![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 7:53:04
In reply to Re: Flip-Flopper! - Oops. Damned URLs., posted by SLS on March 11, 2008, at 5:41:41
Awwww, that's so sweet, Scott. I really do appreciate it. It was a hard thing to do, to admit after all this that we worked it out.
Posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 8:40:40
In reply to Our situation here....., posted by twinleaf on March 10, 2008, at 22:20:54
I don't know that it will help, since it's Dr. Bob people want. But he's given his permission to explain what happened.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080221/msgs/815885.html
Dr. Bob wants to encourage posters to take more responsibility for the administration of Babble, and to encourage them to use the notify Administration button.
I don't think anyone has any problems with that, since neither Dr. Bob nor deputies read every post, and this would provide for more uniform administrating as well as a safer and more civil environment. As well as giving nondeputy posters a greater feel of ownership and responsibility with regard to Babble.
I do have some issues with implementation, and the possible repercussions. But ordinarily I'd be willing to try to influence those while still being a deputy.
What I wasn't ok with, at least in part for issues that I own as my mine, is that in order to encourage more posters to report and to give them time to do this, Dr. Bob wanted us not act on reports from deputies until a non-deputy poster had reported something. With the possible exception of incivility directed at ourselves. And he said that if I quit, I'd still be considered a deputy in this respect.
When it didn't seem a negotiable point, I felt I needed to protect myself, because of my own issues, by leaving. It was not in an attempt to influence Dr. Bob's plans. I'd already tried and failed to do that.
But Dr. Bob was more willing to be flexible than I had believed, and he was able to give me assurances that allowed me to stay without feeling unsafe.
I tried to make it clear during all of this that many posters would actually like Dr. Bob's stance. And at least that there would be both positives and negatives involved. And that the reason I couldn't stay had more to do with my experiences and history than it did per se with the policy. Since whatever I thought of the policy, I'd have greater chances to influence it if I stayed.
I realize everyone would have preferred to hear it from Dr. Bob. I'd prefer that he explained himself since I'm sure I may have missed something important, or allowed my own beliefs to color the impression I'm giving. But my understanding is that he'll be here as soon as he's available.
There have been in the past, and hopefully won't be very often in the future, times when he just isn't available. I guess that's why the deputies now play more of a role than they did when first conceived, and when I first agreed to do it.
Posted by Kath on March 11, 2008, at 9:41:58
In reply to Dr. Bob and I discussed this tonight, posted by Dinah on March 10, 2008, at 21:19:45
HUNEE - I hereby decree that you are NOT allowed to beat yourself up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Repeat - Not Allowed.
Guess what............I think that this has all happened for a reason. Now, I am not sure what the reason IS. LOL But I still think it happened for a reason.
There are various things that have happened:
- People have had a chance to say what they think & how they feel about something that existed. (the situation that caused you to feel unsafe in the first place). To my knowledge, everybody who spoke got a chance to speak out & be 'heard' & nobody got silenced. This is a positive thing.
- You have had a chance to take a stand that was very difficult for you to take, since, for one thing - as you said, you hate change.
- Dr. Bob was able to see how upset people were (even if he skimmed only, that was VERY apparent) & perhaps as a result of seeing that, he was in a place to allow the 'working out' of things that happened for you!
Who knows, Dinah, if all this hadn't happened, whether he would have been willing to work it out?- Dr. Bob was given a chance to realize (hopefully) that it's the people who post here who make up this whole place. Let's face it, without US there'd be NO PsychoBabble at ALL. Zip.
I think this whole 'situation' is a gift to Dr. Bob, if he chooses to use it. I think that he has come very close to loosing MANY, MANY wonderful members, who add to the amazing support that happens here. I also think that the way things were going, things could have ended up in a way that could have professionally reflected badly on Dr. Bob.So, Dinah, please try not to feel badly.
All you need to do, in my opinion, is take some deep breaths, know that you didn't do ANYthing wrong, know that SO many people around the world love & care about you & want you to be a part of their lives.
