![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 257. Go back in thread:
Posted by Free on November 8, 2010, at 17:39:25
In reply to Re: Amnesty » Dr. Bob, posted by hyperfocus on November 8, 2010, at 16:03:33
I agree with a lot of your insights and ideas, Hyperfocus. But I disagree with this:
>
> >I've actually been thinking about something like that myself. How exactly would you see it working?
> This is just my opinion but I think that everybody here recognizes people like 10der heart and Dinah and SLS as people who through their words and actions have always nurtured the community here. So maybe before announcing a policy decision or handing down a contentious block you could ask them what they think of the situation before doing something. The power to make decisions resides in you solely but posters could appeal to them to hear their case and make recommendations. At least as a first step posters could feel that other voices besides Dr. Bob alone can influence things here - that knowledge alone can do a huge amount of good.
>I think if Bob were to actually set up a "council" of some sort to consult and discuss his admin policies with, it should be balanced with different points of view.
I don't know exactly where SLS(whom I appreciate) stands anymore but he was pro-block if I remember correctly. So the council would be made up of three pro-block members, of which two were ex-Deputies? Deputies who were part of the system that handed out PCBs and Blocks? I would like to suggest including members like Twinleaf, Sigismund (sorry Sig), and others(too many great people to name) with different ideas to really move away from the status quo and "reboot" the "family".
I appreciate your post though...I think some of your insights are spot-on.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 18:37:40
In reply to Re: Amnesty » hyperfocus, posted by Free on November 8, 2010, at 17:39:25
I would prefer that the term "pro-block" not be applied to me. I don't think anyone is in favor of people being blocked. I think the difference of opinion lies more in the locus of control.
I rather wish all posters would post in accordance with site guidelines and therefore not be blocked.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 18:39:35
In reply to Re: Amnesty » Dr. Bob, posted by hyperfocus on November 8, 2010, at 16:03:33
Thanks, hyperfocus. I appreciate your confidence.
I am somewhat skeptical about the amount of influence any group would have on Dr. Bob's decisions when he believes himself to be correct.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:37
In reply to Re: Amnesty » Dr. Bob, posted by hyperfocus on November 8, 2010, at 16:03:33
> > how about this: If all of Babble can stay civil for a month, then I'll cut all blocks in half.
>
> You mean if you don't manage to find something to interpret as uncivil in one month then you will cut all blocks in half?
>
> alexandra_kI mean that if posters don't choose to post anything I choose to consider uncivil, then I'll cut all blocks in half.
> Ummm. Bob, your dealing with adults here.... :-/
> A lollipop doesn't make it all better. Just quiets the kid down so you can hurt them again :(If shortening blocks is just a giving people a lollipop, then does that mean lengthening blocks is just taking away a lollipop?
> > Begging doesn't always get people what they want.
>
> If people are debasing themselves to the point of begging, then that just shows how important they feel about something
>
> muffledFeeling it's important doesn't always get people what they want, either.
> Yes when posters debate blocks and civility and privacy here they're bringing in old unresolved feelings from the past. To me this is the primary reason why blocks and uncivility are becoming more and more frequent. If there was a away to free posters from these past feeling then I think blocks would decrease drastically.
I think so, too. But freeing people from past feelings is easier said than done!
> Cutting blocks in half would be a good start but I think it has to be unconditional - a show of good faith. Maybe you could try it as an experiment and see if it has a positive effect - i.e return of estranged posters and increased posting and decreased uncivility.
>
> hyperfocusWhy does it have to be unconditional? What if posters were civil as a show of good faith and saw if that had a positive effect? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:46
In reply to Re: Amnesty » hyperfocus, posted by Free on November 8, 2010, at 17:39:25
> maybe before announcing a policy decision or handing down a contentious block you could ask them what they think of the situation before doing something. The power to make decisions resides in you solely but posters could appeal to them to hear their case and make recommendations.
>
> hyperfocusHmm, I'd ask them before blocking someone, or after someone's blocked they could appeal to them?
> I think if Bob were to actually set up a "council" of some sort to consult and discuss his admin policies with, it should be balanced with different points of view.
>
> FreeWould you want to elect them?
Bob
Posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 0:23:30
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:46
> Hmm, I'd ask them before blocking someone, or after someone's blocked they could appeal to them?Before blocking. Maybe it would be a joint decision by you and the 'Council,' with majority rule? Council Members/Bob vote?
> Would you want to elect them?
Nominations and elections?
Solstice
Posted by muffled on November 9, 2010, at 0:30:41
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:46
So....remembering the deps....
Is Bob going to give a council some tools?
Is he going to give them as a council some of his power?
Remembering the deps...
Bob UTTERLY bailed on them...
