![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 185 to 209 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by thuso on February 6, 2006, at 17:45:30
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on February 6, 2006, at 10:59:08
> Here are some specifics. I think we could accommodate 2 additional deputies now. Let say the deadline for volunteering is in 2 weeks = through Feb. 20.
>
> I'm trying to establish some specific requirements. Currently, my idea is that candidates need to have been registered for 1 year, to have posted 300 times, and not to have been blocked for longer than 4 weeks at one time or within the last 3 months.
>
> Volunteers should *not* assume that satisfying the above requirements means they'd automatically be selected. There may not be an "election", but there probably will be at least some sort of opportunity at some point for posters to provide feedback. I think that could be done here or privately, and any feedback that's posted will need to be civil, but still there's clearly the potential for dynamics involving acceptance, rejection, competition, envy, etc.
>
> Any questions? Thanks for working together to keep this community going,
>
> BobI really like the idea of people being allowed to give feedback on the candidates. I personally think it should only be done privately to you and the deputies though. I know I find it hard to be really truthful about someone when I know they're reading what I'm writing about them. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings if I had some negative or contructive things to say about them as a deputy...especially if I really like them as a poster.
I vote for what you are proposing, but to keep it private between you and the current deputies. You should set up an email specifically for comments that automatically gets forwarded to you and each of the deputies. I'd feel most comfortable with that.
One question though...how is a person supposed to know if they have the required amount of posts? Since we can't see a post count, there is no way for someone to know. And I don't know if a certain post count should be a criteria. It's not hard to do a ton of posts without being helpful to the community. All it takes is 300 :-) posts and a person can apply. Technically, I don't even have to ever say a word to reach 300 posts. Not that I think that will be the case with any candidates, but it's just to show that post count doesn't really imply anything. I like the year requirement and previous blocks requirement though. I'm really interested to see how this all turns out.
(I haven't been here a year yet, so none of this applies to me anyways...just curious)
Posted by 10derHeart on February 6, 2006, at 18:09:24
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on February 6, 2006, at 17:45:30
You can get a post count, of sorts.Go to the bottom of the page. Type in "poster:thuso" in the search box.
Google will give you a count on the results page, BUT...
If you type in the same thing, but include a space after the colon, you'll get a much lower count. Mine, e.g., is 1060 vs. 491.....not sure if the first is picking up ALL posts w/my username (i.e., replies, also) and the second only ones on threads I've started. Frankly, I'm too lazy at the moment to analyze the results. lol (lazy out loud!)
Deneb (I think?) asked about this discrepancy some months back. I just can't recall what Dr. Bob's answer was....anyone??
I'm sure others - and DB obviously - will know.
Also, perhaps Dr. Bob isn't thinking of number of posts being equated with being more or less helpful to the community. Perhaps he just chose a minimum number of times posting at which a poster would at least be familiar with both the mechanics of posting, and at least be minimally known to/by the community? Of course, I'm speculating. But I'm guessing it's something quite general and basic.
I also totally agree any input should be private, and I like your suggested method. The potential for hurt and misunderstanding by doing this on the board, no matter how civil, polite, careful and constructive seems to outweigh the benefits, IMO. Sounds like an interesting idea for an admin discussion, though :-)
Posted by thuso on February 6, 2006, at 19:15:46
In reply to Re: counting your posts, and my 2cents » thuso, posted by 10derHeart on February 6, 2006, at 18:09:24
> If you type in the same thing, but include a space after the colon, you'll get a much lower count. Mine, e.g., is 1060 vs. 491.....not sure if the first is picking up ALL posts w/my username (i.e., replies, also) and the second only ones on threads I've started. Frankly, I'm too lazy at the moment to analyze the results. lol (lazy out loud!)
>
> Deneb (I think?) asked about this discrepancy some months back. I just can't recall what Dr. Bob's answer was....anyone??
>
> I'm sure others - and DB obviously - will know.
>That's interesting. I get three completely different numbers doing it the three possible ways. It's interesting to see how spread apart the numbers are. Too much work for me! :-P
> Also, perhaps Dr. Bob isn't thinking of number of posts being equated with being more or less helpful to the community. Perhaps he just chose a minimum number of times posting at which a poster would at least be familiar with both the mechanics of posting, and at least be minimally known to/by the community? Of course, I'm speculating. But I'm guessing it's something quite general and basic.