Please repeat after me: "I didn't do anything wrong!!"
If you're in touch with your 'little girl', & it feels safe, please let me hold her hand & tell both of you this:
You are wonderful. :-) I am so proud of you for stepping forward & speaking up to take care of yourselves! You guys ROCK!!! :-)
much love, Kath
Posted by Toph on March 11, 2008, at 9:50:18
In reply to In a nutshell, posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 8:40:40
I will reread your post when I get home from work when it is safe to study it. It appears that you were forced to make your announcement when you could no longer work with Bob surrounding your objection.
What remains is that since March 3 countless posts have be submitted upset with the administrator's hands-off approach to this event. Several people made personal appeals to him as instructed in FAQs imploring him to make some kind of response. Somewhere I heard that he is busy. Yet he had time to discuss this with you and has ignored all those pleas and left you to speak for him. This is utterly unacceptable, irresponsible and patronizing to posters so invested in his website. He obviously dosn't give a sh*t how I feel about this.
Toph
Posted by Kath on March 11, 2008, at 9:53:35
In reply to And the funny thing is..., posted by muffled on March 10, 2008, at 22:28:49
> if Bob ever showed some real humaness and vulnerability we'd proly forgive him in a heartbeat.
> We a soft hearted lot here.
> We just don't like getting hurt.
********** ya just might!! ***********
Posted by muffled on March 11, 2008, at 9:54:41
In reply to In a nutshell, posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 8:40:40
> I don't know that it will help, since it's Dr. Bob people want. But he's given his permission to explain what happened.
*LOL, Bob I do NOT want.....(sorry Bob)
> Dr. Bob wants to encourage posters to take more responsibility for the administration of Babble, and to encourage them to use the notify Administration button.
*I am OK with that.
> I don't think anyone has any problems with that, since neither Dr. Bob nor deputies read every post, and this would provide for more uniform administrating as well as a safer and more civil environment. As well as giving nondeputy posters a greater feel of ownership and responsibility with regard to Babble.*hmmmm, good point, but I can see it initially being a challenge.....y'know, the rat thing and all, and then posters feeling ganged up on etc
> I do have some issues with implementation, and the possible repercussions. But ordinarily I'd be willing to try to influence those while still being a deputy.*your a thinker dinah, Bob is lucky and so is babble, to have you aboard.
> What I wasn't ok with, at least in part for issues that I own as my mine, is that in order to encourage more posters to report and to give them time to do this, Dr. Bob wanted us not act on reports from deputies until a non-deputy poster had reported something. With the possible exception of incivility directed at ourselves. And he said that if I quit, I'd still be considered a deputy in this respect.*OK so now WHO is being manipulative???I say BOB......
Now that would SERIOUSLY piss me off if he said that to me. ESP saying that to you dinah who has been faithful. Methinks Bob has an apology to make, but that twixt you two.
So.....I can see this change being a challenge......> When it didn't seem a negotiable point, I felt I needed to protect myself, because of my own issues, by leaving. It was not in an attempt to influence Dr. Bob's plans. I'd already tried and failed to do that.
*(((Dinah)))You must have the patience of a saint.
> But Dr. Bob was more willing to be flexible than I had believed, and he was able to give me assurances that allowed me to stay without feeling unsafe.*Dr, Bob was flexible??????? Wow. (though KK would know all about Bob being *flexible*!!!)
> I tried to make it clear during all of this that many posters would actually like Dr. Bob's stance. And at least that there would be both positives and negatives involved. And that the reason I couldn't stay had more to do with my experiences and history than it did per se with the policy. Since whatever I thought of the policy, I'd have greater chances to influence it if I stayed.
>
> I realize everyone would have preferred to hear it from Dr. Bob. I'd prefer that he explained himself since I'm sure I may have missed something important, or allowed my own beliefs to color the impression I'm giving. But my understanding is that he'll be here as soon as he's available.*Well, I dunno if I care who it comes from, and to be honest I bet it comes 100% better from you than from Bob.
