![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by nikkit2 on January 19, 2005, at 6:25:12
In reply to Re: a board for friends » nikkit2, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 18, 2005, at 15:58:47
I think I've pointed out a few of the problems that a "friends" board would cause, and I don't think I've ever said its a "dream" of mine to have it.. I just tried to explain why I, personally, like the PB2000 board.. I'm not suggesting any further boards, or that I want to ignore everyone on the board. I *do* post to people on PBSocial, and I do like reading their posts.. I just prefer, when I have osmething about *me* to post, to use the 2000 board.
These conversations have ALL been had here before though if you want to read through the archives.. many many times in fact!!
Nikki x
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 13:34:16
In reply to Re: a board for friends, posted by saw on January 17, 2005, at 23:57:50
> you're seriously considering the notion of letting someone setting up a room and inviting who can join?
I was, but it wasn't very popular, so my next idea was just to limit how many people could join this kind of board. Here's the thread from before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/308260.html
> What on god's green earth do you think is going to happen to the current level of people who feel like no one likes them on the board
>
> DinahI don't know, but maybe they'd find out that's not the case?
--
> you know that I have given up campaigning for a parents board - but if there are to be any more boards, perhaps that can be considered first.
>
> SabrinaIt was already considered:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/419569.html
But it turned out to be more complicated that I thought:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423768.html
But it's still on my to-do list. This just happened to come up in the meantime...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2005, at 17:17:50
In reply to Re: a board for friends, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 13:34:16
Oh, he he he.
I thought by 'small town boards' people were talking about a board for people who are from small towns!
Makes much more sense now :-)
Posted by mair on January 20, 2005, at 22:14:50
In reply to Re: a board for friends, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2005, at 13:34:16
> > What on god's green earth do you think is going to happen to the current level of people who feel like no one likes them on the board
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I don't know, but maybe they'd find out that's not the case?
Yeah, and maybe they'd find out that there really is no comfortable place for them on this Board.It's not always easy to feel that you fit in when you're here alot; it's very difficult to leave the board periodically and come back. How horrible it would be to come back and discover that many of the people you remember most fondly are all off on a Board which is filled and to which you have no access.
I was against the 2000 Board when you set it up, although i came to see that it served a valuable purpose for a relatively small group of people who were introduced to the Board when it was just one Board. But it still irks me that I have no way of communicating with the people who never venture off that Board. The vast majority of the people here now have always known PB as a large place. We all seem to find places that are comfortable for us - I think that would just be so much more difficult if you created still smaller groups.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2005, at 0:54:16
In reply to Re: a board for friends, posted by mair on January 20, 2005, at 22:14:50
> The vast majority of the people here now have always known PB as a large place. We all seem to find places that are comfortable for us - I think that would just be so much more difficult if you created still smaller groups.
IMO, people who are here now are going to tend to be people comfortable in large groups.
But not everyone here may be comfortable. And people may *not* be here now because they weren't.
Also, the current large groups would still be here...
Bob
Posted by mair on January 21, 2005, at 7:26:29
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2005, at 0:54:16
>
> "Also, the current large groups would still be here..."
>
Yes, but the fact that the current large groups have always been here hasn't meant that people who could opt for a smaller group (2000 Board members) ever venture back into the large groups. I guess my concern is that people who are currently active in the larger groups would self-select a particular group, and once that group became full, the rest of us would then have no access to those people unless they decided to emerge. I really do feel that cliques do form sometimes and people do feel left out; smaller groups would amplify that dynamic.Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:38:57
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 21, 2005, at 7:26:29
> the fact that the current large groups have always been here hasn't meant that people who could opt for a smaller group (2000 Board members) ever venture back into the large groups. I guess my concern is that people who are currently active in the larger groups would self-select a particular group, and once that group became full, the rest of us would then have no access to those people unless they decided to emerge. I really do feel that cliques do form sometimes and people do feel left out; smaller groups would amplify that dynamic.
1. If A wants access to B, but B prefers a smaller group, should B be forced to stay?
2. The concern is that without B the large group would languish? Might it not be able to adapt?
3. Not everyone prefers smaller groups. People from 2000 do venture out.
4. People do sometimes feel left out already. Is it better this way, to feel neglected by people in the same large group, or not even to be able to join those people in a smaller group?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 22, 2005, at 6:52:16
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:38:57
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 16:25:30
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:38:57
> 1. If A wants access to B, but B prefers a smaller group, should B be forced to stay?
You can't force people to stay anyway. A could always Babblemail B and try to set up a dialogue, maybe even try to lure them over to a bigger board that way...
> 2. The concern is that without B the large group would languish? Might it not be able to adapt?
Some people who post mainly to the 2000 board and not really the others may have left Babble altogether as it got bigger. They may have stayed solely in virtue of the smaller group and the ties they had established there.
