![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by Chris A. on June 8, 2001, at 0:50:30
In reply to Re: Food for Thought re: Old Timers Board, posted by Shar on June 5, 2001, at 23:26:59
To All,
Speaking from a socially avoidant perspective, exclusion can be very painful and down right dangerous for some people who share this malady. We tend to be very sensitive to rejection. Yes, I wonder about some of those from a couple of years back who were either very helpful or going through great pain themselves. Some were of great support to me when I was very suicidal. At times it feels like losing family. There was more of a sense of community, but I'm not sure an 'oldies' board would promote community, just a great divide - "I was here before you were."
I must admit, my nostalgia isn't terribly strong since losing so much of my memory following ECT, so you can take that into account. I simply don't remember what all went on, just bits and pieces.More food for thought,
Chris A.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 19:37:48
In reply to Re: Food for Thought re: Old Timers Board, posted by Chris A. on June 8, 2001, at 0:50:30
[quotes below from the thread starting at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020325/msgs/21221.html]
> I chalked [the change] up to turn-over rate in those who post...
> IsoM> It may be in part because there are many more posters than there were 2+ years ago...
> Greg> 1. the board has grown so it's tougher to know each other
> 2. dr. bob has had to respond to that growth by "policing" more.
> the board can be broken into another piece or two.
> - kk> I wish whole-heartedly that a lot of the "old timers would come back.
> I do think I know what is missing now that we had a few years ago, a sense of family. I miss that a lot.
> GregThe above made me think again about this idea of a separate board for old-timers. Other, even earlier, threads in which this has been discussed:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000630/msgs/39641.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/601.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/619.htmlWhat do you think? Give it a try? A more general version might be a limited-membership board without specific (well, with different) membership "criteria"...
Bob
Posted by kiddo on April 2, 2002, at 20:18:56
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 19:37:48
What do you define as 'Old-Timer'? How do you create something that is separated like that without offending others? Don't you think that if it's separated like that the old-timers will end up a separate group from the 'newbies'?
Just wondering-Kiddo
Posted by Shar on April 3, 2002, at 2:30:28
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by kiddo on April 2, 2002, at 20:18:56
Time on board seems like the most simple way to figure it. And, the cut-off would probably be arbitrary, I would define old timers as folks here, and participating a least a little, for a year or more.
I've been on since May 2000, before PB was split into two boards. When I look at the posts from that time period, those posters would definitely be oldtimers to me.
I don't think the old timers would post exclusively to a board for old timers. I think it would be more of a connection for 'family' from times past. These folks would know each others histories a bit better than most and what some of us have been through without a lot of background details.
As always, there will be pros and cons. No matter what is done, some people will be offended.
Maybe we should have a newbies board and an intermediates board, to cover all the bases. And maybe a lurkers board--if anyone would ever post there. 8-)
Shar
> What do you define as 'Old-Timer'? How do you create something that is separated like that without offending others? Don't you think that if it's separated like that the old-timers will end up a separate group from the 'newbies'?
>
>
> Just wondering-
>
> Kiddo
Posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 8:06:14
In reply to Babble Birth Days determine old timers?, posted by Shar on April 3, 2002, at 2:30:28
This is a tough one. If we had added another Board the last time it was discussed, under any cutoff rule, we'd have excluded several people whom I feel very connected to and who are valuable and valued contributors. And really, my bond with them is stronger than my bond with some definite old timers who haven't been around for a long time, for whatever reason. I also think the old timers perform a lot of valuable functions that help keep this Board a more welcoming and supportive place and I'd hate to see them abdicate this role simply because they then had somewhere else to go.
However, if the idea is to draw back into the fold people who have left, maybe it's worth at least a trial run. However would you, as Shar has suggested, create a date cut-off or require a certain length of participation as a pre-condition to joining the old timers? If the latter, would new people be added after they have been around for awhile?
