![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 32 to 56 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 9:16:40
In reply to Re: Yes. but what to do when » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on January 9, 2006, at 9:03:19
And of course, vent off board with my civility buddy or other like minded posters. :) Or my husband, but he gets bored.
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 9:57:11
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 9, 2006, at 1:55:32
> > Perhaps this is a time when Dr. Bob could bring in a guest expert? Someone who might be able to make alternative suggestions?
>
> Sure, I'd be happy to ask, but an expert on what topic?Well, since the topic would tend to be human behavior, I suppose you could answer the question if you chose to.
Currently you've suggested one strategy to the board. Not reading posts, and not responding if you don't believe you can do so civilly. I'm suggesting that that strategy falls short in certain circumstances where it may actually contribute to escalation. Tension on the board increases, and then there's a forest fire in your terms.
I'm asking for suggestions for extra strategies in the board's toolkit. Because it happens often enough (and with different posters, so I'm not being specific) that other strategies would be worthwhile. So I'll put the question to you. Do you know of any other ways to prevent these forest fires?
Posted by wildcard on January 9, 2006, at 10:01:26
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 9:57:11
That wording describes the situation perfect! Great analogy...
Posted by muffled on January 9, 2006, at 23:06:19
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 9:57:11
I'm not too clever, but could there be a civility rule about a poster who is being uncivil in that he/she's getting others all riled up?
Also a HUGE problem for me is the seemingly limited use of pbc's generally and a big reliance on outright blocks.
And they can arrive so shockingly, with no chnace to explain oneself, or to even realize your own self, that you need to back off and chill awhile. In the heat of the moment its too easy to just hit the post buttons without rereading your post. Wrong perhaps, but human.
I also have a HUGE problem with the seeming arbitrary LENGHTH of blocks. Blocks don't always seem to fit the crime.
I'm ALSO dismayed that so many of us in this community are expressing dismay at the lengh or existance of a particular persons block, BUT TO NO AVAIL?!!? We don't own the website , but are WE not the community? Dr. Bob is just an overseer to keep things running I thot. Do we have no say?
I'm a little dissappointed really about that last thing.
I am very impressed however with how well people have dealt with this thing.
Babblers are great people. Just wish it weren't so harsh here.
Dunno if I made sense.
Muffled
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:01
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 9:57:11
> There have been times when various posters, myself included, have expressed the concern that Babble might not be healthy for them at a given point of time. In my case, I brought it to my therapist and he did indeed at least once put me on Babble restriction.
>
> I suppose it's impossible to come up with a way to ensure that posters in that situation are asked to clear Babbling with a mental health provider? Sort of like what happens with sports?I think it's great if a poster and their therapist can work together like that. I suppose it might be possible to make it required, but it could be a can of worms, too. With sports, doesn't everyone have to be cleared?
> > Sure, I'd be happy to ask, but an expert on what topic?
>
> I'm asking for suggestions for extra strategies in the board's toolkit. Because it happens often enough (and with different posters, so I'm not being specific) that other strategies would be worthwhile.To resolve conflict in online groups? I could ask Kali Munro again. Or John Grohol? I think he has a different toolkit...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:09
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by muffled on January 9, 2006, at 23:06:19
> I'm ALSO dismayed that so many of us in this community are expressing dismay at the lengh or existance of a particular persons block, BUT TO NO AVAIL?!!? We don't own the website , but are WE not the community?
I see it as a kind of hybrid community right now. I'd like to try making it more democratic, but change is slow. But it turns out there is one way right now that posters can have more of a say:
Would anyone like to volunteer to join the current deputy administrators? Maybe this isn't a good time to ask. Or maybe it is... Anyway, feel free to reply here or by email.
Speaking of more democratic, I'm thinking about having an election this time. But how exactly to do it would still need to be worked out.
