![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 257. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by 10derheart on November 10, 2010, at 1:21:23
In reply to Great! » Deneb, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:32:39
Ditto that :-)
~~~~signed~~~
fan of Deneb ;-)
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 10, 2010, at 8:30:49
In reply to All righty then. Who would be interested?, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:19:59
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 8:34:19
In reply to I'd like to volunteer. (nm) » Dinah, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 10, 2010, at 8:30:49
I know you'll be a great asset.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 8:39:00
In reply to Terrific! » PartlyCloudy, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 8:34:19
That's four of us, if I'm counting correctly. Would anyone else like to volunteer?
It isn't necessary that you *like* the civility rules. Only that you have an understanding of where the line is and a willingness to help others avoid blocks by staying within it. Upon request. In fact, there may be posters who are more comfortable asking someone they see as not particularly liking the civility rules.
(Dr. Bob, maybe you could seggregate the discussion about civility buddies from the discussion about the council of elders. I think it might be confusing as it is. Sorry I didn't start a separate thread.)
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 8:53:14
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 23:49:18
If this is implemented, I think it would be important to have some criteria for parole. Leaving it entirely to the choice of the parole board, so to speak, might lead to conscious or unconscious favoring of the popular, or confusion and distrust by posters.
The criteria could be developed by you, or by the council, or through discussion and at least partial consensus on the administration board.
But transparency has always been a value on Babble, and I think it's a value that should continue in any implementation of parole. People should be able to understand if they might meet criteria before they apply, and why they were rejected if they were rejected. People should be able to understand the process, and the likely result, IMO.
Otherwise it would lead to more confusion and anger than exist with civility guidelines. And the council might be faced with even more anger than in my opinion is already unfortunately likely.
As I stated before, I'd suggest linking parole to a willingness to abide by site guidelines upon return. The first time could be based entirely on the word of the person asking for it. The next time and subsequent times could ask for more assurances than that, if the word has proven to be insufficient. There could be a fair amount of judgment on the parole board's part on what that might be. But I think the basic framework should be easily understandable by all.
That's just my suggestion. I'm sure others would have other suggestions.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:06:00
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 9, 2010, at 0:30:41
> Is he going to give them as a council some of his power?
> Remembering the deps...
> Bob UTTERLY bailed on them...I've seen a lot of comments about Dr. Bob and deputies, and I don't think the comments reflect the reality.
Certainly it's true that we had very little power. Certainly it's true that Dr. Bob can be maddening to work with, and that may be the straw that broke the camel's back for some deputies. And perhaps Dr. Bob was the sole reason for some deputies leaving.
But you'll notice that many deputies participate less at Babble as posters after becoming deputies. Can you imagine what it feels like to post something personal in an attempt to receive support, and see that post used to hurt you on Admin because you're a hated deputy? Can you imagine how it feels to be the target of rage, when your only goal was to help the people who are angry with you? Can you imagine how it feels to be on the receiving end of belittlement, contempt, and outright threats?
If you can, you might understand better why some deputies quit, and what a small role Dr. Bob can play in that. And why former deputies might feel a certain skepticism at the ideal of group leadership, and a desire to warn others of the pain and fear that can come from putting yourself on the firing line, even from the best of motives.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:08:46
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:06:00
I forgot to mention former friends becoming former friends because you're a deputy.
Or people saying yes, they might at one time have felt friendly with you, but they can't anymore because you're a deputy and a minion of Bob.
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 10:28:53
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:08:46
> I forgot to mention former friends becoming former friends because you're a deputy.
>
> Or people saying yes, they might at one time have felt friendly with you, but they can't anymore because you're a deputy and a minion of Bob.*Well maybe I can split off things better, cuz the nature of my disorder. Cuz it never was an issue for me.
But ya, as long as Bob has all the power and doesn't listen to a deputy, then ya, they are a minion... :( :( :(min·ion noun \ˈmin-yən\
Definition of MINION
1: a servile dependent, follower, or underling
2: one highly favored : idol
3: a subordinate or petty official
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:35:13
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 10:28:53
You're focusing on Dr. Bob's part of it again, rather than the pain caused by posters.
You're reiterating that we were minions. Does that excuse the behavior of posters?
Do you really think you'd be ok being on the receiving end of that from posters while you weren't ok with an impersonal admin action from Dr. Bob? Dr. Bob hasn't treated you with any attempt to cause you pain. How would it feel if he had?