What I am completely unimpressed with is that Bob lets this sort of thing go on so long. THATS when I start to think 'lab rat'.
I think the less Bob is around, the calmer it is. I think Bob either needs to be here, or NOT. But not this disrupting in and out w/out a word business...> There have been in the past, and hopefully won't be very often in the future, times when he just isn't available. I guess that's why the deputies now play more of a role than they did when first conceived, and when I first agreed to do it.
*Hmmmm, you guys did kinda get sucked in, and maybe this administrative change is supposed to or even will eventually help with this.
I just sorta think if Bob is going to take a backseat then he needs to take a BACKSEAT. Not have his picture here, and everything be DR BOB, cuz its NOT. Then it might be calmer.
Thats my opinion.
I have more thots, but goto go.
Posted by Kath on March 11, 2008, at 9:57:30
In reply to Flip-Flopper! » Dinah, posted by SLS on March 11, 2008, at 5:30:46
It worked when i clicked on the first post & Oh My Gawd - You Are So Sweet - but hey, I knew that, didn't I!!
luv & hugs, Kath
Posted by I need a hug on March 11, 2008, at 10:03:49
In reply to In a nutshell, posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 8:40:40
Dinah,
You're great!!!! Have you ever thought about starting your own site? It's O.K. You can block me for that comment if you want. LOL I'm so relieved we didn't lose you. You are like the one t.v. commercial says, "Priceless." HUGS
Posted by Kath on March 11, 2008, at 10:07:50
In reply to In a nutshell, posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 8:40:40
Thanks Dinah,
I'm glad you were given the OK to go ahead & explain.
I suspect that a lot of people ARE waiting for him to say SOMEthing about all this.
I think it's good that now at least we KNOW what the issue was. I think that's important & thx for giving us the 'nutshell'.
My hope is this:
- when he gets a chance to give full focus to the posts about this situation, he will realize how much chaos has been caused by him NOT responding to our concerns in a timely manner.
My 2nd hope is this:
- having (hopefully) realized the above, he will ensure that this doesn't happen again.
:-) Kath
Posted by twinleaf on March 11, 2008, at 10:38:28
In reply to Dr. Bob and I discussed this tonight, posted by Dinah on March 10, 2008, at 21:19:45
For me, the fact that Dinah was able to work out her own personal concerns in regard to procedural changes (apparently by means of e-mails or a phone call) doesn't change the basic facts. They are:
1. I supported Dinah as much as possible, saying how extremely important she was to Babble, and how upset I was that rules were taking precedence over her presence here. I was upset even more when I did not receive any personal acknowledgement from Dinah for what I had done in her brief, laconic message to me.
2. Dinah and Bob have ways of communicating which are not available to the rest of us. There is apparently no communication channel for us, despite our sincere and respectful efforts to open one, and our clear need to have had one during the past week.3. We hear about proposed changes in procedures and rules , not because they are being offered for our consideration, but because a particular deputy finds them unacceptable. No organization would survive very long using indirect tactics like this. They are extremely insulting to the rest of us.
For me, participating here is not exactly a matter of remaining safe. It is more a matter of feeling respected and valued as one among many people who share the joys, sorrows, victories and setbacks of their personal journeys. I feel so let down to discover how cold, heartless and impersonal this site actually is. Even if I wanted to share something of my own life and experience in the future, I couldn't do it. That requires a kind of trust which I can never feel again here.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 11, 2008, at 10:58:00
In reply to Loss of trust, posted by twinleaf on March 11, 2008, at 10:38:28
> For me, the fact that Dinah was able to work out her own personal concerns in regard to procedural changes (apparently by means of e-mails or a phone call) doesn't change the basic facts. They are:
>
> 1. I supported Dinah as much as possible, saying how extremely important she was to Babble, and how upset I was that rules were taking precedence over her presence here. I was upset even more when I did not receive any personal acknowledgement from Dinah for what I had done in her brief, laconic message to me.