> 3. Not everyone prefers smaller groups. People from 2000 do venture out.I am not really opposed to the idea of smaller boards. I wouldn't mind the opportunity to participate in both.
> 4. People do sometimes feel left out already. Is it better this way, to feel neglected by people in the same large group, or not even to be able to join those people in a smaller group?Maybe there could be a smaller board for people who feel especially neglected? Or that might be a big board already... But it could be divided up into where posters names fit into the alphabet.
That would be a nice sort of random way of creating smaller groups. That way nobody would feel left out because they were intentionally excluded. Though it might take a bit of time to see how many people were going to post there. Might be boycotted anyway.
Posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:34:01
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:38:57
I don't want to invest a whole lot of emotional capital in this debate because experience tells me that if you really want to give this a try, you will regardless of sentiment. But please do clarify what you have in mind. It's tough to express useful opinions without knowing how you want this to work.
1. How large do you envision that these groups would be?
2. How would members be selected? Would it be a random process? Would it be a first come first serve process? Or would members select other members?
3. Will membership be capped, so that once filled, no one else may join?
4. May posters be on multiple small boards?
5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
6. Would groups be organized on a subject basis so you have people of like interests?
7. If they aren't organized on a subject basis, then are all subjects open for discussion, even if they are dealt with on other larger boards?
8. Will these Boards be monitored differently? What I have in mind is the incident awhile ago when one poster, who was not a member of the 2000 Board, complained that he was offended by things written on the 2000 Board. (things certainly not written about him or with him in mind).
7. How do you think a system of smaller boards will develop? Would you be ok with an evolved arrangement where regulars will just consign themselves to smaller boards, and the subject boards (except perhaps the meds board) will be peopled mostly by newbies and the small board members who venture over, or perhaps the boardless returning babbler? Will it bother you if it develops that small board members really restrict their participation to their small board?
Thanks in advance for answering these with your usual specificity and clarity. (-:
Mair
Posted by gardenergirl on January 22, 2005, at 17:40:46
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:34:01
I wonder if perhaps having more boards with more specific topics might be, in a way, like having smaller group boards without the gated community feel. For example, if you had a board for dissociation or ego state disorders, there are likely certain posters who would post there. How about one for depression? One for psychotic disorders? One for redheads? (just kidding)
At any rate, I think in some ways, small groups form due to common interests. We already see certain posters hanging out at certain boards. Surely that is interest related at least in part.
I too would not like to see any more restricted access boards. It's the jr. high/high school feeling left out think all over again. I leave awful nose prints on windows when I wistfully peer inside.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 22:47:25
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:34:01
Yeah, those are all good questions. I would want to know more about what Dr B had in mind before I could say whether I was opposed to it or not.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 22:51:43
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by gardenergirl on January 22, 2005, at 17:40:46
Yeah, some of the boards already have a smaller feel to them.
Maybe the idea was that there would be a group of people who would get to know each other over time rather than newbies popping up all the time. Or people who make a couple of posts and then leave.
> I too would not like to see any more restricted access boards. It's the jr. high/high school feeling left out think all over again. I leave awful nose prints on windows when I wistfully peer inside.
Yeah, I have sympathy for that too.
I wonder whether smaller boards might make the bigger boards seem less exclusive though. I mean they aren't officially exclusive, but I wonder that they may seem that way to newbies. An awful lot of posts are directed to certain posters. While anyone is free to pipe up this may have the feel of an exclusive discussion to an outsider. Also there are a number of jokes and references to things that could only properly be understood by people who have been following for a while.
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2005, at 7:25:48
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by gardenergirl on January 22, 2005, at 17:40:46
Unless I'm wrong (but... you know... I'm not), I believe Dr. Bob's interest is *in* the restrictiveness. That's why after the last hubbub when he introduced the idea of restricted boards, he instituted the newbie board and the student board, both of which are defacto restricted boards, but not based on choice.
If boards *must* be restricted (and I see no reason why they must be at all, or benefit to them being at all), having them align along subject matter seems less abominable to me than allowing people to choose teams like some grotesque caricature of the gym class scenario that enlightened schools have long past abandoned.
I assume this must be research related. "How the restricted community fits into a large online community. Does gating work?" For once my conclusions are that his motives are not as lofty as I might wish.
P.S. That's a Monk reference...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2005, at 13:36:37
In reply to Re: smaller groups » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2005, at 7:25:48
> allowing people to choose teams like some grotesque caricature of the gym class scenario that enlightened schools have long past abandoned.
I agree with you there, Dinah. I think that Dr B would have to be very careful about that.
> Unless I'm wrong (but... you know... I'm not), I believe Dr. Bob's interest is *in* the restrictiveness.