>Well, I'm the kind of person who would rather have someone with fewer posts (but each of those posts is very impactful) as a deputy than someone who just has a bunch of posts and is known by the community. The first person would strike me as someone who gave deep thought to each post. I'm just a person who prefers quality over quantity in someone who has some sort of authority over me. Personal preference I guess. And I would think the feedback Dr. B is looking for about the candidates would bring to light if they would make a good deputy. I'd hate to see someone who has 275 posts, not be able to submit their name even though they would make an amazing deputy. That's why I'm all for the minimum membership time and ceiling on current/previous blocks. I would hope our comments along with Dr. B's and the deputies’ experience with that poster would be more insightful than post count. It will be interesting to see what the final criteria are.
> I also totally agree any input should be private, and I like your suggested method. The potential for hurt and misunderstanding by doing this on the board, no matter how civil, polite, careful and constructive seems to outweigh the benefits, IMO. Sounds like an interesting idea for an admin discussion, though :-)
>I think that would be great just in general. Until Dr. B gets the "report this post" link up and running, it would be nice to have 1 email address/babblemail that you can send questionable posts to that will go to all the deputies and Dr. B. That way they all know about it and whoever happens to be near their email can just hop on here and deal with a situation. A girl can dream.....
hahaha!
Posted by teejay on February 6, 2006, at 19:27:45
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Larry Hoover on February 6, 2006, at 12:04:20
I'd nominate you for the job Lar, but you spend so much time AWOL that Dr Bob might end up banning you for dereliction of duty ;-))))
Nice to see you back.
TJ
Posted by ClearSkies on February 6, 2006, at 22:24:22
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on February 6, 2006, at 10:59:08
I agree that the entire process - from proposal to selection and training of - should be kept off the boards in order to minimize the pressure the boards would feel at nominating one person over another. Keep it all quiet until they are ready to roll.
CS
Posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 8:19:57
In reply to Re: Thank you, Dr. Bob. » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on February 4, 2006, at 22:25:53
Posted by Tamar on February 8, 2006, at 19:19:44
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
I'm very happy about this decision.
Tamar
Posted by Tamar on February 8, 2006, at 19:22:42
In reply to Re: counting your posts, and my 2cents » thuso, posted by 10derHeart on February 6, 2006, at 18:09:24
Can I nominate you???
Tamar
Posted by Damos on February 8, 2006, at 20:12:05
In reply to 10der for deputy!, posted by Tamar on February 8, 2006, at 19:22:42
You're psychic Tamar. I was thinking exactly the same. 10der would be a totally awesome deputy. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen her helping a babbler pull themselves back from the brink of a 'formal' intervention. So I guess that's a wholehearted seconding of your motion.
Hope you're doing okay sweet Tamar, if there's anything I can do just you let me know okay. Your always in my thoughts.
(((((Tamar)))))
Posted by 10derHeart on February 9, 2006, at 12:50:27
In reply to 10der for deputy!, posted by Tamar on February 8, 2006, at 19:22:42
Uhhhhhhhhhhh..............
I guess you can nominate anyone you want.
But, uh...............
Errr...................
I dunno. You are the third person to suggest this.
I didn't expect that. Therefore, my reaction of:
uhhh...........???????
I can only promise to think about it.
And you? Why not?
Yes. I nominate YOU!!
Posted by 10derHeart on February 9, 2006, at 12:51:15
In reply to Re: 10der for deputy! » Tamar, posted by Damos on February 8, 2006, at 20:12:05
Posted by Damos on February 9, 2006, at 16:19:34
In reply to you are way too kind (nm) » Damos, posted by 10derHeart on February 9, 2006, at 12:51:15
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2006, at 9:35:01
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on February 6, 2006, at 10:59:08
> I think we could accommodate 2 additional deputies now. Let say the deadline for volunteering is in 2 weeks = through Feb. 20.
I'm delighted to report that we have 3 volunteers: ClearSkies, Racer, and 10derHeart. Thanks for stepping forward! FYI, next is an orientation, and then there are practice scenarios and a final exam...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on March 28, 2006, at 14:22:54
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2006, at 9:35:01
Posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 23:47:55
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2006, at 9:35:01
> > I think we could accommodate 2 additional deputies now. Let say the deadline for volunteering is in 2 weeks = through Feb. 20.
>
> I'm delighted to report that we have 3 volunteers: ClearSkies, Racer, and 10derHeart. Thanks for stepping forward! FYI, next is an orientation, and then there are practice scenarios and a final exam...Er... And then two will be selected?
If so... Then don't you think it would have been nicer to have just let us know after the decision had been made?