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:52:27
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 10:28:53
I suppose my post was a bit confusing because I was responding to at least three recent mentions about deputies and Bob. This was the easiest to find, given recent activity level, but was perhaps not the one I was responding to most.
I might point out that given definitions one and two, minion might not be the best word choice if you wish to be sensitive to deputies or former deputies. I am certainly in no way servile or a follower. Nor am I particularly highly favored by Bob. I'm as unfavored as anyone at times. Perhaps subordinate might be less charged.
> min·ion noun \ˈmin-yən\
> Definition of MINION
> 1: a servile dependent, follower, or underling
> 2: one highly favored : idol
> 3: a subordinate or petty official
>
Posted by Free on November 10, 2010, at 10:58:32
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 8:53:14
I'll comment on the other thread to avoid redundancy.
> If this is implemented, I think it would be important to have some criteria for parole. Leaving it entirely to the choice of the parole board, so to speak, might lead to conscious or unconscious favoring of the popular, or confusion and distrust by posters.
>
> The criteria could be developed by you, or by the council, or through discussion and at least partial consensus on the administration board.
>
> But transparency has always been a value on Babble, and I think it's a value that should continue in any implementation of parole. People should be able to understand if they might meet criteria before they apply, and why they were rejected if they were rejected. People should be able to understand the process, and the likely result, IMO.
>
> Otherwise it would lead to more confusion and anger than exist with civility guidelines. And the council might be faced with even more anger than in my opinion is already unfortunately likely.
>
> As I stated before, I'd suggest linking parole to a willingness to abide by site guidelines upon return. The first time could be based entirely on the word of the person asking for it. The next time and subsequent times could ask for more assurances than that, if the word has proven to be insufficient. There could be a fair amount of judgment on the parole board's part on what that might be. But I think the basic framework should be easily understandable by all.
>
> That's just my suggestion. I'm sure others would have other suggestions.
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:19:57
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:35:13
> You're focusing on Dr. Bob's part of it again, rather than the pain caused by posters.
* I know it was bad Dinah, I am sorry :( I always hated that you were treated differently by some. But to me, that was 'their' 'stuff' showing, no reflection on you.
I hated it when Bob didn't back you guys up. That made me SO angry. He abandoned you guys. (can you tell I have abandonment issues?! :-/
But Bob was ultimately, fully in the position of authority and it was HIS JOB TO do a better job with working WITH you deputies. He did NOT do a good job, and you guys were left to swing in the wind.... :(
I focus on Bob, cuz HE is my issue....not the posters, not the deputies. He is the core issue cuz he is the one with ALL the control here. To give him credit, he does not deny this. But I do not like it.
> You're reiterating that we were minions. Does that excuse the behavior of posters?*Absolutely NOT! We are responsible for our actions. As a different spin on this, I have 'parts', I am not DID, just DD, but I still have parts that can function and I can't stop them. They will do things I do NOT agree with sometimes(rarely fortunately) BUT, even tho it was not 'I' that did a certain thing(eg spaz at my T in a nasty way), I still also hold myself responsible for any actions that come from this body. So you can see, I think we each are all responsible for our actions.
The problem I have with Bob, is that he doesn't give us much of a chance to make repair in our own ways(which can be very different indeed). We must fit into his rigid ways, which truly, only he seems to fully understand...:(
Again, yes, some posters dissapointed me at times in their talk of the deputies, but they were in a different position. The deputies got far more than they signed up for....:( They had alot more responsibility dumped on them than was initially understood was the job. Bob loves to delegate, but not give up his own absolute control.
ab·so·lute adj \ˈab-sə-ˌlüt, ˌab-sə-ˈ\
Definition of ABSOLUTE
1a : free from imperfection : perfect <it is a most absolute and excellent horse Shakespeare> b : free or relatively free from mixture : pure <absolute alcohol> c : outright, unmitigated <an absolute lie>
2: being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint <absolute power>
3a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements <the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence this being the case, let us go> b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive <blind in help the blind and ours in your work and ours are absolute> c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive <kill in if looks could kill is an absolute verb>
4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom>
5: positive, unquestionable <absolute proof>
6a : independent of arbitrary standards of measurement b : relating to or derived in the simplest manner from the fundamental units of length, mass, and time <absolute electric units> c : relating to, measured on, or being a temperature scale based on absolute zero <absolute temperature>; specifically : kelvin <10° absolute>
7: fundamental, ultimate <absolute knowledge>
8: perfectly embodying the nature of a thing <absolute justice>
9: being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships <an absolute term in logic> <absolute music>> Do you really think you'd be ok being on the receiving end of that from posters while you weren't ok with an impersonal admin action from Dr. Bob? Dr. Bob hasn't treated you with any attempt to cause you pain. How would it feel if he had?