> I assume this must be research related. "How the restricted community fits into a large online community. Does gating work?" For once my conclusions are that his motives are not as lofty as I might wish.Maybe he is interested in VSG dynamics as well as VLG dynamics? To see what the differences might be? What advantages / disadvantages there are? The only way to find this stuff out is to do research.
I don't think he is INTENDING to hurt anyone. But I do understand the concern about teenage cliques. And about people feeling excluded.
But maybe there are ways to eliminate / exclude that? I think he was looking for our opinions / suggestions on this...
Posted by justyourlaugh on January 24, 2005, at 0:12:05
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:38:57
kind of like high school..
going into little "clicks"..
i do not like the fact that i can not post on all boards..
we can be everyones friend!
jyl
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 8:25:46
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:34:01
> 1. How large do you envision that these groups would be?
I don't know, between 15 and 50 posters?
> 2. How would members be selected? Would it be a random process? Would it be a first come first serve process? Or would members select other members?
I was thinking first come, first served.
> 3. Will membership be capped, so that once filled, no one else may join?
Right.
> 4. May posters be on multiple small boards?
I don't know, if access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters couldn't?
> 5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
If access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters did? And they might be considered to have dropped out if they haven't posted for a while. Open spots would be filled according to #2.
> 8. Will these Boards be monitored differently? What I have in mind is the incident awhile ago when one poster, who was not a member of the 2000 Board, complained that he was offended by things written on the 2000 Board. (things certainly not written about him or with him in mind).
The small town boards would need to be civil, too. Maybe they could have their own deputy administrators?
> 6. Would groups be organized on a subject basis so you have people of like interests?
>
> 7. If they aren't organized on a subject basis, then are all subjects open for discussion, even if they are dealt with on other larger boards?
>
> 7. How do you think a system of smaller boards will develop? Would you be ok with an evolved arrangement where regulars will just consign themselves to smaller boards, and the subject boards (except perhaps the meds board) will be peopled mostly by newbies and the small board members who venture over, or perhaps the boardless returning babbler? Will it bother you if it develops that small board members really restrict their participation to their small board?If people stuck to small town boards, I'd assume that meant they preferred them, and I'd be glad they had that option. If OTOH there were no demand for them, I'd just delete them.
I wasn't thinking they'd start with a subject, but I guess they could choose one if they wanted. It might be a way to try out new subjects? And if there were continued interest, they could convert to being an open board?
Maybe one way of looking at it would be, in a small town, it's generally easier to get to know your neighbors. And in the big city, it's generally easier to find something (in this case, information). So with a combination, you could have both neighbors you know and access to information.
But someone might not be interested in both. They might want to spend all their time in the big city. Or they might never want to go. That would be fine, too.
Bob
Posted by partlycloudy on January 24, 2005, at 9:15:00
In reply to do not like the idea.., posted by justyourlaugh on January 24, 2005, at 0:12:05
I'm with you on this. I guess that makes us a clique, lol.
I don't like the idea of not being able to post where I want to. As it is, and by my choice, I don't post on all available boards here. If I had a Burning Desire that wanted to be expressed, it doesn't seem right that I wouldn't be able to post it.
Posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 11:31:19
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 8:25:46
> > 1. How large do you envision that these groups would be?
>
> I don't know, between 15 and 50 posters?Just so you know, by my rough count, there are well fewer than 50 regular posters on every board except the meds board and probably on social. I'm sure the psyche board is used by more than 50 people, but recently, it's really only been used by 30-35 I think. So you really already have several "small town" boards. This tells me that it's not size that you're intrigued with, so much as restrictions on use. If you peruse this thread, you'll see that for those who commented, it's the possible restrictiveness that bothers most.
>
> > 5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
>
> If access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters did? And they might be considered to have dropped out if they haven't posted for a while. Open spots would be filled according to #2.This is a tough one because people take breaks from Babble all the time, in fact many of us see breaks as being beneficial, and sometimes they're necessitated by personal circumstances or recommended by Ts. How will that dynamic be affected by the prospect of losing one's core base of support? As a person who's taken a fair number of breaks, I can tell you that there's something very comforting about being able to come back here and find some of the same people who were here when you left. I don't think PB will seem anywhere near as accessible if I come back and find that many of those people are not accessible to me.
>
> >
>
> Maybe one way of looking at it would be, in a small town, it's generally easier to get to know your neighbors. And in the big city, it's generally easier to find something (in this case, information). So with a combination, you could have both neighbors you know and access to information.