Posted by wendy b. on April 3, 2002, at 11:30:20
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 19:37:48
> [quotes below from the thread starting at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020325/msgs/21221.html]
>
> > I chalked [the change] up to turn-over rate in those who post...
> > IsoM
>
> > It may be in part because there are many more posters than there were 2+ years ago...
> > Greg
>
> > 1. the board has grown so it's tougher to know each other
> > 2. dr. bob has had to respond to that growth by "policing" more.
> > the board can be broken into another piece or two.
> > - kk
>
> > I wish whole-heartedly that a lot of the "old timers would come back.
> > I do think I know what is missing now that we had a few years ago, a sense of family. I miss that a lot.
> > Greg
>
> The above made me think again about this idea of a separate board for old-timers. Other, even earlier, threads in which this has been discussed:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000630/msgs/39641.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/601.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/619.html
>
> What do you think? Give it a try? A more general version might be a limited-membership board without specific (well, with different) membership "criteria"...
>
> Bob
Dr. Bob and others:Here's something I said under a different alter-ego, from a while back (under the third url Dr. Bob gave above), as "Ms. B" -- and I still agree with it...
Wendy
===========
"Also, I actually don't like the idea of an old-timers board, being something of a new-timer myself. Isn't it possible for people to ignore the postings on P-Babble (meds) that you don't want to read, and do a search every so often on the meds you are concerned about? Also, if some old-timers suffer from burnout, that may be part of the group-therapy dynamic we get on this web site -- learning from the interaction of the group when and how to say no, or when to simply ignore, in order to save oneself from doing too much. Perhaps a lesson that needs learning?However, I really do like the idea of "chat with the expert" or, "submit your questions, and an expert will answer a few" type of addition to the site. I think Dr. Bob has enough contacts who would do a little pro-bono work to keep it interesting, and give the old-timers something new to participate in, because the "experts" could be encouraged by Dr. Bob to answer the esoteric or more highly informed questions. For newbies with basic "Will Celexa cause me to gain weight?" questions, the moderator can simply refer them to the "search" function on P-Babble. Right?
Just my thoughts, here, I don't mean to offend anybody. Thanks for listening...
B. "
Posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 12:05:52
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by wendy b. on April 3, 2002, at 11:30:20
After reading Wendy's post, I went back and looked at some of my prior statements and those of Greg on this issue, written almost a year ago. It was unclear to me whether the disatisfaction was with PB or PSB, and I guess when this issue keeps arising, I have trouble sorting out which Board we're talking about. After all people who might classify as old timers on PB might be relatively unknown to old timers on PSB. I can accept the concept of another Board more easily if I envision it as a hybrid PB/PSB Board which is not necessarily active all the time, but is there as a repository for messages that one old timer might want to post to another. For instance if Greg did want to catch up with Cam for instance in a way that wasn't quite as public, and maybe Cam would want to communicate with Greg without having swarms of people posting "Cam come back" messages. Maybe it would be a way for someone who has left to reenter the group, or reconnect with people who helped them in the past. I don't know how to set something like this up or keep it to certain parameters. I'd hate to see it as a Board that certain people visited to the exclusion of the other Boards, but I think that when Greg wrote about this last June, he made some valid points about why the Board as it's currently constituted doesn't meet his needs.
Mair
Posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 21:20:20
In reply to More still on another board, posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 12:05:52
Posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:10:24
In reply to More still on another board, posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 12:05:52
There seems to be a lot of concern about (1) Old-timers migrating to the old-timer's board to the near exclusion of other boards. I don't believe that will happen. I see the old-timer's board as a valuable way to touch base and catch up with people 'I knew back when...' and for people to drop in on if they want, and after that, it would be interesting to see how people used it.
Also concern about (2) hurting people's feelings by having a board they can't join. Well, my gosh. I have a hard time really taking this down into my heart of hearts as a serious crisis-producing issue. I KNOW some people would feel unfairly excluded, some always do. I KNOW some will have hurt feelings, some always do. But, should that be the driving force about expanding the site? I don't think so. If that's the common denominator that governs our actions, we could never do anything.
