![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 138 to 162 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:57:37
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 10:50:52
> Again, if the status quo pointed to vitality, I'd have no criticism.
You've only been criticizing since the level of posting dropped? Before that you had no criticism? When do you see that as having occurred? Your only intent is to increase the level of posting? How do you see your strategy as working? Do you think Dr. Bob will change?
There are posts from those seeking support on Medication right now. Why do you say there is no one to support? Has there been zero posting this month on every board? By your own statistics, there has been posting.
The sad part is that the environment created by Dr. Bob's rule is one that appeals more to those who dislike unpleasantness. Yet his policies regarding Admin encourage the kind of discord that these posters may be trying to avoid. Perhaps that does leave Babble as neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:09:07
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:57:37
EVERYBODY dislikes unpleasantness, but it a very real part of life, no matter where. Why aren't there droves of unpleasantry dislikers flocking to this site? And, in any case, the definition for "unpleasant" is NOT universal. Cleaning hose may not be pleasant, but it's necessary.
OK, I agree that there's activity on the meds board, but as I am no longer personally involved in that area of "therapy", I have no reason to post there. And as I stated earlier, I'm leery about the idea of such advice. So, what does that leave to support?
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:15:29
In reply to Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:09:07
No interest in alternative either?
How about therapy?
What aspects of mental health support are you interested in being part of?
I manage to get through my life without very much unpleasant conflict. I tend to believe that it's possible, preferable even, to discuss issues in a constructive way. I rarely find people are all that willing to compromise or change in a nonconstructive dialogue.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:29:32
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:48:40
> And to what purpose? I seriously doubt Dr. Bob is going to suddenly, upon reaching a certain threshold of negative remarks from those who have no desire to post here, smack his head and declare he's been wrong all this time about blocks and posting standards.
That's what saddens me about Dr. Bob's interactions with Twinleaf this time. I think Twinleaf recognized the benefit of approaching Dr. Bob in a more constructive way, and Dr. Bob didn't perceive the difference as I did.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:31:22
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:15:29
> No interest in alternative either?
>
> How about therapy?
>
> What aspects of mental health support are you interested in being part of?
>
> I manage to get through my life without very much unpleasant conflict. I tend to believe that it's possible, preferable even, to discuss issues in a constructive way. I rarely find people are all that willing to compromise or change in a nonconstructive dialogue.Unfortunately, it goes full-circle that I'd be interested in being part of most of Babble, but have no desire to play Bob's head games regarding "civility". He blocked a member yesterday for using a synonym for donkey that starts with an "a". It just gets dumber and dumber.
I can understand *wanting* to avoid conflict, but I cannot understand denial of it's reality and potential benefit. I'm afraid that you (and possibly others) think that I'm somehow in favor of Babble becoming some kind of free-for-all, but that would be quite incorrect. But wanting a mental health support site to be lala land is not realistic. We all *like* to hear what we want to hear, but when it becomes a necessity, it gets weird.
I find that people who are intractable by choice are not willing to compromise or change, regardless of the flavor of dialogue.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:43:54
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:31:22
I haven't had all that much luck in getting Dr. Bob to change myself. I also am not fond of banging my head against the wall, so I decide if any given decision is a deal breaker or not. And if there's any way I can get what I want while still following the rules. There are things that would make me unwilling to continue to post on Babble. But that would be my decision, and once I gave up on Dr. Bob changing, I think I'd give up on Dr. Bob changing.
FWIW, the block was not for using the word. The block was apparently for turning off auto asterisking and using the word, if I understand correctly. If that's what happened, I'm sure you would agree that it would indicate an intent to not abide by site guidelines. Not abiding by site guidelines is what the block is for. Again, Dr. Bob as host of this site has the right to ask people to step outside if they aren't willing to abide by site guidelines. My mistake if I'm incorrect, but that's how I read Dr. Bob's post.
