![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 173 to 197 of 308. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 15:17:47
In reply to Re: Ratings, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 15:02:51
I hope my invitation to this party gets lost in the mail.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 16:51:49
In reply to Re: Ratings » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 15:17:47
Would you prefer that?
I don't think I've ever seen you posting on Admin when you didn't also post supportively on other boards. You were the only one who answered me on Psychology recently and I thank you for it. You've often been very supportive to me, and I know you to be supportive to others.
I wouldn't think it would be a particularly onerous task to talk to other Babblers rather than just Bob?
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 16:57:35
In reply to Re: Ratings » Dinah, posted by Deneb on July 22, 2010, at 15:13:31
:)
It's funny. Whether people hate him or love him or anything in between, interacting with or talking about him seems to be quite appealing to many people. Even those who otherwise don't "Babble". For years even.
He certainly draws a lot of attention.
That kind of intensity on either side shows a fair amount of feeling. What is it they say about hate and love?
Odd really. I wonder if part of the issue is that he rarely brings an equal intensity to the table?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 18:12:06
In reply to Re: Point system » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 13:10:34
Friends,
I have been reading some of this with interest. You see, there are other ways to structure the administration of a community and I appreciate reading the posts here. In particular, but not limited to Denb's post for innitiaing this discussion.
You see, I have a great background in administration and have studied such in the graduste level and the post-graduate level. I also have a great knowledge of the history of adminstrative models from the ancient Greeks to the Obama administration.
Bur the overiding concern of mine here is to offer an administratin that could IMO have the potential to save lives which would take precedence to all other criteria.
Now could I do that here? I not only thinnk that I could, but I am also willing to accept any challenge to thta I could do it.
Here is how it could be done.
Let's suppose we have a hypothetical discussion between the hypothetical posters, Helen Weilz, Seymore Hienz and Ivan Skidyvan.
Ley's look into the discussion:
Helen Weilz:
You know Ivan, I have been thinking that you are (redacted) for sky diving.
Seymore Hienz:
Hey Helen, it's a cool thing.
Ivan Skidyvan:
Listen Helen, I do not appreciate your (redacted} and you can take a (redacted).
Helen Weilz:
(redacted)
Now here we have some breaches in the aspects of harmony. In my system, each poster would start off with 1500 points and deputies could deduct a determined amount of points from their rating. A word that could be liste din the dictionary ar usually vulger could have , let's say, 50 points deducted from their rating. A put down could be 200 points deducted amd so on. As to what happens to these posters astheiir rating goes down is axplaine dby me in the following links that I have posted here years ago.
Here are two links to one post in each thread and there are other posts by me concerningthis.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/894713.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/817785.html
Posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 18:48:28
In reply to Lou's response- hlnwez, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 18:12:06
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 19:05:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response- 'who will do the counting?' (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 18:48:28
fayeroe,
Good question. I think that people in the community that want to do so could spend an hour a day or so and keep soem type of system of record for a particula rposter regardless of the board that the post appears. This means that each ember has one other member assigned to look at all of the posts for that member. This could be rotated, lets say, weekly.
Now hypothetically some posters could need more than one other member assigned to evaluate their posts.
The deductions in my system could be seen after the poster's name in each post after each deduction. Wha do you think?
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 20:22:23
In reply to Lou's response- gudquez » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 19:05:32
Lou, what if one of the members wasn't honest because, 1. they were angry
2. they were hurt
3. they were lazy.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 21:06:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response- gudquez » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 20:22:23
> Lou, what if one of the members wasn't honest because, 1. they were angry
> 2. they were hurt
> 3. they were lazy.
>
> fayeroe,
Another good point. You see many years ago I also posted that rules are to be well-defined and equally applied.
So in my suggested community, the rules would be well-defined and applied equally so that the deductions of points from a person's rating could have a narrow degree of interpretation, being that the rule is well-defined.
There are 3 aspects to the people applying the deductions.