> 2. Dinah and Bob have ways of communicating which are not available to the rest of us. There is apparently no communication channel for us, despite our sincere and respectful efforts to open one, and our clear need to have had one during the past week.
>
> 3. We hear about proposed changes in procedures and rules , not because they are being offered for our consideration, but because a particular deputy finds them unacceptable. No organization would survive very long using indirect tactics like this. They are extremely insulting to the rest of us.
>
> For me, participating here is not exactly a matter of remaining safe. It is more a matter of feeling respected and valued as one among many people who share the joys, sorrows, victories and setbacks of their personal journeys. I feel so let down to discover how cold, heartless and impersonal this site actually is. Even if I wanted to share something of my own life and experience in the future, I couldn't do it. That requires a kind of trust which I can never feel again here.twinleaf,
You wrote,[...doesn't change...laconic message...no communication channel...not..offered for our consideration...indirect tactics...extremly insulting to..us...a matter of feeling respected and valued...feel so let down...heartless...a trust which I could never feel again here...]
There is a science of seeing the words of someone and being able to paint an overall profile of the psychological/emotional state that was induced into a person as a result of that person's perception from what the person wrote of. I am not an expert at that, but in some cases, would one have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?
Lou
Posted by MidnightBlue on March 11, 2008, at 11:07:48
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob and I discussed this tonight » MidnightBlue, posted by Dinah on March 10, 2008, at 22:08:53
<smile>
MB
Posted by MidnightBlue on March 11, 2008, at 11:24:33
In reply to In a nutshell, posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 8:40:40
>
> Dr. Bob wants to encourage posters to take more responsibility for the administration of Babble, and to encourage them to use the notify Administration button.
>But as I understand the rules, there is a penalty if someone reports more than three posts as uncivil if they are found to be civil. And not fully understanding the mind of Dr. Bob, I choose to err on the side of underreporting.
MB
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 11, 2008, at 11:36:01
In reply to Lou's reply to twinleaf's post-sbtraninhomskbluz » twinleaf, posted by Lou Pilder on March 11, 2008, at 10:58:00
> > For me, the fact that Dinah was able to work out her own personal concerns in regard to procedural changes (apparently by means of e-mails or a phone call) doesn't change the basic facts. They are:
> >
> > 1. I supported Dinah as much as possible, saying how extremely important she was to Babble, and how upset I was that rules were taking precedence over her presence here. I was upset even more when I did not receive any personal acknowledgement from Dinah for what I had done in her brief, laconic message to me.
> > 2. Dinah and Bob have ways of communicating which are not available to the rest of us. There is apparently no communication channel for us, despite our sincere and respectful efforts to open one, and our clear need to have had one during the past week.
> >
> > 3. We hear about proposed changes in procedures and rules , not because they are being offered for our consideration, but because a particular deputy finds them unacceptable. No organization would survive very long using indirect tactics like this. They are extremely insulting to the rest of us.
> >
> > For me, participating here is not exactly a matter of remaining safe. It is more a matter of feeling respected and valued as one among many people who share the joys, sorrows, victories and setbacks of their personal journeys. I feel so let down to discover how cold, heartless and impersonal this site actually is. Even if I wanted to share something of my own life and experience in the future, I couldn't do it. That requires a kind of trust which I can never feel again here.
>
> twinleaf,
> You wrote,[...doesn't change...laconic message...no communication channel...not..offered for our consideration...indirect tactics...extremly insulting to..us...a matter of feeling respected and valued...feel so let down...heartless...a trust which I could never feel again here...]
> There is a science of seeing the words of someone and being able to paint an overall profile of the psychological/emotional state that was induced into a person as a result of that person's perception from what the person wrote of. I am not an expert at that, but in some cases, would one have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?
