![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 40 to 64 of 257. Go back in thread:
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?????
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:37:55
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » muffled, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 11:28:57
> 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.*this is simple wording http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm
You have the right to be testy, thats OK!
:)
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:41:22
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:37:55
Which isn't to say i endorse that website, just hit on it in passing but it kinda simply described dialectics cuz wiki was too complicated and heavy LOL!
The site I linked is not great, but the definition is useful.
Posted by jane d on November 10, 2010, at 12:57:15
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 11:25:36
> > > 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.Muffled,
I think the problem comes when the word used has one definition that has a highly negative primary definition - usually listed as #1. And you can never separate a word totally from it's primary meaning. So "minion" is a problem because it mostly means something insulting and that's how it will be interpretated. "Salient" really isn't a problem because none of those definitions are insulting so there's no harm done letting the reader try and guess which usage you mean.
Jane
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 13:01:38
In reply to Re: multiple definitions of words » muffled, posted by jane d on November 10, 2010, at 12:57:15
Good point jane d!
I LOVE words!!!
They are so crazymaking yet fascinating!
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 13:05:39
In reply to Re: multiple definitions of words » muffled, posted by jane d on November 10, 2010, at 12:57:15
> > > > 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.
>
> Muffled,
>
> I think the problem comes when the word used has one definition that has a highly negative primary definition - usually listed as #1. And you can never separate a word totally from it's primary meaning. So "minion" is a problem because it mostly means something insulting and that's how it will be interpretated. "Salient" really isn't a problem because none of those definitions are insulting so there's no harm done letting the reader try and guess which usage you mean.
>
> Jane
>
>
Ah, yes, it is in the word 'servile' :
Definition of SERVILE
1: of or befitting a slave or a menial position
2: meanly or cravenly submissive : abjectThat is where the negativity lies. The rest I am ok with, but the servile, not so much...
I'd be ok myself with being called a minion, mightn't love it, but be ok....however, servile.....hmmm, thems fightin words!!! ;-)
Posted by Deneb on November 10, 2010, at 16:38:16
In reply to Re: multiple definitions of words, posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 13:05:39
I hope I will be a good civility buddy. I must admit that I don't really follow all the posts about changing admin and such. To tell you the truth my eyes kind of just glaze over whenever Babblers go into detail about the politics here.
Also I wasn't a very good greeter. I kind of just lost interest. I hope I can keep up with the civility buddy thing.
Posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 16:53:02
In reply to I hope I will be a good civility buddy, posted by Deneb on November 10, 2010, at 16:38:16
> I hope I will be a good civility buddy. I must admit that I don't really follow all the posts about changing admin and such. To tell you the truth my eyes kind of just glaze over whenever Babblers go into detail about the politics here.
>
> Also I wasn't a very good greeter. I kind of just lost interest. I hope I can keep up with the civility buddy thing.Deneb, you are so amazing. watching you grow these years has been a wonderful thing :)
You have learned so much about yourself and how to function.
Maybe you can float and be a general 'helper' whereever you can...
Sometimes greet, sometimes help in other capacities.
You already do that!
You already help!
How cool is THAT!!!
:)
Posted by gardenergirl on November 11, 2010, at 11:55:18
In reply to Re: I hope I will be a good civility buddy, posted by muffled on November 10, 2010, at 16:53:02
Hope this is the right thread. I'm glad to try to help out anyone who has questions about civility or wants to babblemail me about posts.
gg
Posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2010, at 12:15:51
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies? » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 18:22:41
> 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.O.K. Dinah, you can count me in. There is one hitch--I have a young child whose
needs come first. What is the expected turn around time for a buddy's response?
Posted by Dinah on November 12, 2010, at 12:39:46
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies?, posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2010, at 12:15:51
That makes six of us to start with.
10derheart, Deneb, Partlycloudy, Gardenergirl, Floatingbridge, and Dinah
I'll compile the list and ask Dr. Bob to include it in the FAQ.
If anyone else is interested, just let me know.
Floatingbridge, we all have other obligations, and it would have to understood that some patience might be needed. Do you have a suggestion for a reasonable turnaround time? If a civility buddy thinks their time might be very limited for a time, perhaps she could suggest that another civility buddy be contacted if the poster would prefer not to wait.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2010, at 21:41:25
In reply to Wonderful!, gardenergirl and floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 12, 2010, at 12:39:46
I'm curious to find out what other babblers would want as far as response time from buddies.
The idea of a 'civility tree', similar to the telephone 'snow trees' we used in RI sounds good.
What about posting some brief information about a person's (somewhat) current availability? That way a person could use that info to decide whom to contact.
I also work with a sort of grievance committee, and we decided on a reasonable response time: 24 hours in this case. That's too long for babble.
Sometimes I may not check my email for up to 12 hours. I'd like someone contacting me to know that they aren't forgotten, lost, or a low priority.
What are reasonable expectations?
fb
Posted by hyperfocus on November 12, 2010, at 21:59:14
On that note one thing that would be really useful but not easy to implement would be delayed posting. Everybody has their triggers that take them to dark places. I remember reading a thread on Admin that triggered me badly because it seemed that other posters were ganging up and bullying this one poster who also had C-PTSD from the school bullying he went through. I wrote a post making explicit profane threats against everybody that would have gotten me blocked for a century if I had posted it. Thankfully I waited a few hours till I cooled down before deciding whether to send it or not.
I know it's just a pipe dream and this wouldn't be trivial to implement because it's extra work to write a batch job that runs every hour or whatever to scoop up posts in the queue, which would have its own issues with regular posting. But I bet half of the people who got blocked, if they had a few hours to think about it wouldn't have written what they did.
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.