I think the OT board will be an addendum to, not replacement for, the other boards. Heck, let's start a newbies board too (and hurt old timers' feelings) and a mediumies board (and hurt feelings of newbies and old-timers).
Upon reflection, the old-timer board would not have to have a cut-off for time-on-board or posting birthday. It could be totally open and anyone who wanted to could post there; if newbies or mediumies posted there I guess people would wonder why. And, that's just the type of invitation some people need to come in and stir things up---posting because someone implied they "shouldn't." But, I guess if that got disruptive, it might be covered by the civility policy.
My first time here was May 2000. It was before the board split into PB and PSB. I went back and looked at the people that were around then, and just for fun thought I'd mention some of their names; interesting so many are still here:
Tina....Kazoo....Janice....MarkH....JohnL....CarolAnn....SLS....NikkiT....Phil....CraigF....Kathie....CindyW....
Cass....Greg....CamW....st.james....harry B (I miss him!)....alisonm....noa....bob....andrewBand there are others here I'd consider old-timers that haven't been around for two years.
Shar
Posted by tinaboo on April 6, 2002, at 7:51:32
In reply to Oldies Board would be adding not subtracting, posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:10:24
Hi Shar!! I recognise all those names too. Thanks for the little stroll down memory lane. I got a good grin out of it.
take care
tina
Posted by shelliR on April 6, 2002, at 8:49:21
In reply to Oldies Board would be adding not subtracting, posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:10:24
>> I see the old-timer's board as a valuable way to touch base and catch up with people 'I knew back when...' and for people to drop in on if they want, and after that, it would be interesting to see how people used it.<<
I don't mind a board like that, but I don't really see the point. Like Zo, I think that's a perfect reason to create a group on yahoo. I mean, what ever happened to Greg's group? Couldn't that group be a reunion board? Maybe it could be "advertised" on PB so that everyone who checks into PB knows it's there.
>> Upon reflection, the old-timer board would not have to have a cut-off for time-on-board or posting birthday. It could be totally open and anyone who wanted to could post there; if newbies or mediumies posted there I guess people would wonder why.<<
That's sort of how I felt when I tried to "break in" to "the group" in July 2000. That people were wondering why ! I'm not sure that it's a good thing to initiate with that attitude, unless it's called a reunion board (not an oldtimer's board). I think maybe Mair already said this.
I worry a little about the diluting of PB into too many boards
Shelli
Posted by tinaboo on April 6, 2002, at 8:57:58
In reply to Re: Oldies Board would be adding not subtracting » Shar, posted by shelliR on April 6, 2002, at 8:49:21
> I don't mind a board like that, but I don't really see the point. Like Zo, I think that's a perfect reason to create a group on yahoo. I mean, what ever happened to Greg's group? Couldn't that group be a reunion board? Maybe it could be "advertised" on PB so that everyone who checks into PB knows it's there.
Greg's group isn't an open one anymore. It's limited to existing members now. It just got too big. We could go ahead and open another one just for the occasional reunion like you say. Wouldn't that be fun? >
>
>
>
>
> That's sort of how I felt when I tried to "break in" to "the group" in July 2000. That people were wondering why ! I'm not sure that it's a good thing to initiate with that attitude, unless it's called a reunion board (not an oldtimer's board). I think maybe Mair already said this.
>
>
> I worry a little about the diluting of PB into too many boards
>
These are very good points Shelli. I look back and see that most of the real discomfort for me started when the board was split into two and then three. I think more dilution could be detrimental.tina
Posted by tinaboo on April 6, 2002, at 9:01:13
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 19:37:48
How about opening a group (yahoo or something like that) for "old-timers reunions"
Anyone could post but the group could be mainly for the oldies who don't get to say much around here for various reasons?What would you all think of that?
