Posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 12:37:46
In reply to Re: some merging of the two worlds » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2006, at 9:02:57
Hi, Alexandra_k. In the following post (a reaction to various excerpts from Bob's prior answers to various posts) you may not realize that other people-- myself anyway--don't know what you mean in many instance.s
Maybe you're only talking to Bob?
But if you do wants others in on the discussion (either understanding or possibly contributing), it would help (me at least) if you were somewhat more complete, rather than so elusive.--and also separated your concerns, so that they were clearer and more integrated and less confused with one another.
Let me give an exampe..
Bob wrote "I'm not sick of anyone..."
You wrote, "how about moderating in general? are you sick of that? i'm fairly sure you know what i'm getting at so lets not make the answer dependent on the precise meaning of 'sick of'."
You raise a valid point here, which I've wondered, which is: is Bob no longer interested in or able to moderate the board ( at least in staying in touch as much as I think the board needs from a moderator, and, hypothetically (to me), as he did in the past)?
But your point about "you know what I"m getting at..." confuses the issue, because now I'm thinking-- Alexandra_k thinks Bob deals with A_k's ideas by quibbling with the words she uses, rather than addressing the content of the ideas.
But, even if true, this point, this distracts from your important first point. It raises a complex, but, ultimately, probably personal issue between you and Bob, not having to do with the problem of Bob's involvement with Pbabble. As such, you invite people off on a meditation about your feelings about Bob's way of treating you (or possibly others, unknown--but at most concrete, you)-- and whatever feelings they may have about that.
But it really really makes it hard to think about the issue here.
Unless the more important issue for you is how Bob treats you,-- in which case, you're using the current discussion to show Bob once again how he treats you (and others, too)-- making it a general pattern, rather than a way of treating one person.
Could I suggest, in a way that is really friendly (because I like you), but may sound critical-- but I really mean it in a friendly way-- that this is really a separate issue. And if this main issue-- The need for Bob (or some moderator) to be more hands-on and engaged-- does matter to you, you'd be better served if youkept the moderator-discussion and the discussion of Bob's atittude with you, separate (ie in separate threads).
I'm only saying this because you could contribute a lot to the discussion. Maybe you're caught up in some feelings about Bob that undermines the steadiness of your gaze at the subject (ie moderation of pbabble)--and therefore interrupts your insights?
Again, I mean this in the best way-- that I'd like to see more of your critique about it-- but that things like "sick of" (and later, unclear references to things that Bob may have done to you--I think?) undermine the clarity and focus of the critique.
Jost
> is quoting more of what has gone before supposed to be a mark of understanding?
>
> > I'm not sick of anyone.
>
> how about moderating in general? are you sick of that? i'm fairly sure you know what i'm getting at so lets not make the answer dependent on the precise meaning of 'sick of'.
>
> >There are real issues that need to be addressed
>
> such as...
>
> > I do think my thinking about "the best of both worlds" is evolving:
>
> > One issue is the sustainability, or advisability, of having one administrator.
>
> so you aren't sustainable?
>
> > More heads are better than one
>
> i'm not sure that follows...
>
> > if other administrators weren't posters, either volunteers would need to be recruited from elsewhere or employees would need to be hired. And those are valid alternatives.
>
> so i guess you aren't sustainable then.
>
> > I'm not inclined in that direction, but if this doesn't work, I may need to reconsider.
>
> deputies don't seem to be willing when you aren't around to reinforce their being deputies...
>
> > Regarding the role of the deputies in the community, one issue is whether they can be impartial administrators, and I think our current deputies have been.
>
> fairly much, sure.
>
> > Partly it's selection
>
> of course. kudos to you.
>
> > Another issue is whether they can be impartial posters. I'm not saying they're not, but that's less of an issue because other posters can provide support.
>
> maybe it isn't about their supporting other posters so much as them posting about their vulnerabilities and asking for support from the community. in the sense that... if they are deputies their posting about their fears and vulnerabilities is more likely to be targeted by posters who are disgruntled by... oh... your blocking system, for example.
>
> >it's also an opportunity to contribute to the site in an important way and may lead to learning and growth.
>
> in a way that other positions within the community don't lead to.
>
> you seem to be doing all you can to foster a 'deputy' 'regular poster' divide. is it any wonder that they feel the sense of division when you seem to do what you can to foster it? and they say this... and you seem to continue on, oblivious. how many times do they need to say it? what are you trying to do? whoever isn't for me is against me? people who are for me have special positions within the community? special opportunities for growth and development? are you helping or harming the community in fostering this sense of division do you suppose?
>
> > Regarding the community as a whole, if there's more sharing of power, there may be less splitting (seeing administrators as bad and posters as good)
>
> oh. i thought you fostered that so posters didn't turn on each other. rather... they focused on a common enemy... namely... you. i thought you fostered that...
>
> > and more of a feeling of shared ownership and that we're all in this together.
>
> who, sorry? you and the deputies?
>
> > But power and authority will be issues no matter who has them.
>
> and more especially when the moderator and / or deputies foster the notion of a power divide by such things as...
> - not taking posters concerns seriously
> - implicitly or explicitly implying that only deputies opinions / concerns are of importance
> etc.
>
> > Regarding me, I benefit from and greatly appreciate the input and assistance of the deputies.
>
> in the sense that you think it entitles you to say that 'we have decided' instead of 'i have decided'?
>
> > I also have to manage them, and that may not be my strong suit, but maybe this will be a learning and growth experience for me, too.
>
> you or whoever you pay or recruit to take over moderator role. but... it isn't going to amount to that - is it? i mean... you simply aren't willing to take other opinions into account enough to SHARE the power even less to actually turn the control over to someone else... and given that... do you really think you are going to get outside volounteers? you have to be kidding...
>
> > Also, things change with time. Starting out is different, and poses different challenges, than keeping going. But change is hard, too, so that's an added stress.
>
> sure. you have the power... distributing that has to be hard for you. also... babble isn't the challenge it once was. there isn't the thrill of 'will people come?' anymore. the thrill of 'will this work?' anymore. your wife giving you a hard time about how much time you spend online? your work? is your sleep time comprimised? i guess you can't keep up that indefinately over the years...
>
> > If anyone has any suggestions regarding a middle way, or another different way, I'm open to suggestions. Or at least try to be. :-)
>
> yeah whatever. been there. seen you ignore that.
>
> > New deputies are a key ingredient, so I definitely want to get back to them. I'm really sorry that's been stalled, and grateful for their patience.
>
> sure sure. on with the plan ho.
>
>
poster:Jost
thread:682937
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685907.html