When it comes right down to it, Babble is not for everyone. You see Dr. Bob's rules as head games. I see them as the guidelines he sets for site participation. Either way, if someone isn't willing to abide by them, if the benefits of posting don't outweigh the cost of not being able to say what they wish to say, then Babble isn't the site for them. Protests aren't going to change that. Particularly protests about things that Dr. Bob has long since decided.
Why is it so important to you that Babble reflect your values rather than Dr. Bob's? Does everywhere need to reflect your values? Or does Babble have particular significance? I doubt Babble has changed. What has changed in you that makes you unwilling to post at Babble, while wishing so strongly to post at a place that does not suit you?
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:49:31
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:43:54
My apologies. Turning off auto asterisking does not necessarily indicate intent to ignore site guidelines. But as Dr. Bob said, the choice does carry with it a greater responsibility to being aware of word choice.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:54:10
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:43:54
I'm not asking that Babble reflect my values; I'm asking Babble to consider *respecting* different values.
My-way-or-the-highway does not seem to be an atmosphere conducive of cooperation. It is, by definition, exclusive, where, IMO, the implied message is "say it my way or STFU".
Also, regarding PBCs and blocks, public humiliation is to me, uncivil.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:01:22
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:54:10
I think that there could be a case made for blocks being made private. Originally I favored transparency, and disliked places where people suddenly disappeared for no reason that anyone knew. Or that only some people knew, leading to all sorts of off board gossip. But I see the benefit of the other way as well. However, if Dr. Bob's primary value is transparency, how could he reflect his values and also reflect your values that on board admin actions are shaming and wrong?
I think there may be two mutually exclusive sets of values at play here. How is Dr. Bob to reflect his values about language and respect for others, while also allowing language that does not match his values and discourse that he does not find respectful?
Babble reflects the values of Dr Bob because he maintains the website. Other websites reflect other values. I might not be comfortable at those sites because the values they reflect are not compatible with my own. That doesn't make Dr. Bob's values right or wrong, or the other website values right or wrong. No one is out to be unkind or harmful on purpose. People put different priorities on values that in and of themselves are commendable. Choices have to be made about which values to favor. Dr. Bob has made his choices.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:10:02
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:01:22
Dinah, I read your words and they read as if you're Bob's official spokesperson. Is that the case? Can Bob not speak for himself? I'm aware of Bob's rules, but I do not assume to know what it is he's trying to accomplish, mainly because he hasn't said so. I will not take your word on it.
One of the main problems I see with Bob's civility rules is that they're a moving target.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:23:28
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:10:02
Must I be Bob's spokesperson to have thoughts on the matter? Must I be Bob's spokesperson for my thoughts to be in some ways positive towards Bob?
I've spoken to Dr. Bob many times over the years. I'm not sure whether we've ever spoken on this topic, and we are rarely in perfect agreement on any topic. If you wish Dr. Bob's input, you can ask it. It's probably best to ask specific questions. What questions would you like to ask? Such as...
"Does this site's guidelines reflect your values?"
"Will this site continue to reflect your values?"
"Are you comfortable with the priority you place on your values, and are you committed to maintaining that priority?"
"Would you consider reflecting my priorities instead?"
Or would you like him to speak to some other purpose?
I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you wish to have independent confirmation of, since I have been speaking as myself, and with my own conclusions as to the likelihood of change on Babble. Do I actually sound like Dr. Bob? I wouldn't have thought so...
There is less consistency in the application of civility guidelines than I personally would prefer. Perhaps Dr. Bob also believes in your quote by Emerson about hobgoblins and small minds. Would you prefer he appeal more to statesmen and philosophers?
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:39:23
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:23:28
Let's simply agree to disagree. I may disagree with some of your views, but I respect and defend your right to state them in any fashion you like, and would never suggest that you shouldn't.
I don't have specific questions for Bob that I haven't already posed in some form or another, few of which he's addressed with anything more than such statements as "be the change you want" or "blocked for....". It's Bob's site and I think he should be more involved in the dialogue than he is. And I'm not quite certain whether or not he's laughing his tochas off at all of this.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:43:59
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:39:23
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:52:40
In reply to Thank you for the conversation. (nm) » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:43:59
And there you have it. You and I are in total disagreement, even after all that we discussed, yet it appears we're OK with that. It may be uncomfortable, but we ultimately have benefitted from the process to get to a point of acceptance, where we might move on to other topics.