I'd be willing to open one up.let me know how y'all feel about it.
tina
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2002, at 20:14:44
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board--POLL, posted by tinaboo on April 6, 2002, at 9:01:13
> I don't think the old timers would post exclusively to a board for old timers. I think it would be more of a connection for 'family' from times past. These folks would know each others histories a bit better than most and what some of us have been through without a lot of background details.
>
> SharRight, that would be the idea...
----
> This is a tough one. If we had added another Board the last time it was discussed, under any cutoff rule, we'd have excluded several people whom I feel very connected to and who are valuable and valued contributors. And really, my bond with them is stronger than my bond with some definite old timers who haven't been around for a long time, for whatever reason.
There's not going to be any way to take into account all personal connections. Unless old-timers could "sponsor" others, but that might be a can of worms...
> However, if the idea is to draw back into the fold people who have left, maybe it's worth at least a trial run. However would you, as Shar has suggested, create a date cut-off or require a certain length of participation as a pre-condition to joining the old timers? If the latter, would new people be added after they have been around for awhile?
>
> MairWhat about basing it on degree of participation? Like a frequent flier program? That would take into account length of participation, since the longer someone's here, the more they participate. And it would be an incentive to participate. Yes, new people would be added. At least as long as there weren't too many old-timers!
----
> I actually don't like the idea of an old-timers board, being something of a new-timer myself.
>
> WendyBut that was then, right? :-)
----
> After reading Wendy's post, I went back and looked at some of my prior statements and those of Greg on this issue, written almost a year ago. It was unclear to me whether the disatisfaction was with PB or PSB, and I guess when this issue keeps arising, I have trouble sorting out which Board we're talking about. After all people who might classify as old timers on PB might be relatively unknown to old timers on PSB. I can accept the concept of another Board more easily if I envision it as a hybrid PB/PSB Board which is not necessarily active all the time, but is there as a repository for messages that one old timer might want to post to another... Maybe it would be a way for someone who has left to reenter the group, or reconnect with people who helped them in the past. I don't know how to set something like this up or keep it to certain parameters. I'd hate to see it as a Board that certain people visited to the exclusion of the other Boards, but I think that when Greg wrote about this last June, he made some valid points about why the Board as it's currently constituted doesn't meet his needs.
>
> MairI guess I was thinking about a hybrid (or general) board, too. Without topic restrictions. And about the participation criterion being total participation, including all of the boards.
As far as public, my idea was anybody could still *read* the posts there, it would only be posting that would be restricted...
----
> I worry a little about the diluting of PB into too many boards
>
> Shelli> I look back and see that most of the real discomfort for me started when the board was split into two and then three. I think more dilution could be detrimental.
>
> tinaThink of it as diversity, not dilution? :-)
----
I went and took at look at degree and length of participation, using the registration data which starts in 5/00. As far as I can tell, those on this thread have posted 461 to 1193 times, starting as long ago as 5/00 and as recently as 6/01.
Overall, degree-wise, 36 posters have posted 500 or more times, 11 starting less than a year ago, 4 of those starting less that 6 months ago. 65 posters have posted more than 300 times, 17 starting less than a year ago, 6 of those starting less than 6 months ago. Length-wise, 109 posters started posting in 5/00, the 20 most active over 300 times each, the 20 least active less than 15 times each. Not all of those posters are still active.
Bob
Posted by Shar on April 7, 2002, at 12:35:13
In reply to Re: At some point, everyone becomes an oldtimer... » Shar, posted by tinaboo on April 6, 2002, at 7:51:32
I like the name Reunion Board. And I think it is a good idea.
An e-group is a hassle, one has to join and go thru a bunch of rigamarole to post. My idea was that people could take a look at the reunion/old timers board and touch base with friends or post, sort of spur-of-the-moment.
I don't think an old timers board would dilute the Babbles. The only possibility would be that people there would know they are talking to people who have been dealing with this issue for a while. Maybe more shared experience.