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 29, 2006, at 0:07:21
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators » Dr. Bob, posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 23:47:55
> Er... And then two will be selected?
That's the plan...
> If so... Then don't you think it would have been nicer to have just let us know after the decision had been made?
I know what you mean, but this way, others can have input into the decision.
Bob
Posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 0:11:34
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on March 29, 2006, at 0:07:21
Posted by ClearSkies on March 29, 2006, at 7:52:22
In reply to ok but i hope you told them that and they agreed.. (nm), posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 0:11:34
Hmm.
I hadn't realised that there was competition until I saw Dr Bob's post here. I figure that if 3 people are being put on a test run, then there would be 3 open positions being considered. Ah well.Why wouldn't we find a 3rd deputy to be beneficial? I'd think that the more deputies we have, the better the boards would be. And the deputies would have an easier time with sharing the monitoring of the boards.
Just my thoughts.
ClearSkies
Posted by justyourlaugh on March 29, 2006, at 9:29:01
In reply to Re: ok but i hope you told them that and they agreed.., posted by ClearSkies on March 29, 2006, at 7:52:22
wow.. a popularity contest?
Posted by LegWarmers on March 29, 2006, at 11:16:14
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2006, at 9:35:01
> > I think we could accommodate 2 additional deputies now. Let say the deadline for volunteering is in 2 weeks = through Feb. 20.
>
> I'm delighted to report that we have 3 volunteers: ClearSkies, Racer, and 10derHeart. Thanks for stepping forward! FYI, next is an orientation, and then there are practice scenarios and a final exam...
>
> BobWhy were we told of this? Wy not just announce the decision once made with including who might not pass the tests?
Posted by 10derHeart on March 29, 2006, at 14:48:32
In reply to Re: ok but i hope you told them that and they agreed.., posted by ClearSkies on March 29, 2006, at 7:52:22
I hadn't realized that either. ALthough, to be fair, Bob's Feb 6 post did say 2 more specifically, so I suppose I should have put that together with unlimited numbers of possible volunteers and volia! - a competition, of sorts. Oh, well, sometimes I miss the obvious.
I haven't quite decided how I feel about it yet, so I won't say too much more here and now. Not to imply I'm terribly upset or anything, just a tad puzzled and....would 'caught up short by the delivery method' describe it?
I, too, was wondering how it's decided...the need for 2 more vs. 3, or 1, or 4...or whatever. Since it's a voluntary thing, and not required to be performed 24/7 (deputy duties, I mean), seems a few more might be better - less pressure and guilt for not pulling one's weight when one isn't emotionally up to it for a while, or terribly busy IRL - stuff like that?
Just things I've wondered.
Posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 18:01:15
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators » Dr. Bob, posted by LegWarmers on March 29, 2006, at 11:16:14
>Wy not just announce the decision once made with including who might not pass the tests?
He said:
> I know what you mean, but this way, others can have input into the decision.
Posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 18:08:33
In reply to Re: ok but i hope you told them that and they agre » ClearSkies, posted by 10derHeart on March 29, 2006, at 14:48:32
> I hadn't realised that there was competition until I saw Dr Bob's post here. I figure that if 3 people are being put on a test run, then there would be 3 open positions being considered...
> I hadn't realized that either...
Now why doesn't this surprise me?
Jeepers Bob you could have at least *informed* them that this was how it was going to go (that there had been three volounteers and so you wanted to post that to the boards so as to get feedback and that you were planning on only taking two on) BEFORE posting it to the boards like that.
Remember how I say 'be careful with people's feelings' sometimes? Well this is precisely the kind of thing I meant.
Posted by Phillipa on March 29, 2006, at 18:43:09
In reply to IMO... Badly done Dr Bob, badly done indeed :-(, posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 18:08:33
I have a suggestion. A Deputy doesn't get paid right? They volunteer right? Well why not have a deputy on one or two of their spcialities or intersts or where they post the most. that would mean that they would know the people better and be able to judge if someone were being uncivil or not? Just a thought. Love Phillipa
Posted by Deneb on March 29, 2006, at 19:05:55
In reply to IMO... Badly done Dr Bob, badly done indeed :-(, posted by special_k on March 29, 2006, at 18:08:33
> Remember how I say 'be careful with people's feelings' sometimes? Well this is precisely the kind of thing I meant.
Maybe Dr. Bob has some trouble reading situations and figuring out people's feelings. I have some trouble with that too. It's okay, Dr. Bob, I like you just the way you are, flaws and all.
Deneb
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.