Bob
Posted by crazy teresa on January 10, 2006, at 7:19:49
In reply to Re: are WE not the community?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:09
Posted by wildcard on January 10, 2006, at 8:42:06
In reply to Re: are WE not the community?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:09
Change is slow but you have to start somewhere right? I think the community has cast a vote and as a start this block for 6 weeks (Dr.Bob, that's really extreme~did you read the entire thread?)could and IMO should be lessened/dropped b/c this block has hurt more than it has helped in any way. By Lar saying "make me sick" he stated right after that he was not well and even after speaking w/ him and several others, he meant physically although it could have been mistrewed. Physical as in symptoms that one may have when mentally/physically exhausted and under extreme stress. Once again, yes change is slow BUT gotta start somewhere and I feel that this would affect the community in a positive way if that start could be now. I think we have a petition so why wait?
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 9:35:34
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:01
Actually, I talked to my therapist about it, but I'm not sure how to word his response.
I might run that by you in email too.
But yeah, if you think Kali Munro would come by, that would be great. But it's a bit difficult civility-wise I grant you. People would have to be pretty careful.
Posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 10:47:35
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:01
> Or John Grohol? I think he has a different toolkit...
>
> BobNow that would be really interesting! I'd love to see it. Maybe it would help 'bury the hatchet' between the two communities as well as offering new ideas.
Posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:23:55
In reply to Re: John Grohol as guest expert, posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 10:47:35
> Re: John Grohol as guest expert
> Maybe it would help 'bury the hatchet' between the two communities […]Can you explain this a little? I know that Grohol, a psychologist, criticized several of Dr Bob's actions related to Babble. And I think that Bob left the ISMHO (which Bob co-founded) around that time — but I'm not sure of the connection.
Tabitha, I'd be grateful to understand a little more. What “two communities” do you mean? Thanks.
Posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:43:50
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by James K on January 8, 2006, at 18:10:21
James K had a good idea
> The repeated posting seemed uncivil to me, and I wonder if this could have been addressed off-site
What if deputy administrators could administer a back-channel (Babble-mail) warning and a private MINI-BLOCK for just a few hours, right when the situation was heating up?
The private warning could be, "This thread seems to be heating up. Perhaps everyone could benefit by taking a breather for a short time."
Also, the DA could privately block the two parties for, say, 8 hours, with no public humiliation.
If it were technically possible (I know Bob likes to write code <wink>), maybe that thread could also be frozen to everyone else for several hours, also?
But even if we just had mini-blocks as preventive measures, that would be something deputy administrators could easily do. The blocked people might resent it ("We didn't do anything wrong!"), but there'd be a lot less controversy than letting things escalate to where serious violations and blocks occur.
Just one more idea.
Posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 11:44:57
In reply to Grohol’s “hatchet”? » Tabitha, posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:23:55
I didn't mean to say any particular person was holding a 'hatchet'.
Dr. Grohol runs the PsychCentral boards, which cover some similar topics as Babble, but have some different admin policies and methods. There's been some discussion of the differences, which has at times felt like a bit of rivalry to me. But some folks are quite comfortable in both groups.
Posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:48:03
In reply to Re: “hatchet”? » pseudoname, posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 11:44:57
Posted by thuso on January 10, 2006, at 17:39:31
In reply to Oh. Thanks. (nm) » Tabitha, posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:48:03
Wow! It's been really hard keeping my mouth shut in all of this because I have very few nice things to say about the situation. Be that as it may, after reading some of the posts in Admin about the block and how "unfair" it is...I have an idea that I like.
Right now the blocking structure is very straight forward with not much flexibility. A lot of people seem to think that the 6 weeks was way too long for what Larry said. Has this site ever tried block lengths based on category of offenses? For example, not using and * would fall under Category A and being uncivil through a quote falls under Category B. Any offense that is listed under Category A would start off with a 1 week block (as usual), but if the poster later is uncivil with something in Category B they would again get a 1 week block because it is their first offense in a different category. The blocks would double (as usual) as a person continued to be uncivil within the same category. That way it allows someone to make a mistake without getting a huge block for doing something that isn't normally like them. It also allows you to have a category for more extreme offenses that can start with a 6 week block instead of a 1 week block.
