![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Solstice on November 12, 2010, at 9:26:29
Dr. Bob -
As far as I can tell, the boards are humming along nicely. I think now would be the ideal time to really look at putting in place a structure for handling incivility in a way that serves your purposes of protecting the forum from incivility, yet also provides a mechanism that encourages the repair of incivil behavior and especially the self-improvement that would take place if posters are motivated to use the Civility Buddy system.
The Civility Buddy option has, of course, been in place for quite some time, but I think these ideas are worth considering (your line-item veto power in view):
1) Creating a frame for it could encourage more participation and retention of volunteers because the expectations would be clear. I think the current lack of clarity has inhibited its growth.
2) It might be good for someone to be a Civility Buddy Leader who could provide general assistance to Civility Buddies who are doing it for the first time, or who run into situation where they become uncertain. Naturally, I'm thinking of Dinah - her experience is a treasure.
I think there is a way to address the frequent and ongoing conflict regarding blocking that will not undermine the purpose for the blocking. My thoughts:1) There have been repeated calls for a mechanism for people who have gotten themselves blocked to have a way to come back. I think the Civility Buddy structure is a way to do that - while maintaining the site's civility guidelines.
2) One way would be to allow a poster who did not retract or rephrase within your timeframe to go into a suspension of posting privileges mode whereby they cannot post until they have worked with a Civility Buddy to get guidance on i] better understanding why their post was considered uncivil by site guidelines; ii] successfully rephrasing or retracting the uncivil portion/s of their post - making repair. My ideas are:
a. No poster would be 'required' to work with a CB. It would be their choice. Of course, if they don't opt for a CB, they are by default opting stay blocked.
b. Civility Buddies would not be required to monitor Boards for incivility. That would remain your job. That way, posters and CB's will not have to deal with peers becoming the police. I'm thinking of it as CB's are the 'big brothers & sisters' of the Boards - kinda like your older brother might show you how to pick bait for your fishing line. I remember (real young!) teaching my younger brother how to blow bubbles with chewing gum. That's how I envision Civility Buddies.
c. It would NOT be their job to defend your PBC's or determinations of incivility, or even blocks. There is often conflict over the merits of a particular judgment you make. I don't think CB's should be burdened with that. If a poster wants to question the merits of a PBC or block, they should take that up directly with you. CB's can, however, explain how the poster's language colored outside of the lines you've set, and help the poster rephrase what they wrote to match your criteria.
d. After being suspended and opting to work with a CB, if a poster is too upset to cooperate with the process or becomes abusive toward the CB, then the CB can withdraw and decline to work with that poster. The poster would remain unable to post. Maybe they just need a few days/weeks to regroup. Maybe they need to vent with their therapist and get some help with perspective. But if they later have cooled down enough to want to try again - they can ask for help from a CB - at any point. This would tie block length directly to the poster's ability and willingness to repair the uncivil post and learn better self-management. Blocked posters would feel (and actually possess) more control over what happens to them.
e. The Civility Buddy Leader would have the ability to release the suspension once the CB Leader has seen the repair and gotten a recommendation from the Civility Buddy who worked with the suspended poster. I think it could be problematic if all CB's have that power because it could lead to upset posters attempting to manipulate CB's who are friends. Of course you would remain in ultimate control over these things.
f. Suspended posters would have to understand that CB's are volunteers, so they might have to wait longer than they hoped to wait for help. They also might not always get a particular CB that they might really want to work with. In any given situation, individual CB's will obviously have to determine for themselves whether they have the time to work with that situation. Maybe there could be a thing built into the site (kind of like the chat room?) where posters who are suspended are 'parked.' You and CB's are the only ones with access. Maybe each CB has their own 'room' in the larger "Suspension Room." When they are available, they can turn on their 'name' (green when available, red when not?) A suspended poster could click on an available CB's name to request help. If the suspended poster behaves abusively toward the CB, the CB can close out their interraction with that poster - and the suspended poster can't contact the CB any longer. This might be better than trying to do it through Babblemail. It would limit the ability of an angry suspended poster to get to a CB. But, I have no idea whether that is too complicated to set up - and if it is possible but would take a long time to set up, maybe Babblemail could be the temporary way to do it.This is my proposal, which can be modified to better fit your objectives. Please give us some feedback as soon as possible on whether this seems reasonable and workable to you. Dinah has marshalled a good number of CB volunteers. I think the current forum stability would be the ideal time to put this in place.