>
> But someone might not be interested in both. They might want to spend all their time in the big city. Or they might never want to go. That would be fine, too.Here's a problem with your analogy. I live in a small town, and the notion that you get to know your neighbors more easily in small towns is a myth perpetuated by people who live in cities. You may have a nodding acquaintance with more people, but I think that's about it. More likely, in both types of places you seem to end up hanging out with the people who have similar interests or with whom you click in some way. When you move out of either a small town or a city, it's very difficult to perpetuate your old friendships unless both parties really work at it. If you start breaking us up into different small towns, and we all become comfortable with that arrangement, we will drift apart and become unavailable to one another. It's not what we may prefer, as you suggest. I think it's more what will simply happen by default. It takes a lot more effort to keep a friendship active than it does to let one slide, and if time is limited, people are likely to devote most of their time to what's most familiar, eg the small board. Other connections will just become more tenuous.
I also think this will make the Board seem incredibly less inviting to lurkers, new visitors and to those who take breaks for awhile and come back. You can restrict us from posting on certain boards; you can't restrict us from reading posts on restricted boards. So you're going to increase the number of instances where someone feels that they're on the outside, looking in.
Mair
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 14:07:04
In reply to Re: small town groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 11:31:19
I won't say I told you so. ;)
Sigh. Dr. Bob'll do what Dr. Bob wants to do.
I don't understand why posters would want it.
I unfortunately do understand why Dr. Bob wants it. I ought to sic my mother on him.
If I didn't love Babble so, I'd join the exodus. What is there about this place that I'm so fond of even when my response to Admin decisions is to want to spew my breakfast.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
In reply to Re: small town groups » mair, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 14:07:04
Partlycloudy
You could still post to all of the boards you can currently post to. If you wanted to respond to something you could respond to it on one of the current boards and / or send them a babblemail.
mair
I don't think it is just about 'regular posters'. People come and go all the time. That can be a bit disconcerting. To post something that can be well understood in the context of previous posts but easily misunderstood by someone who hasn't been following. I often get responses which show me that people haven't been following my 'saga' and I am not sure what to do except thank people for their input. Sometimes I find this frustrating though. I have the urge to yell BUT THAT IS NOT AN OPTION TO ME HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS but of course I do understand that they are really well intentioned and it isn't their fault. But I say this just to provide an example of something that could be an advantage of a small town board.
People do take breaks from Babble all the time. But I don't think that would result in people losing their 'core base of support' because the boards that are currently available would still be available to them. The boards that are currently available will continue to be available to everyone. People seem to be thinking that if these boards are set up then everyone will leave the big city to go to these new boards. I really don't think that would be the case. I think it is much more likely that there won't be many people who will want to participate in a smaller board with a restriction on the number of posters. I don't think that setting up new boards will change the old babble much. Every time Dr B sets up a new board do the old boards change? That doesn't seem to be the case to me. Rather, babble seems to continue on growing... I really don't think there would be many people who would give up on the main babble boards in favour of the smaller ones. But even if people choose to do this isn't that their choice to make? You can always contact those people still via babblemail.
I don't think the notion is that you do get to know your neighbors in small towns, more that it is much easier to get to know them should you want to get to know some people. I think smaller boards would make it easier to keep track of peoples stories. What is going on for them. What has been going on for them etc.
Dinah.
I think I would like to be part of a smaller board. I don't think I would withdraw from the rest of babble as a consequence of that though. I have mentioned a reason above.
Why do you think Dr B wants to do this?
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 15:58:20
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
I don't believe in restrictive boards.
Those that do can join the small town boards.
I think Dr. Bob is researching.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:06:08
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
I was taught, and I teach my son, that it is rude to have conversations in public that others can not join. In his school, the children are not allowed to discuss birthday parties which all children are not invited to, or to pass out invitations in class unless all children are invited. "You can't say you can't play." That's the reason I pay a g*dawful percentage of my pay to send him there. It's a rule at his school that you are *absolutely delighted* to have whoever shows up sit at your table, and join in your reindeer games.
I am *absolutely delighted* to have any and every poster join any and every thread that I participate on. I do not post where every and any poster can't delight me with their company. That's my rule, it doesn't have to be everyone's.
I just don't think it's particularly polite to have boards for public view and private consumption. Which is a comment on the concept, not on any particular poster.
I believe Dr. Bob's intent is research related.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:10:18
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 8:25:46
How many small towns close their borders and don't let "outsiders" in? I know *I'd* not want to live in a small town that did.
How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns. You're insulting small towns everywhere.
Posted by jujube on January 24, 2005, at 16:33:51
In reply to Hey Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:10:18
It sounds almost like a civilized form of segregation. How unfortunate it would be for people to come to PB thinking they have found a safe haven of welcoming and, to some degree, unconditional support, only to have some doors closed in their faces.
I like the diversity of views and personalities one finds on each of the various boards, even though I sometimes feel shy and out of place on some boards. I think this diversity, and the unrestricted access to it, is what makes Babble so unique, welcoming and endearing for so many people.
Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Just my 2 cents FWIW.
> How many small towns close their borders and don't let "outsiders" in? I know *I'd* not want to live in a small town that did.
>
> How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns. You're insulting small towns everywhere.
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.