry Bob ;-} )
So I guess and hope mebbe this is just Bob trying to help out his deps is all?
Hope so.
M
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.