Solstice
Posted by maxime on November 12, 2010, at 19:22:26
In reply to Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu, posted by Solstice on November 12, 2010, at 9:26:29
Can you put your above post in point form? I found it confusing to follow. It seemed really complicated to me, but maybe that is because I am tired.
Posted by Solstice on November 12, 2010, at 19:48:35
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu » Solstice, posted by maxime on November 12, 2010, at 19:22:26
> Can you put your above post in point form? I found it confusing to follow. It seemed really complicated to me, but maybe that is because I am tired.
Hi Maxime -
I sure don't want it to be hard to follow! I'd be happy to repost it in an easier-to-follow format, but I'm not sure how to do 'point form' here. I tried to set it up in an an outline form, but the posts don't show up like you type them in. I haven't found a way to make the final results tab to the right, or any other formatting that would be helpful in a long post that covers a lot of things like this post. I also can't use underlining to help define topic areas. I welcome anyone telling me how to do it.
Solstice
Posted by Free on November 12, 2010, at 20:05:44
In reply to Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu, posted by Solstice on November 12, 2010, at 9:26:29
Hi Solstice,
Holy moly, you are a thorough thinker! I don't know what line of work you're in, but you should be a writer or run a company. Or both.
I did my best, but to be honest, I wasn't able to get through all of your post. (I don't know if it's adhd or I'm just tired, so my apologies if you've already addressed some of my questions, Solstice.)
The first thought I had was what if everyone or most people wanted to be a Civility Buddy? I think you said you've already marshalled a good number of CBs, but is there going to be a cutoff for a maximum number of Civility Buddies?
Secondly, what if a Civil Buddy became *uncivil*? Then, will that uncivil Civil Buddy be required to have a Civil Buddy, too? Or would he/she need to ask for help from the Civility Buddy Leader or Dr-Bob or Council/Board Members?
Thirdly, are the discussions between Civility Buddies and the Civility Buddy Leader in regards to the Babblers in "suspension rooms" be transparent (posted on admin threads)?
Fourthly, how are the PBC'd Babblers going to retract, rephrase and apologize if they're in a "suspension of posting privileges mode" and can't post?
Will all the discussions between everyone involved be posted on admin board?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by Solstice on November 13, 2010, at 23:38:37
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu » Solstice, posted by Free on November 12, 2010, at 20:05:44
> I did my best, but to be honest, I wasn't able to get through all of your post. (I don't know if it's adhd or I'm just tired, so my apologies if you've already addressed some of my questions, Solstice.)
Hi Free -
I know it's a hard post to get through. I wish there was a way to make it easier. And although I want anyone who is interested to read it, the primary reason it's so long and complex is because it's got everything Bob needs to read and consider with respect to finding a way to maintain his civility standards - but doing it in a way that doesn't create long blocks and confict. I'm happy to answer your questions
> The first thought I had was what if everyone or most people wanted to be a Civility Buddy?Anyone can and should use Civility Buddies anytime they find their emotions heating up. Whether someone is justifiably hurt about something said, or is angry and feeling impulsive about expressing their anger - checking with a Civility Buddy is always a good idea. People who use Civility Buddies on their own are much less likely to get themselves blocked in the first place. The system I have in mind would not interfere with that. It is meant to have a way for Babblers who got themselves blocked to have a way to repair the incivility, get some guidance on how to 'do it better next time,' and get back into the community.