One is if they fail to apply the deduction
Another is if they apply the deduction without merit to the rule in question as in being malicious
and the other is the applying of the rule in error.
now there could be in place an oversight of any of those three cases by an {ombudsman}. The ombudsman could be someone that is not a member and could step in when one of the three cases happens. This person could be an interested researcher doing research on forums such as this or perhaps a university prof. in the field related to such.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 21:36:03
In reply to Lou's response- ombudzmun » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 21:06:33
Lou, I applaud your caring enough to work on something for Babble.
However, I do not think that anything will change here as long as there is a possibility of another speech, another book or another website for posts from here.
Texans could say "the members don't have a dog in this fight". And we don't. We're just train-wreck watchers.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2010, at 23:45:06
In reply to Re: sorry if my post » Dr. Bob, posted by nadezda on July 20, 2010, at 13:08:13
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 0:43:14
In reply to Re: Ratings » Justherself54, posted by Toph on July 22, 2010, at 9:28:12
> he doesn't give a crap about the opinions given.
>
> ron1953> Sometimes Bob acts like those insecure people who constantly test those who care about them - abusing, belittling, annoying them - just to have proof that they care by their hanging around.
>
> TophPlease don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're bad people, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain members of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
ron1953:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 95 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
block length = 1.13 rounded = 1 weekToph:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 75 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
block length = 1.23 rounded = 1 week
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 2:58:17
In reply to Re: Ratings, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 15:02:51
> Thank you doesn't work now?
>
> fayeroeI think thank-yous do work, and appreciate them myself. However, as Deneb said:
> > Sometimes the person asking the question doesn't have the time or energy to reply to every helpful post so maybe being able to pick a best answer would be an easier way for them to say, "thank you".
> > You can look at all the points you have and think, wow, I've helped a lot of people! Then you feel good about yourself.
It would be easier for others to see how helpful you've been, too.
--
> I was referring to a phenomenon where people who presumably have contempt for reality television vote for the singer they think the producers would least like to win. ... If enough people were upset with the point system here, they might vote for posts that they think you would find most unsupportive and withhold votes for post they actually viewed as supportive.
>
> I have to admit that I'd be curious about how people would vote posts on this topic. Regarding your suggestion of a point system, would a post critical of this plan be viewed as supportive of the community or unsupportive?
>
> Toph> How do you control for:
>
> 1) subversion - people who hate this idea so much they will rate really unhelpful posts super high, etc. They will SWEAR that post helped them.
>
> 2) vendeta - let's say I detest poster Boogerienose. Everything she posts, I plan to rate as low as possible. (And how does I explain negative votes, if that's required within civility guidlines?)
>
> 3) moodiness - so, what if my version of bipolar has angry mania. I spend 3 days saying every post sucks. Or my Borderline PD causes such highs and lows, my opinion changes thoughout the day. I HATE that post. I LOVE that post.
>
> How useful will any of that feed be to the poster or the community?
>
> BayLeafI suppose if people wanted, they could reward the posters they thought were unhelpful, or thought I thought were unhelpful. They might then get more replies from those posters in their threads.
You're keeping in mind that it's the poster who starts the thread that gets to award the points, right? So in this case that would be Deneb. Also, there wouldn't be "low ratings" or "negative votes". We're 180 posts into this, people are already opting out, and there still seem to be misunderstandings about what's been proposed!
I guess moodiness might lead to rewarding others inconsistently.
If posters wanted to be useful, they could use the system in useful ways. If they didn't, they could use it in other ways. Or just not use it.
--
> it will/ is becoming more of a factual resource than a community. ... That he is still even considering the "rating" system tells me what kind of posters he wants. I'm opting out before I get voted out!
>
> ~JadeSome people may feel more comfortable posting facts than experiences on a public board. The point system would reward helpful posting. That's the kind of posting I want. The idea that people would be voted out may reflect the Faceful of Cat Effect.
It's interesting that a reward system has come to be seen by some as a rating system.
--
> Now, if Dr. Bob really wants to give points, it might be a good idea to limit posting on the Admin board to those who have posted 20 on topic and civil posts on boards other than Admin in the past month. Perhaps he could even make that to include at least five civil responses to people outside their core group.
>
> Admin could be limited to just those people who actively use Babble. It would seem that posting on Admin would be quite an incentive, since that seems to be one of the more lively boards.