I don't refute what you say Dinah, as you recall, I often defended the deps at risk of being included as a minion of Bobs. I frequently said I MUCH prefferred the deps decsions over Bobs. I could understand the deps, i could not understand Bob.
And yes, it would hurt :( Very much.
As for correction from Bob, I would much prefer a gentle reminder, or even a somewhat heated discussion with a trusted friend over something. Then, if I got unruly, my friend could say I needed to cool off, rather than an unexpected slap upside the head, and no discussion, from Bob.
And for all that I seem to Bob bash....its not "Bob" that I am bashing per se. I have said before that I do not dislike him. I find him interesting, and his quirky ways can be fun.
BUT, I DO have a problem with his blindness as to the functioning of this site.
I think it could be a great site, if Bob would let go of the reigns some.
SOME discussion, even a litle heated discussion can be VERY useful. But with Bobs rules there is a tendency to keep everything surface and so-called 'safe'. There's no depth really.
Heated discussions can be stressful, and hurtful if it goes too far, but they can also be super helpful.
Heated discussions in a group of people in which the core group trust each other can be so fruitful, and when the dust settles, and sorrys are said, the bonds are stronger. I want to be able to be 'real', not just surface.
Bob doesn't allow for that, its very narrow and admin is capricious here.ca·pri·cious adj \kə-ˈpri-shəs, -ˈprē-\
Definition of CAPRICIOUS
: governed or characterized by caprice : impulsive, unpredictableAnd Dinah FWIW, I think you make good reasoned thinking.
LOL, but methinks you got a wee blind spot for Bob :)
Least parts of you do.
Others, no so much.
Which is why you are more balanced, and I like that.
I respect that.
I respect you.
Parts can be good!
:)
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:25:36
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 10:52:27
> I suppose my post was a bit confusing because I was responding to at least three recent mentions about deputies and Bob. This was the easiest to find, given recent activity level, but was perhaps not the one I was responding to most.
>
> I might point out that given definitions one and two, minion might not be the best word choice if you wish to be sensitive to deputies or former deputies. I am certainly in no way servile or a follower. Nor am I particularly highly favored by Bob. I'm as unfavored as anyone at times. Perhaps subordinate might be less charged.
>
> > min·ion noun \ˈmin-yən\
> > Definition of MINION
> > 1: a servile dependent, follower, or underling
> > 2: one highly favored : idol
> > 3: a subordinate or petty official
> >
>
>:) Thats why I always usually print the whole definition, cuz you pick the point that 'fits', cuz not all do in any definition generally. You pick the salient points.
Eg , in this case, point #3b fits in the usage of the word above. The others...not so much!Definition of SALIENT
1: moving by leaps or springs : jumping
2: jetting upward <a salient fountain>
3a : projecting beyond a line, surface, or level b : standing out conspicuously : prominent; especially : of notable significance <similar to Prohibition, but there are a couple of salient differences Tony Gibbs>
Words can have so many meanings, which is why the writen word can be so misconstrued sometimes.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 11:28:57
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:19:57
Thanks, Muffled.
I'm sorry if I got a bit testy. I think some of my attitudes are influenced by my experiences as a deputy. Not all, or even most, posters did those things. Those who were particularly nice, as you were, were particularly appreciated.
But I did want to clear up any misunderstandings about the fact that we only have one deputy currently. There are things Dr. Bob can be legitimately blamed for. It lessens the impact if he's also blamed for things he is not responsible for. I would think he'd tend to pay more attention when the scope of blame is more limited.
I think I have developed a fair capacity for what Linehan calls dialectics, with regard to Dr. Bob.
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:31:23
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:25:36
>What 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?
Bob( think...)*Now this I like. I am getting confued btwn threads...
Anyhow, this sounds more like Bob would be willing to let go some?????
Is this what you mean Bob? that you would be willing to let go some? Or would you still barge in higglety pigglety(or willy nilly...;-/ ) and start throwing your weight around?
Or would you be willing to work THRU the board?????
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.