> I think you said you've already marshalled a good number of CBs, but is there going to be a cutoff for a maximum number of Civility Buddies?Well.. it hasn't been me that has pulled together a sturdy bunch of CB volunteers - it's Dinah who has been putting that together. As for a maximum, I can't imagine why there would need to be a maxiumum. There should probably be criteria for serving that ensures the people serving have successfully and reliably managed to demonstrate maintaining civil posting themselves.
> Secondly, what if a Civil Buddy became *uncivil*? Then, will that uncivil Civil Buddy be required to have a Civil Buddy, too? Or would he/she need to ask for help from the Civility Buddy Leader or Dr-Bob or Council/Board Members?If a CB becomes uncivil, I would hope that Bob would apply the civility guidelines to them just as he does everyone. If they get blocked, they would need to work their way out just like anyone else. In my proposal, Civility Buddies do not have the authority to Block. CB's are not like Deputies at all. Their biggest power is their ability to influence the community through their modeling of civil postings, assisting anyone who asks for help with civil posting. And in the case of someone who gets blocked, using a CB to repair the incivility is their opportunity to regain posting privileges.
> Thirdly, are the discussions between Civility Buddies and the Civility Buddy Leader in regards to the Babblers in "suspension rooms" be transparent (posted on admin threads)?I think all of that will be ultimately up to Bob, but my first instinct is that they should be privately done and only open to the Civility Buddy involved, and probably Bob.. maybe even the Leader, since the CB Leader would need to review the repair before releasing the 'suspension.' I don't think anyone would be served by the process of helping a blocked Babbler being posted on Admin. I'm hoping that a "suspension room" could be built into the Chat Room set up - but in my view, those particular rooms should be limited to access by only the blocked Babbler and their CB.
> Fourthly, how are the PBC'd Babblers going to retract, rephrase and apologize if they're in a "suspension of posting privileges mode" and can't post?What a great question! I'm thinking that while they are in suspension, they are communicating with their CB, who is helping them figure out how they got to where they are. Repair (rephrase - apology) would be necessary - just as it is now. They can 'discuss' it privately with their CB in the chat 'suspension room.' Once they have put something together that the CB thinks is appropriate - maybe that would be the time for the CB Leader to review, and if the repair post satisfies Bob's guidelines for repair, then the CB Leader releases the 'suspended' Babbler, and the post goes out. There might be other ways to do it too. And I really don't have any idea what kinds of tools on the site would, or wouldn't, facillitate the process.. that would be something Bob would have to figure out.
> Will all the discussions between everyone involved be posted on admin board?I don't think it would be a good idea for the discussions between a Babbler and their CB to be posted for everyone, unless of course the suspended Babbler wants to do that as part of the repair. I think of it as an issue of privacy when we are trying to figure out a mistake we made. We are vulnerable at those times, and privacy during the process itself is important, in my view.
> Thanks in advance.You are very welcome, and thank you for such great questions!
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 14, 2010, at 0:17:24
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu, posted by Solstice on November 13, 2010, at 23:38:37
Perhaps you could use a different term than civility buddy. I think you're describing a different level of commitment and involvement than we're currently proposing. I don't know if I'm willing to be involved with a major expansion of the idea. If it comes to that, it may be that someone else could take over the administration.
Posted by Deneb on November 14, 2010, at 0:43:57
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu » Solstice, posted by Dinah on November 14, 2010, at 0:17:24
Hmmm...I might be a bad civility buddy because I tried reading some of your posts Solstice and my eyes just glazed over (no offense). I just have no interest whatsoever with the workings of admin, blockings, etc.
I'll try to help out whenever I can, but I don't want to be a civility buddy if it means I have to do all this work.
Posted by Solstice on November 14, 2010, at 1:03:22
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu » Solstice, posted by Dinah on November 14, 2010, at 0:17:24
> Perhaps you could use a different term than civility buddy. I think you're describing a different level of commitment and involvement than we're currently proposing. I don't know if I'm willing to be involved with a major expansion of the idea. If it comes to that, it may be that someone else could take over the administration.
Hi Dinah..