>
> There would be no judgment involved. Just a computer count of posts, with deductions for posts deemed uncivil and posts that are administrative in nature but posted on other boards.
>
> DinahI suppose I could give points, too. They could be in a separate category. As I said before, there might be other ways to be rewarded. I could see giving points for:
* on-topic and civil posts
* responses to people outside of one's core group
* active useHow would we define someone's "core group"? That's an interesting concept.
I appreciate the idea of framing posting here as a privilege, but I see Admin as the politics of Babble and wonder if posting here might be kind of like voting and should therefore be seen more as a right.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 4:46:03
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 2:58:17
So the poster originating the thread awards the helpfulness points?
So that we can de facto opt out by choosing not to reply to anyone who decides to use the system? Could you please put an indicator next to the name of the poster as to whether they've ever used the system? Or opted out? That way anyone who opts in can be replied to by those who wish to be judged or thanked this way. And those of us who intensely dislike being judged or thanked this way can avoid it by not responding to those posters?
I'd still prefer separate boards...
Forget my suggestion re. Admin. I don't think you've understood precisely what I meant.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 5:04:44
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 2:58:17
> It would be easier for others to see how helpful you've been, too.
> It's interesting that a reward system has come to be seen by some as a rating system.Ummm.... Dr. Bob. Please read the above two statements.
> If posters wanted to be useful, they could use the system in useful ways. If they didn't, they could use it in other ways. Or just not use it.
No they really can't just not use it. Since people are objecting to being judged as well as judging, the only way to not use it, is to not post.
Are you finding the unknown hordes who would post more under this system more appealing than the current posters on this thread other than you who has indicated they will post less? Have the hordes of new posters from Twitter and Facebook made up for the formerly current posters who left over it? You're self selecting who posts at Babble. Are you happy with your selection thus far?
I recognize this is your board and you can do what you believe is best for it and you don't wish to be held hostage by the desires of others. But on what criteria do you make these choices? Has it been a criteria that has worked well for you in the past?
You'll do what you wish to do of course. But you also will reap what you sow.
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:03:24
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 2:58:17
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:05:06
In reply to Re: Point system » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 4:46:03
I didn't realize that you were so on board with this, Dinah.
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:11:11
In reply to Re: Ratings » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 16:51:49
> Would you prefer that?
Would I prefer to not being involved in a rating system here? Of course I don't want to be involved in it.
>
> I don't think I've ever seen you posting on Admin when you didn't also post supportively on other boards. You were the only one who answered me on Psychology recently and I thank you for it.You are welcome. I did that because I saw your pain. N
You've often been very supportive to me, and I know you to be supportive to others.
But, Dinah I've never posted to anyone expecting a score/rating/reward. That goes against everything I stand for as a person who tries to help others.
>
> I wouldn't think it would be a particularly onerous task to talk to other Babblers rather than just Bob?I can't answer that.
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:20:19
In reply to Re: Ratings » Dinah, posted by Deneb on July 22, 2010, at 15:13:31
> That's a great idea Dinah!
>
> Ooooh, there is so much potential in this!Potential for what, Deneb?
>
>
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:25:38
In reply to Re: blocked for week » ron1953 » Toph, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 0:43:14
Truth=Uncivil.
Posted by jade k on July 23, 2010, at 12:41:47
In reply to Re: 'OPTING OUT' FYI thread goes too » jade k, posted by 10derHeart on July 20, 2010, at 20:42:33
> You are not blocked, I imagine, because Dr. Bob gives some time for posters to decide to apologize for uncivil posts. He only warned you about 6 hours ago or so, right? Don't know if he has a general rule of thumb for how long, but it's often at least a day, I think.
>
> Did I have a temper tantrum I've forgotten? I've had a few in life, but none publicly on the boards that I recall...? Well, I feel dumb now.
>
> I'd rather you not get blocked, but i understand that Babble and Dr. Bob's ways aren't for everyone.Oh hey 10derheart!