And this pretty much is something I'd like to see more on Babble - the permission to go THROUGH something without the process being stymied by interference, unless interference is absolutely necessary (I know - Bob's definition of necessary vs others is a question).
We argued. We survived. We gained.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:56:58
In reply to Re: Thank you for the conversation. )Dinah, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:52:40
We also kept it respectful, or at least I tried to.
Should other dialogues take place respectfully, there would be no impediment from Dr. Bob.
It's not against site guidelines to disagree. It's not against site guidelines to be angry. Incivility may be more likely to take place under those conditions, but it isn't a requirement.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:10:09
In reply to Re: Thank you for the conversation. )Dinah » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:56:58
> Incivility may be more likely to take place under those conditions, but it isn't a requirement.
"Requirement"? I don't quite understand what you mean.
Posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:39:23
Sigh.
Good points all.
My main reason to post here now and then is to remind others that come here to be careful.
I don't know why Bob even HAS the option of turning the auto asterisk off??
Why does he block for @ss?
I remember my first block. I felt at home here, safe.
I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked. It was such a horrible feeling. I didn't know what had happened. Then I finally understood(I must have come across the block post) that I was blocked. I felt sick, my head spun. I was so embarrassed and ashamed. I'd just been trying to have a bit of fun.....
So, I have scars on my leg to show the punishment I took for being 'bad'. Cuz I must have been bad to get banished like that.
I liken that block to me as a kid playfully saying f*rt to a parent and them backslapping me into a wall and then telling me I could not speak to my main support friends for a week. NO DISCUSSION.
WAY OVERKILL.
Then add to that if a person has some issues and is trying, but continues to screw up, the blocks escalate rapidly.
And oftimes the ONLY person that seemed to care to block was Bob? Nobody else minded the posters behaviour, or at least they understood it and were trying to be supportive.
Then there is Bob and his random often lenghy absences. He would not be there to help when help was truly needed.
It just all makes no sense.
The third STRONG issue I have is that Bob honestly didn't seem to have any concern that the majority of the community had problems with the way he was running things were going to leave.
He just didn't seem to care. As Dinah says, the community IS Babble, but appaerently not in Bobs mind.....if they all left...more would come, after all he's doing everything he can to make Babble 'in the public eye' (another reason I don't feel safe here). etc etc etc
So I am sorry Dinah if you feel picked upon, cuz it is SO NOT you, you are sweet. It is this site and how it is run that concerns me. I don't want others to come here and get burned.
Its not how Babble 'used' to be nor will it ever. Cuz its just not safe here. Its just not. I tried.
Bob as you have pointed out, is not changing.
I'm sorry.
Hmmm I was going to turn ON my tweet etc buttons so this could go 'out' there, but I dunno how?
LOL, oh well.
I did find the facebook, and the tweets are just new people added.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 13:18:20
In reply to Re: Thank you for the conversation. » Dinah, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:10:09
Just my backward way of saying that participants in a discussion have the choice to remain constructive and respectful.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 13:26:23
In reply to Babble :(, posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
I think it was the posters who insisted that they have the option of turning off auto asterisking. I'm not sure what was being asterisked that they wouldn't be blocked for if they said anyway.
((( Muffled )))
I *am* sorry you were hurt. Had you previously received a pbc for language? One thing I will say is that however little I like Dr. Bob's "Please help poster x from being blocked", I do like that he gives posters a chance to rephrase or retract before they are blocked. I think that is a step forward, although I do recognize that there is still a shaming aspect to it. And certainly I'd like to see a change of terminology.
I'm sorry if I was too sharp. I don't mean to hurt you or anyone else. It's just a situation that's been wearing on me. It wasn't personal to any poster.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:33:05
In reply to Re: Babble :( » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 13:26:23
And I see the rephrase/retract directive as just another form of public humiliation.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 4, 2010, at 13:56:50
In reply to Rephrase/Retract, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:33:05
> And I see the rephrase/retract directive as just another form of public humiliation.