First, I very much appreciate your feedback. I think I used the term because I thought it would be less confusing. I saw it as just a variation of the casual Civility Buddy system already in place. But you are right.. what I'm thinking of does add another level of commitment compared to a more casual, behind the scenes civility buddy work. I don't know how much commitment it would need.. and to be sure you are the one who knows the most about how it works.
There is really only one benefit to what I'm putting out there for consideration... and that would be to address the problems with blocking that have plagued the site for so long. I don't anticipate being personally affected by blocks, and I don't imagine you do either. There really isn't anything about it that *I* need; the idea can die on the vine right here, and it changes nothing for me.
I have no trouble overlooking - passing over - ignoring - posts and threads related to blocking activity and all the arguments and conflict about whether this block or that block is justified, plus all the confict over block length. None of that interfers with me reading what I want to read, and now that I've been posting, responding to what I want to respond to.
But for all the hurt and pain I've seen expressed here over the merits of various blocks, the length of blocks, the particular members blocked, and pleas for no blocks, reduced blocks, or various modifications of block formulas, it seems to be a really important issue that takes up a lot of space on the boards, and causes its share of disruption.
If people really want it to change, then people will have to be willing to be involved. How much involvement/commitment it would take is certainly something that could be figured out. I should probably point out that whether you are comfortable with it or not, you carry signficant leadership power here, Dinah. And the bottom line is that without leadership and community involvement, nothing will change. If the current situation with blocking is something everyone can live with, then it wouldn't make sense for anyone to trouble themselves with a new mechanism. But in that case, I wouldn't understand how anyone could complain about Bob's civility guidelines, inconsistent application of PBC's, blocks, block formulas, or block lengths.. if they are not willing to put in the time and effort & personal risk to put something in place.
My attempt to put together a mechanism for more merciful enforcement of civility guidelines is neither an agenda or personal interest of mine. I've probably said all that can be said about it in the proposal I made. I will leave it at that, and if anyone wants to pursue it - I do think it has a good chance of succeeding. But it will take commitment from members to bring it to life.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on November 14, 2010, at 1:10:02
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu, posted by Deneb on November 14, 2010, at 0:43:57
> Hmmm...I might be a bad civility buddy because I tried reading some of your posts Solstice and my eyes just glazed over (no offense). I just have no interest whatsoever with the workings of admin, blockings, etc.
>
> I'll try to help out whenever I can, but I don't want to be a civility buddy if it means I have to do all this work.
>I'm sorry Deneb.. that post was really for Bob. It might have been a mistake to post it here, because it is cumbersome to read.
You will be a great Civility Buddy! Nothing I'm talking about in my posts applies to anything that you are doing. My posts are just about ideas. Dinah's the one who you need to listen to with respect to your contributions as a civility buddy.
Solstice
Posted by Free on November 21, 2010, at 9:22:15
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu, posted by Solstice on November 13, 2010, at 23:38:37
Hey, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, Solstice.
Free> > I did my best, but to be honest, I wasn't able to get through all of your post. (I don't know if it's adhd or I'm just tired, so my apologies if you've already addressed some of my questions, Solstice.)
>
> Hi Free -
>
> I know it's a hard post to get through. I wish there was a way to make it easier. And although I want anyone who is interested to read it, the primary reason it's so long and complex is because it's got everything Bob needs to read and consider with respect to finding a way to maintain his civility standards - but doing it in a way that doesn't create long blocks and confict. I'm happy to answer your questions
>
>
> > The first thought I had was what if everyone or most people wanted to be a Civility Buddy?
>
> Anyone can and should use Civility Buddies anytime they find their emotions heating up. Whether someone is justifiably hurt about something said, or is angry and feeling impulsive about expressing their anger - checking with a Civility Buddy is always a good idea. People who use Civility Buddies on their own are much less likely to get themselves blocked in the first place. The system I have in mind would not interfere with that. It is meant to have a way for Babblers who got themselves blocked to have a way to repair the incivility, get some guidance on how to 'do it better next time,' and get back into the community.