I just now saw, that you posted me again. I was just having a bad day. Sometimes I get tired of all the drama and want to leave, and other times I feel I have been here long enough to feel connected if that makes sense. Haha, no, you didn't have a temper tantrum, I definately can't imagine that. It was a poster. Sorry. Anyway, weather here is okay so I'm goin outside sorry again for the negative post. I just get worried about what's gonna happen. I hope nothing! I'm sure (I hope) Dr Bob will handle any problems that arise. Btw, I rephrased and didn't get blocked! Thats gotta be a first!
Take care,
~Jade :-)
Posted by jade k on July 23, 2010, at 12:49:08
In reply to Re: blocked for week for telling truth. » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:25:38
> Truth=Uncivil.
You didn't get there in time with one of your outstanding rephrases.
~Jade
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 13:10:31
In reply to Re: Point system » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:05:06
I thought I'd been enormously clear how *not* on board with it I am. I am frankly horrified at the idea. So is my therapist. He had the same reaction I did. He laughed that Dr. Bob couldn't do a better job of getting rid of Babblers if he tried.
It might be appropriate on large, fact oriented boards. Though I actually don't think it is, and I've seen very negative reactions to it on large, fact oriented boards. Nor do I see it as really adding to those boards. Quite the contrary. But in a small community like this, it staggers my apparently limited imagination to believe anyone would think it will lead to anything but hurt and resentment and anger.
That being said, when Dr. Bob seems set on doing something, I find that trying to convince him not to do it is rarely worthwhile, and finding a way for posters to wiggle around his "improvements" is far better.
That was impossible with the Twitter/Facebook idea. We needed Dr. Bob to provide us with an opt out. We didn't need Dr. Bob to decide to post when someone is in danger of going over three posts. While I'd like to have Dr. Bob provide a total opt out for posters on this, or to create separate boards so that he can better see how well his idea adds to the board. But if he won't do that, the only practical solution I can see is to either not post on threads begun by posters who rate, or to not post on threads begun by posters who don't rate every single reply that was well intentioned as "helpful". If only the most helpful post is "thanked", then I'd avoid the threads of posters who rate entirely. It's not what I prefer, since I really hate to boycott anyone. But it's the only choice Dr. Bob leaves me, given my feelings on the topic.
Besides, I don't think I'd particularly want to converse with people who only thank some of the people who care enough to take the trouble to respond to their threads. I hate to have to feel that way about other posters and really would prefer not to know who would do that, but again it's the way Dr. Bob is setting it up to be.
If you're not given any choice, then you have to work with what you've got.
I've already tried to leave Babble and haven't found anyplace that suits me as well. So I suppose that it's Babble or nothing for me. I don't seem to be all that good at doing nothing either. So I suppose I don't leave me with that many choices either.
I *will not* participate in a ratings system. If Dr. Bob doesn't allow me to opt out officially, I'll opt out unofficially.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 13:23:05
In reply to Re: Ratings » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:11:11
Ah, I think I misunderstood you.
I thought you were saying you wouldn't want to post on Admin if you had to post elsewhere as well. I was confused by that, because you generally do.
My suggestion, which I've dropped because Dr. Bob seems to have combined it with his other idea, wasn't about ratings. Just a numerical post count. No judgment involved.
I must have been way more polite to Dr. Bob than I thought I was... I hope he hasn't misunderstood my posts to mean I support his idea.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 23, 2010, at 13:23:12
In reply to Re: Point system » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 12:05:06
> I didn't realize that you were so on board with this, Dinah.
I had the same impression and was taken aback by it. I've since read Dinah's post in reply and my brain is not keeping up. !!??!!
pc
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 23, 2010, at 13:24:13
In reply to Re: Ratings, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 15:02:51
> Now, if Dr. Bob really wants to give points, it might be a good idea to limit posting on the Admin board to those who have posted 20 on topic and civil posts on boards other than Admin in the past month. Perhaps he could even make that to include at least five civil responses to people outside their core group.
>
> Admin could be limited to just those people who actively use Babble. It would seem that posting on Admin would be quite an incentive, since that seems to be one of the more lively boards.
>
> There would be no judgment involved. Just a computer count of posts, with deductions for posts deemed uncivil and posts that are administrative in nature but posted on other boards.I'm sorry, but this reads like an endorsement to me.
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.