I think a lot of incivility that happens on these boards can easily be categorized. This is also just another way to continue the idea of PBCs and blocks while allowing a poster room to make a mistake here and there.
After much google searching, I finally found a thread mentioning at least something similar. Phew! Unfortunately, it was never really discussed...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050116/msgs/445511.html
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 17:46:39
In reply to back-channel warnings and mini-blocks, posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 11:43:50
Dr. Bob has long been in favor of anything official also being public, and I have to say I agree.
Which doesn't mean that anyone, including fellow posters, can't babblemail or email a poster if they think they're coming close to the line and want to give a friendly heads up.
Posted by Phillipa on January 10, 2006, at 17:50:29
In reply to Re: “hatchet”? » pseudoname, posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 11:44:57
I've heard of psych central before. But I thought it was no longer operating as I goodled it and it said page unavailable. Just curious. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 18:04:07
In reply to Re: back-channel warnings and mini-blocks » pseudoname, posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 17:46:39
> Dr. Bob has long been in favor of anything official also being public
That certainly makes sense.
How about still having mini-blocks -- publicly-noted -- for a couple hours to let a situation cool down? There would have to be specific criteria...
Bob isn't online enough to monitor situations like escalating exchanges, but Deputies are likely to see them while they're not yet bigtime violations.
I think Deputies would be willing to mini-block someone for a few hours, especially if it could help keep the angry Babbler from saying something they'd have to be major-blocked for.
It could've avoided a lot of hard feelings in the recent situation.
Posted by Dinah on January 10, 2006, at 18:09:57
In reply to mini-blocks » Dinah, posted by pseudoname on January 10, 2006, at 18:04:07
Chuckle.
Well, *I* wouldn't mind. But I suspect those who were mini-blocked would mind quite a bit. :) I mean, if they've done something blockworthy, they'll be blocked. And if they haven't they're not likely to appreciate being mini-blocked.
I do try to give general warnings when I see things heating up. I'm not sure how much good they do.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 22:56:19
In reply to What about throwing around this idea?, posted by thuso on January 10, 2006, at 17:39:31
> Right now the blocking structure is very straight forward with not much flexibility.
Well, there's some flexibility. Enough for me to block some people for too long and others for not long enough...
> Has this site ever tried block lengths based on category of offenses?
There already are two categories of a sort: general and uncivil toward a particular individual or group:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> I think a lot of incivility that happens on these boards can easily be categorized.
Would someone like to propose a system?
Bob
Posted by Tabitha on January 11, 2006, at 0:53:35
In reply to Re: “hatchet”? » Tabitha, posted by Phillipa on January 10, 2006, at 17:50:29
It's still there. I get there by googling Grohol then clicking the online forum link.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 2:00:13
In reply to Re: John Grohol as guest expert, posted by Tabitha on January 10, 2006, at 10:47:35
> > Or John Grohol? I think he has a different toolkit...
>
> Now that would be really interesting! I'd love to see it.So that's one vote for Kali and one for John?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2006, at 9:19:42
In reply to Re: guest expert, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2006, at 2:00:13
I gotta admit that having Dr. Grohol would be interesting from an historical perspective, and it would be really cool of you.
But I think I understand his concepts relating to board administration and interaction, so I'm not sure it would be educational to *me*, though of course not everyone is familiar with him.
I think having Kali Munro again might be useful, but I'm wondering why you don't want to make alternate suggestions yourself?
Posted by pseudoname on January 12, 2006, at 10:07:17
In reply to Re: guest expert » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 12, 2006, at 9:19:42
> So that's one vote for Kali and one for John?
Could someone please explain (again) who Kali Munro is? I was probably on hiatus when she was last here.
I think the thread has explained who John Grohol is and how to find out more.
Thanks.
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2006, at 12:27:58
In reply to Who is Kali? » Dinah, posted by pseudoname on January 12, 2006, at 10:07:17
I'm not quite sure. :)
But she's been a guest expert on Admin before, so a Babble google search on her should come up with her previous posts.
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.