Posted by muffled on November 9, 2010, at 0:49:16
In reply to Re: Amnesty, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:37
> I mean that if posters don't choose to post anything I choose to consider uncivil, then I'll cut all blocks in half.
*wwaaaagggghh???? But HOW can posters choose something they don't know??? I don't UNDERSTAND some of the things you consider uncivil.
What if I just have a bad frikken day full of triggers and screw up? Bob, you sure love to keep slapping the block responsibility onto others...
Besides, this comes across as a crap bandaid fix to try and make yourself look good or something. What will this actually PROVE??? You are just making yet another random unpreditable confusing out of the blue change here.
> If shortening blocks is just a giving people a lollipop, then does that mean lengthening blocks is just taking away a lollipop?*No, its slapping them upside the head and ostracizing them for longer. You just don't get it Bob...
> Feeling it's important doesn't always get people what they want, either.*OMG Bob, you are making me (more) insane?!
You missed the point again. I was trying to get you to see that if people feel THAT strongly about something, then maybe you ought to consider there is a valid reason they feel that way. You didn't consider it over the tweet thing, you just barged ahead.
You can't always get what you want, but it might be nice if we here could get more what we need, and thats more predictability and safety.> Why does it have to be unconditional? What if posters were civil as a show of good faith and saw if that had a positive effect? :-)
*Cuz maybe it would show some friggin respect for the posters if it was unconditional. Maybe you could say, ya, I've screwed up some and I am making a one time concession here while I think bout things.
Do you not see that you are putting MORE pressure on posters with the ultimatum??????
Now its not just, if you screw up, your banished, now its if you screw up your banished and you've screwed your friends over too....
Nice one Bob.....
:(
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 7:51:25
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:46
I think it would be a good idea to have a review board. As it stands now, blocks have no real relation to a poster's willingness to return and abide by site rules. I'd rather see blocks be lifted if a poster agrees to abide by site guidelines. The first time, it could be based solely on their word that they are ready. After that, they could propose concrete ways that could help them stay within site guidelines. For example, choosing a civility buddy, choosing not to post on topics that have proved troublesome, etc.
An "ignore button" might help as well, since some repeat blocks seem to come about as a result of feelings about a particular poster. A mandatory ignore might help.
My warning would be that those who participate have to be willing to have some of the anger turned on Dr. Bob turned on them. Even if the elder decided to always rule in favor of leniency, a fair amount of anger comes from leniency as well.
I do not think Dr. Bob should turn over his decisions to majority rule. Why should I trust a group more than I trust Dr. Bob?
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 8:58:48
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 7:51:25
Those who believe they have a decent understanding of the civility guidelines could volunteer to make themselves available to those who feel they don't.
There are (at least) two functions of a civility buddy.
A civility buddy can be someone you use to review your posts if you're unsure of your civility, or if you think maybe you're too angry to judge, or if you feel your posts are being scrutinized by Dr. Bob.
A civility buddy can also be the recipient of the things you really oughtn't post. A person of like enough mind that you're able to vent your feelings to without fear of repercussions. Sometimes I preview my post to my civility buddy, then after I feel better, I say "Ok, now what can I actually write?" And believe it or not, the venting has helped my feelings reflect a more thoughtful and sensitive post than I might have previously made. Of course, I tend not to get worked up by discussing things that anger me. It's more likely that I see the absurdity of my anger, and recognize that perhaps I'm not entirely being generous in spirit. I nearly always talk myself down with my civility buddy. It might not be as useful if talking to a civility buddy just stirs up feelings of outrage.
I greatly urge that everyone who feels the need, and who would benefit, make use of a civility buddy.
I think the second function is best served by choosing a friend of like mind and might not be the sort of thing where volunteers are useful. But I am more than willing to volunteer for the first function. As long as I am treated politely.
Would anyone else be willing to volunteer to be available to those who are uncertain how the civility guidelines might apply to their post? Perhaps Dr. Bob could include in the FAQ or provide a link in his pbc's to a list of posters who can be babblemailed in those circumstances? If the post still gets flagged, the civility buddy could explain their role, and ask for further clarification. If Dr. Bob finds a civility buddy is consistently missing the mark, he could request that they get further training before being listed as a resource.
It would be a pragmatic way of reducing blocks.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 9:02:01
In reply to And how about volunteer civility buddies?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 8:58:48
Of course, I totally credit my civility buddy for helping me see how my feelings might be a bit... extreme without ever making me feel bad about it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 9:52:42
In reply to Re: Amnesty, posted by muffled on November 9, 2010, at 0:49:16
> What if I just have a bad frikken day full of triggers and screw up?
If you screw up, and no one helps you backpedal, then unfortunately there may be consequences.
> Besides, this comes across as a crap bandaid fix to try and make yourself look good or something. What will this actually PROVE???