I think it is a fine idea.
Shar
Posted by medlib on April 8, 2002, at 2:04:35
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 19:37:48
Dr. Bob--
Is there really a need for definitions, restrictions or separate registration/qualification for an Old Timers board? None of the other PB boards have posting restrictions beyond the initial site registration. My concerns are 1)that any limitations will inevitably hurt or alienate someone, and 2)that such extra "hassles" may deter long absent or sometimes visitors from reconnecting.
Why not just set it up, describe its purpose and give self-definition (and simplicity) a chance? I think that most Old Timers will recognize and respond to others like themselves. And, if non-Old Timers wish to post occasionally to Old Timers as a group about Old Timers, where's the harm? Inappropriate posts can always be redirected; and limitations can be instituted later, if necessary, as Registration was. It seems to me that narrowly-focused boards have enough difficulties just sustaining an on-going dialogue. It's hard for me to imagine a new OTPB becoming "too popular" or "contaminated" by inappropriate posters.
Hoping that this one gets okayed for takeoff ---medlib
Posted by tinaboo on April 8, 2002, at 8:51:51
In reply to Re: Old Timers Board, posted by medlib on April 8, 2002, at 2:04:35
Posted by judy1 on April 8, 2002, at 18:39:01
In reply to Reunion Board, posted by Shar on April 7, 2002, at 12:35:13
I couldn't agree more- especially your point of sharing with those who you know have been going through the difficult times for as long as many of us have. Take care, judy
Posted by Lini on April 12, 2002, at 12:22:57
In reply to Re: Reunion Board » Shar, posted by judy1 on April 8, 2002, at 18:39:01
my two cents - i find the concept of an old timers board offensive . . . the thread seems to imply that OT's aren't that interested in what new people have to add, or that new people are "taking away" from their experience.
i just think that it categorizes further and therefor dilutes support. it's not like this online group is the only way people can connect, if there are only certain people you want to talk to - do a group email or use three way calling.
One idea that is used on Business Weeks' board is that you can choose to ignore posters, and only the people's messages that you self select show up on your screen - that way, one PSB, but individual preferences.
i just think that i have learned so much from both people that have been here a long time apparently and those that just found their way here that i would hate to add another administrative step to things - it's hard enough as it is to keep up on threads.
anyway, that's my take
Posted by Shar on April 12, 2002, at 15:21:11
In reply to Re: Reunion Board, posted by Lini on April 12, 2002, at 12:22:57
Posted by Greg on April 12, 2002, at 17:30:43
In reply to Reunion Board NE Ignoring PSB (nm), posted by Shar on April 12, 2002, at 15:21:11
MIC, uh hun?
NE? I have a serious case of the stupids today? Can I get a "please be civil" for calling myself stupid?
Love ya,
Greg
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:27:06
In reply to Re: Reunion Board, posted by Lini on April 12, 2002, at 12:22:57
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:41:17
In reply to I agree. Reunion Board offensive, segregation. (nm) » Lini, posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:27:06
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:44:03
In reply to Also, don't like idea of exclusion, losing OT info (nm), posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:41:17
Posted by Shar on April 13, 2002, at 12:15:12
In reply to Re: Reunion Board NE Ignoring PSB » Shar, posted by Greg on April 12, 2002, at 17:30:43
Greg, please be civil, you know there is a long standing rule about name calling, and you'll have to be punished now. I'll think of some way to punish you (I hope I can find something you won't enjoy too much) and get back to you.
NE is a Boolean operator meaning 'not equal.' Like an equal sign with a slash through it.
It is my shortcut way of saying a reunion board is not going to lead to people ignoring PB and PSB. But I couldn't fit all that in the title.
I don't think people talking to each other on a different board will ruin PSB forever. I do think it is useful to be able to talk to people you have a history with in a somewhat more focused environment.
Plus, everybody can read whatever's said there.
xoxo
YIC
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.