> Loutwinleaf,
In reading your post here, I think that you are concerned about the aspect of the administration here in relation to the mental-health of its members.
I think that what you posted here leads me to believe that you and I may think the same on that here and I think your post could be one of the top ten posts to be inducted if there is ever a {Hall of Fame} of posts.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 11:41:21
In reply to Loss of trust, posted by twinleaf on March 11, 2008, at 10:38:28
I'm sorry my message to you was brief, and not understandable enough. I'm also very sorry if I didn't express how much I appreciated what you did and said. I very much did appreciate it. And I tried to express it, to you and to all of those who were supportive, but clearly I fell flat.
I was distressed and overwhelmed, and definitely not at my best.
Yes, there are channels for Dr. Bob to speak to deputies. It would be pretty hard to deputize if there weren't.
Moreover, he wasn't able to get to my many emails for days either. And when he did get to me, I told him I'd feel very guilty if he addressed his time to me whether than to the board, and suggested that he go here first. Perhaps he felt that he couldn't adequately address the board until he addressed the initial cause of the disturbance? I don't know, I'm just guessing.
Posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 11:47:42
In reply to Re: Loss of trust » twinleaf, posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 11:41:21
And Kath is right, Scott. You really are sweet.
I'm sorry not to respond to all of you individually, but I *really* have to get to work. I've been trying to buckle down, and have some deadlines that I must meet.
I really do appreciate all the many kindnesses, and I regret if I don't make that known enough. Perhaps I still haven't worked out my discomfort with praise.
And I'm sure Dr. Bob will be pleased with the positive reaction to his idea.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 11, 2008, at 11:48:36
In reply to Re: In a nutshell, posted by MidnightBlue on March 11, 2008, at 11:24:33
> >
> > Dr. Bob wants to encourage posters to take more responsibility for the administration of Babble, and to encourage them to use the notify Administration button.
> >
>
> But as I understand the rules, there is a penalty if someone reports more than three posts as uncivil if they are found to be civil. And not fully understanding the mind of Dr. Bob, I choose to err on the side of underreporting.
>
> MBMB,
You wrote above about a rule here in regards to using the notification feature.
I ask:
In your opinion does the rule go back retroactivly to the conception of the forum? If you know of a way that one can know how many posts of a particular person you may have used the notification feature for could you post that here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on March 11, 2008, at 11:53:40
In reply to Re: In a nutshell, posted by MidnightBlue on March 11, 2008, at 11:24:33
> But as I understand the rules, there is a penalty if someone reports more than three posts as uncivil if they are found to be civil. And not fully understanding the mind of Dr. Bob, I choose to err on the side of underreporting.
>
> MBIronically, that penalty was essentially that any further such notifications would be ignored, not acted upon or answered. I don't know (or remember?) who was keeping track and how it was tracked. And of course this may have changed since I was a deputy. But ignored...apparently that's a "penalty" used more than I realized. :(
gg
Posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 12:05:57
In reply to thank you dinah, posted by muffled on March 11, 2008, at 9:54:41
> *Hmmmm, you guys did kinda get sucked in, and maybe this administrative change is supposed to or even will eventually help with this.
I think that the deputies became deputies and tolerate the stress involved because we feel passionately about civility. I don't want to speak for anyone else of course, but that's my sense. I can't see that the benefit would necessarily be to deputies.
I have reservations about it on a lot of counts.
I worry that notifications may not be made on incivility towards posters that people are annoyed with or even justifiably angry with. I worry that well liked posters won't often be reported while posters who are less popular might be reported quite frequently.
I worry that the civility standards of the site will become quite a bit more lax. I know a lot of posters will like that part.
I worry that posters who are pbc'd or blocked will realize that it's because someone turned them in, and all the anger now reserved for admin will be turned instead to fellow posters. I worry that this won't lead to a more supportive site. Dr. Bob's original article on the best of both worlds kind of discussed this, and I think he was right at that time.
It's not that I don't have as much faith in Babblers as Dr. Bob evidently does. I just see areas for concern.