>
>
> > I think you said you've already marshalled a good number of CBs, but is there going to be a cutoff for a maximum number of Civility Buddies?
>
> Well.. it hasn't been me that has pulled together a sturdy bunch of CB volunteers - it's Dinah who has been putting that together. As for a maximum, I can't imagine why there would need to be a maxiumum. There should probably be criteria for serving that ensures the people serving have successfully and reliably managed to demonstrate maintaining civil posting themselves.
>
>
>
>
> > Secondly, what if a Civil Buddy became *uncivil*? Then, will that uncivil Civil Buddy be required to have a Civil Buddy, too? Or would he/she need to ask for help from the Civility Buddy Leader or Dr-Bob or Council/Board Members?
>
> If a CB becomes uncivil, I would hope that Bob would apply the civility guidelines to them just as he does everyone. If they get blocked, they would need to work their way out just like anyone else. In my proposal, Civility Buddies do not have the authority to Block. CB's are not like Deputies at all. Their biggest power is their ability to influence the community through their modeling of civil postings, assisting anyone who asks for help with civil posting. And in the case of someone who gets blocked, using a CB to repair the incivility is their opportunity to regain posting privileges.
>
>
>
>
> > Thirdly, are the discussions between Civility Buddies and the Civility Buddy Leader in regards to the Babblers in "suspension rooms" be transparent (posted on admin threads)?
>
> I think all of that will be ultimately up to Bob, but my first instinct is that they should be privately done and only open to the Civility Buddy involved, and probably Bob.. maybe even the Leader, since the CB Leader would need to review the repair before releasing the 'suspension.' I don't think anyone would be served by the process of helping a blocked Babbler being posted on Admin. I'm hoping that a "suspension room" could be built into the Chat Room set up - but in my view, those particular rooms should be limited to access by only the blocked Babbler and their CB.
>
>
> > Fourthly, how are the PBC'd Babblers going to retract, rephrase and apologize if they're in a "suspension of posting privileges mode" and can't post?
>
> What a great question! I'm thinking that while they are in suspension, they are communicating with their CB, who is helping them figure out how they got to where they are. Repair (rephrase - apology) would be necessary - just as it is now. They can 'discuss' it privately with their CB in the chat 'suspension room.' Once they have put something together that the CB thinks is appropriate - maybe that would be the time for the CB Leader to review, and if the repair post satisfies Bob's guidelines for repair, then the CB Leader releases the 'suspended' Babbler, and the post goes out. There might be other ways to do it too. And I really don't have any idea what kinds of tools on the site would, or wouldn't, facillitate the process.. that would be something Bob would have to figure out.
>
>
> > Will all the discussions between everyone involved be posted on admin board?
>
> I don't think it would be a good idea for the discussions between a Babbler and their CB to be posted for everyone, unless of course the suspended Babbler wants to do that as part of the repair. I think of it as an issue of privacy when we are trying to figure out a mistake we made. We are vulnerable at those times, and privacy during the process itself is important, in my view.
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> You are very welcome, and thank you for such great questions!
>
> Solstice
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 0:45:42
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism for Blocked Posters to Retu » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 14, 2010, at 1:03:22
> 2) One way would be to allow a poster who did not retract or rephrase within your timeframe to go into a suspension of posting privileges mode whereby they cannot post until they have worked with a Civility Buddy to get guidance on i] better understanding why their post was considered uncivil by site guidelines; ii] successfully rephrasing or retracting the uncivil portion/s of their post - making repair.
>
> This is my proposal, which can be modified to better fit your objectives. Please give us some feedback as soon as possible on whether this seems reasonable and workable to you.I replied above and would like to consolidate discussion there:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971666.html
> I wouldn't understand how anyone could complain ... if they are not willing to put in the time and effort & personal risk to put something in place.
It's easier to tear down than to build.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 2:52:29
In reply to Re: Proposal for Mechanism, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 0:45:42
> It's easier to tear down than to build.
When you won't accept the buildings as parts of the city what is left to be done?
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.