Posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2008, at 20:18:22
In reply to Lou's reply to fayeroe's post-noghwrtotrn » Fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2008, at 7:49:48
> > Dinah said "I wasn't trying to incite anything. I didn't even want people to be mad at Dr. Bob at all."
> >
> > I've seen the administration cause enormous pain for the posters here and true to form, Bob goes scot free. It would be refreshing if just one time , no one enabled his irresponsible behavior.
> >
> >
> > Dinah, I have to ask you this, did you think through what might happen to the site when you and Bob started down the slippery slope of the private discussions (that you then hinted at in your posts) concerning rule changes for PB?
> >
> > The safety of the posters here should be the first concern of the administration.
> >
> > Can you imagine a CEO and a vice-president of a large corporation handling personal differences the way this played out? Surely you understand the complexities of a large mental health support site and what the reactions will be of people left in the dark.
> >
> > I do not think you should have made any of it public. As several have said, you have a direct pipeline to him and the posters don't have that priviledge.
> >
> > I'm going to change this old saying, somewhat, as I don't want it to sound as harsh as it is orginally, "the road to chaos is paved with good intentions".
> >
> > This is my last word on this mess as I refuse to provide anything else for Bob's projects.
>
> fayeroe,
> You wrote,[...I've seen...first concern...mental health support site...left in the dark...you have..posters don't...word on this...]
> What you have posted points out that the administration wants to have the community to have an access to the administrator that governs his assistants. The TOS of Mr. Hsiung writes this in his statement that he wants to have feedback. Further, whatever is done here could be thought to be for the good of the group because the TOS here writes that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole and that what he does is with in some way {fair} and to {trust} him that what is done is to that concept.
> So I think that with that type of TOS here, members have rightfully thought that they have an expectation that the administration will deliver what they write as the {Terms Of Service} to the members. Since members are expressing in their posts their feelings as a result of the TOS in relation to them not receiving feedback from Mr. Hsiung yet, I think that members could feel that since they abide by the rules in the terms of service here for them, that Mr. Hsiung, that writes that he wants feedback, also abide by his terms of service to the members.
> In all respect to Dinah, let us reason that if Mr. Hsiung was to have posted in the innitiation of this, then would all of this have happened?
> Then there is IMO the concern that Mr. Hsiung's not posting concerniing this situation yet, when he was communicating with Dinah, could lead some others to have the potential to think things about as to why he has not posted here when he was communicating with Dinah. That could IMO have the potential to cause the emotional/ psychological feelings that members are posting about.
> I think that for the good of the community as a whole, we could focus on a remedy for those members here that are experiancing problematic psychological/emotional states as a result of this situation. One way suggested is to have discussion continually untill a remedy happens. I think that that is a good idea but in my experiance there is much more to that such as:
> A.IMO. a moderator that is impartial to the situation could be appointed untill Mr. Hsiung returns to the forum. Perhaps someone from the University of Chicago could be contacted to enter the forum as a member and moderate the discussion.
> B. another solution IMO could be to set up something like an instant messaging system for interested members to participate in off the forum's control.
> C. another solution IMO could be close the forum in its entirerty untill Mr. Hsiung returns to the forum.
> D. Another solution IMO would be to delete all the threads concerning this situation.
> E. Another solution IMO could be for Mr. Hsiung to provide a buddy of his to take his place
> F. Another solution IMO would be to change the TOS here and delete the part that feedback is wanted from the members.
> G. other good and just solutions.
> LouFriends,
Here is another suggestion that IMO could turn this situation and other situations around.
I suggest that a system where a rating is given to each poster next to their handle be implimented here. This is how it could work:
A. Each member starts out with a rating of 1500.
B. There could be moderators whose job would be to flag the usual infractions of the rules here. C. Each infraction could have a weighted value that would be deducted from the person's rating.
D. After a drop of a member's rating to let's say 10% of what their rating was before the infraction's weighted value is deducted, the member would be not allowed to post for 10 days.
Here is a hypothetical example between two hypothetical members, A and B.
Lets pick up the dialog...
A:
I'm voting for Barbara and not because she is a woman.
B:
Then why are you voting for her, A?
A:
Because (redacted for civility purposes)
Moderator:
A, I'm deducting 10 points from your rating for language that could offend others.
Now A had already had 145 points deducted from her/his rating of 1500 so that her/his ratimg was 1355 at the time, so now with the other 10 points deducted her/his rating drops to 1345 and there now is the 10% drop in her rating to be now 1345 and so she incurrs a 10 day ostracism.
Now let's see what happens when A returns. Her/his rating is now 1345.
A is in dialog with C.
C: A, will you go skydiving with me?
A:
You have to be(redacted for civility puposes).
moderator: A, I'm deducting 50 points from your rating for posting what could lead another to feel put down.
A's rating was 1345 at the time. The deduction of 50 points takes her/his rating to 1295. Now her/his rating of 1345 has a 10% factor of that to be 134 1/2 points before she reaches another 10 day ostracism which would be 1260 1/2, so she/he is not having a 10 day loss of posting here in this case until her/his rating falls below 1260 1/2.
There could be more to this but
I would like members to list here any benifits or not to this system that you see.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:817501
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/817785.html