Posted by muffled on March 11, 2008, at 13:40:07
In reply to Re: thank you dinah » muffled, posted by Dinah on March 11, 2008, at 12:05:57
sigh...
i am so ingnorant of so much stuff, politcal stuff. I just stay away from it. I don't understand people so many times. I was of the thot that there are some posts that break the rules in a very obvious manner, and if it was reported, then the deps could act.
But now I see....that this new rule was ALREADY implemented? Is that why the time I tried to get blocked and I couldn't? I practically had to beg for a PBC? If so, then that was rude on Bobs part cuz I'd never heard bout it and it caused alot of confusion.
I don't see what you admin people see going on re: reporting posts. I HATE to think anyone would report a post that was NOT offensive?????????? We are all babblers together, we need to stick together.
I am so naive I guess.
I ran into that the other day...a person who I liked and thot was so kind, I heard her talking mean and uncharitably bout another, and it was awful to hear. Cuz we all just people, we all just want to feel that we are OK, accepted, for who we are. And who we all are...are works in progress, ever improving our ways. We all in diff stages, and mebbe we can help each other on this crazy journey of life.
I guess I got blinders on.
But I like them.
Ya Dinah, I agree your not being able to easily let into yourself the many kind things said bout you(ALL of you). I am that way too. Mebbe you can just let a few in? One step at a time.
I also see you keep blaming yourself. You did NOTHING wrong. Can you hear this and be charitable towards yourownself?
Lifes challenging, we just goto keep on doing the best we can, and you DO do that dinah and I appreciate it.
Thanks again.
M
Posted by kid47 on March 11, 2008, at 13:53:25
In reply to Lou's reply to twinleaf's post-sbtraninhomskbluz » twinleaf, posted by Lou Pilder on March 11, 2008, at 10:58:00
>>I am not an expert at that, but in some cases, would one have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?<<
Great qoute Lou. Thanks!
Kid47
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 11, 2008, at 15:24:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to twinleaf's post-sbtraninhomskbl » Lou Pilder, posted by kid47 on March 11, 2008, at 13:53:25
> >>I am not an expert at that, but in some cases, would one have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?<<
>
> Great qoute Lou. Thanks!
>
> Kid47Kid47,
The pumps don't work because the vandles took the handles...
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on March 11, 2008, at 16:48:00
In reply to nuts » Dinah, posted by Toph on March 11, 2008, at 9:50:18
Toph, I have just finished reading your post and here is what came to mind....
shell game (plural shell games)
noun
Definition:
1. gambling game: a form of the game thimblerig in which spectators bet on the final location of an object hidden under one of three walnut shells or cups that have been shuffled2. fraudulent scheme: a scheme for defrauding or deceiving people.
Posted by Toph on March 11, 2008, at 18:18:16
In reply to Re: nuts » Toph, posted by fayeroe on March 11, 2008, at 16:48:00
Seriously Pat, I don't understand this whole thing at all. I mean, it's like since Dinah started this whole mess and now she's back telling us that she and Bob worked everything out we should just forget a week of multiple members of this community feeling betrayed by the administrator. Flowers and hugs for all. I can't believe that he can't say one f*ck*ng word about this whole mess. But then I have chronic mental illness so maybe its just me.
Posted by muffled on March 11, 2008, at 18:47:36
In reply to Re: nuts » fayeroe, posted by Toph on March 11, 2008, at 18:18:16
Dinah didn't start this. Bob did. This is ongoing.
Becuase perhaps in some part due to his blank affect and being in a position of power, he seems to have an effect on the site and its people. Bob does not seem to communicate well, that is why I am only too happy to see him take a backseat to the doings of this site. His lack of communication hase cause troubles B4, I tried then to no effect to get him to speak. I just don't think he has it in him. So I fear even if he does answer, it will not be enuf, cuz it never is.
It sucks all this, but maybe its all going to work out for the best.
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.