The main idea would be to get all blocks cut in half, not to prove anything, but it would also prove that posters have the power to be civil. And IMO they would look good, too.
> You are just making yet another random unpreditable confusing out of the blue change here.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
> > Why does it have to be unconditional? What if posters were civil as a show of good faith and saw if that had a positive effect? :-)
>
> Cuz maybe it would show some friggin respect for the posters if it was unconditional.Maybe it would show more respect for me if posters were civil. :-)
> Do you not see that you are putting MORE pressure on posters with the ultimatum??????
> Now its not just, if you screw up, your banished, now its if you screw up your banished and you've screwed your friends over too....It could feel like more pressure. But they wouldn't have to deal with it alone, they could work together.
Bob
Posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2010, at 10:46:42
In reply to And how about volunteer civility buddies?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 8:58:48
This sounds good, Dinah.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 13:10:54
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies? » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2010, at 10:46:42
Would it be something you'd be willing to do?
I think there would be less chance of being on the receiving end of anger if the poster had chosen to seek out help. Certainly, I've experienced that unasked for assistance isn't always well received.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2010, at 13:37:25
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies? » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 13:10:54
Dinah,
I'd be willing to consider it. I have much to learn about civility myself.
I do think your suggestion is pragmatic and could be implemented fairly easily.
It may not solve all that everyone would like; then what would? That said, I can see how having civility buddies could encourage a healthier, more supportive community. While it may not be possible for everyone to feel heard by Dr. Bob, babble members would have a greater
chance of feeling heard by someone.I think it is a constructive suggestion. Thank you for it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:57:31
In reply to And how about volunteer civility buddies?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 8:58:48
> Would anyone else be willing to volunteer to be available to those who are uncertain how the civility guidelines might apply to their post? Perhaps Dr. Bob could include in the FAQ or provide a link in his pbc's to a list of posters who can be babblemailed in those circumstances? If the post still gets flagged, the civility buddy could explain their role, and ask for further clarification. If Dr. Bob finds a civility buddy is consistently missing the mark, he could request that they get further training before being listed as a resource.
I think that's a great idea. Could I delegate it to you? Which I guess would mean soliciting volunteers, doing any training that's necessary, and maintaining the list? I'd be happy to include a link in the FAQ and PBCs.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:12:17
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies?, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:57:31
I suppose so, although since you make the civility calls, you'd have to let me know when more training is needed.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:19:59
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:12:17
Don't worry if you don't feel your understanding of the civility guidelines is perfect. No one's understanding is perfect. You can always ask for guidance and training as you think it necessary.
It's not even necessary that you agree with the civility guidelines so long as you're willing to help people avoid blocks by staying within them.
You can contact me here or by babblemail.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:22:41
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies? » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2010, at 13:37:25
You are welcome, and I hope you consider it. If you have any questions about Dr. Bob's civility decisions, you could always ask me, or anyone else you think may understand.
It would be interesting to see what could come of it. There might even be some side benefits of increased feelings of community.
Posted by 10derheart on November 9, 2010, at 21:19:33
In reply to All righty then. Who would be interested?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:19:59
I don't think I need any training just at the moment ;-)
Only caveat is time. If a poster feels they need to post quickly...I am not always available. I can generally read Babble/email once or twice a day. i can't promise super-quick responses, but I would do my best.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 23:15:46
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:12:17
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 23:49:18
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 7:51:25
> Nominations and elections?
>
> Solstice> Is Bob going to give a council some tools?
> Is he going to give them as a council some of his power?
>
> muffled> I think it would be a good idea to have a review board. As it stands now, blocks have no real relation to a poster's willingness to return and abide by site rules. I'd rather see blocks be lifted if a poster agrees to abide by site guidelines. The first time, it could be based solely on their word that they are ready. After that, they could propose concrete ways that could help them stay within site guidelines. For example, choosing a civility buddy, choosing not to post on topics that have proved troublesome, etc.
>
> DinahWhat if the council had the power to lift blocks? (after some minimum cooling-off period) What tools would they need? Would they be given criteria for making their decisions or would they have the freedom to decide however they wanted? Would there be any requirements besides being nominated?
FYI, requirements to be a deputy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#required
Bob
Posted by Deneb on November 10, 2010, at 0:00:52
In reply to All righty then. Who would be interested?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:19:59
I'm interested. I think I understand most of the rules.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:30:32
In reply to I am. I may be a little rusty but... » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on November 9, 2010, at 21:19:33
I think your training is just fine. :)
I think it really needs to be clear that this is a volunteer position and that not every volunteer will be available at any given time. We've all got other responsibilities.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:32:39
In reply to Re: All righty then. Who would be interested?, posted by Deneb on November 10, 2010, at 0:00:52
I think so too. I've seen you make very helpful posts when people seem confused.
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.