I've always interpreted it (although with no affirmation) as an equivalent to a PBC and so carrying the same consequences for the failure to respond to the request.pc
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:59:07
In reply to Babble :(, posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
> Sigh.
> Good points all.
> My main reason to post here now and then is to remind others that come here to be careful.
> I don't know why Bob even HAS the option of turning the auto asterisk off??
> Why does he block for @ss?
> I remember my first block. I felt at home here, safe.
> I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked. It was such a horrible feeling. I didn't know what had happened. Then I finally understood(I must have come across the block post) that I was blocked. I felt sick, my head spun. I was so embarrassed and ashamed. I'd just been trying to have a bit of fun.....
> So, I have scars on my leg to show the punishment I took for being 'bad'. Cuz I must have been bad to get banished like that.
> I liken that block to me as a kid playfully saying f*rt to a parent and them backslapping me into a wall and then telling me I could not speak to my main support friends for a week. NO DISCUSSION.
> WAY OVERKILL.
> Then add to that if a person has some issues and is trying, but continues to screw up, the blocks escalate rapidly.
> And oftimes the ONLY person that seemed to care to block was Bob? Nobody else minded the posters behaviour, or at least they understood it and were trying to be supportive.
> Then there is Bob and his random often lenghy absences. He would not be there to help when help was truly needed.
> It just all makes no sense.
> The third STRONG issue I have is that Bob honestly didn't seem to have any concern that the majority of the community had problems with the way he was running things were going to leave.
> He just didn't seem to care. As Dinah says, the community IS Babble, but appaerently not in Bobs mind.....if they all left...more would come, after all he's doing everything he can to make Babble 'in the public eye' (another reason I don't feel safe here). etc etc etc
> So I am sorry Dinah if you feel picked upon, cuz it is SO NOT you, you are sweet. It is this site and how it is run that concerns me. I don't want others to come here and get burned.
> Its not how Babble 'used' to be nor will it ever. Cuz its just not safe here. Its just not. I tried.
> Bob as you have pointed out, is not changing.
> I'm sorry.
> Hmmm I was going to turn ON my tweet etc buttons so this could go 'out' there, but I dunno how?
> LOL, oh well.
> I did find the facebook, and the tweets are just new people added.
>I'm pretty sure I know how you feel regarding blocks. While it may be laudable for Bob to want Babble to be an idyllic site where seldom is heard a discouraging word, it isn't working. Despite Babble's accesibility to the general web public, membership is not increasing. This kind of idealism is quite similar to the American government's war on drugs, where the ideal justifies the harm done.
- Highest prison population of any country in the world, including higher arrest and incarceration rates for minorities
- Ruining young peoples' lives due to a permanent criminal record or the effects of incarceration
- Billions of dollars spent with absolutely no end in sight
- Police resources used for drug war instead of public safety
- Perpetuation of a dangerous black market....the list goes on, as does the war.
OK, not exactly the same thing, but it's the same mindset.
Posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:33:17
In reply to Babble :(, posted by muffled on November 4, 2010, at 13:11:54
>I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked. It was such a horrible feeling. I didn't know what had happened. Then I finally understood(I must have come across the block post) that I was blocked. I felt sick, my head spun. I was so embarrassed and ashamed. I'd just been trying to have a bit of fun.....
Yeah, that's right.
That's just nothing surely.
After all everyone has been through, do people care about stuff like that?
Direct personal attacks and viciousness, yes, I think there should be blocks for that.
In other words..... boundaries, but wider ones.For the record, and I emphasise that I have not read all of Twinleaf's posts, but I've read a few, I think I should have been blocked 5 times over compared to her if blocking was required.
Posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:34:59
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 13:59:07
> it's the same mindset.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good plan.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 14:39:48
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by sigismund on November 4, 2010, at 14:34:59
(grin)
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.