![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 89 to 113 of 257. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 23:55:30
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:46
> As already suggested, the Elder's Council could serve to work with Dr. Bob on determining whether a member really has been incivil, developing a more consistent and predictable application of blocks for those who opt out of the CB route, and fill in for Bob when he is absent or unavailable.
>
> Solstice> You're serious, Bob? I do see your openness and I appreciate it, but...
>
> This is all very complicated, and it could get as bad or worse as it was when there were more people monitoring. This site was littered with PBCs and Blocks. The constant out of context mincing and parsing of words under the microscope on many of the boards are what's brought babble to its current place of reduced postage. Many of the people who received long blocks were wonderful "civil" people(some were even die-hard Bob/Babble supporters), but they got caught up in a maddening cycle of getting pbc'd/blocked for some unfair interpretations. Mistakes are bound to happen, but it happened enough to not feel safe anymore.
>
> Yeah, it's not easy.
>
> Honestly, a lot of people getting in the mix with a lot of power to say what's civil and not civil, and to block and unblock, with different interpretations. To dictate which threads/topics are/aren't troublesome to post on, could get way more confusing, crazy-making, etc.
>
> Free> They would cover for Bob when he gone.
> And ultimately then maybe this site would become more 'ours', and not so much just 'His'.
>
> muffled> Deputies covered for Bob when he was gone, and consulted among themselves for a consensus.
>
> I don't recall posters feeling any better about actions.
>
> I may be cynical, but I can't see people welcoming pbc's or blocks from anyone. Conversely I can't see all posters welcoming a lack of pbc's or blocks either. People tend to feel differently when they feel attacked.
>
> But I don't believe the site would be better served by Dr. Bob giving over his power to a group. There would just be different problems.
>
> I am members of sites that are entirely group led. There are still splinter factions, huge blowouts and dissolvings of the group.
>
> This isn't utopia.
>
> Dinah> I think that his ownership of the site is something that we all have to figure out a way to be okay with. In many ways, it is "our" site because without us, it would not exist. But when it comes to final decisions, those things will always belong to Bob. Just as surely as he created the site, he alone has the power to dismantle it.
>
> SolsticeThe way I'm thinking of this, the primary task of the council would be to decide whether and when to lift blocks. I'd still determine whether posters were civil, and deputies would still fill in for me when I'm unavailable.
--
> A council member should possess objectivity and humility, without any vested interests in the outcome of a given conflict.
>
> Free> 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.
>
> DinahMy inclination is to leave the criteria to the council. That empowers them more and makes them less likely to be seen as my minions.
It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
> I see it as more likely that the council would either have to allow everything to retain the good feelings of the more outspoken posters, or would grow to receive the same feelings Bob receives. In my experience, posters are less able to tolerate rage than Dr. Bob is. I think part of the secret of Babble's longevity is Bob's ability to be a container for rage.
>
> DinahLike deputies, council members should probably also be able to stay cool -- and to take some heat. They may not feel it's necessary to retain the good feelings of all posters. If they're elected and not seen as my minions, they may not receive as much rage.
> to those who post here, it is 'home', and that is a HUGE thing. People should have some degree of safety and autonomy in their own 'home'. Then they can feel more able to more fully share etc.
>
> A council could override Bob(an effective council would).
> The balance of power would shift.
> I would have more trust(over time anyways) that a broader group of people might better have the interests of the 'present' community at heart.
> I think it might be a challenge for the elders council at times....but it could possibly work.
> The ONLY way I would be interested in being a part of all this would be if Bob was willing to relinquish some of his control.
>
> muffled> > What if the council had the power to lift blocks?
>
> Now this I like.
> 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?????
>
> muffledI'd see it as letting go some. But not as working through the council. The deputies and me would still determine whether posters were civil.
> If Bob is really serious about setting up a Council of Wise Elders or a Parole Board or whatever -
>
> My final vote would be for...
>
> Free--
Thanks, everyone, for your input. Here's a proposal:
Candidates need to have been registered for 1 year and to have posted 300 times to be eligible. They need to get 5 "signatures" to be nominated. Posters can sign more than 1 "nomination petition". Candidates can sign their own petitions. Candidates nominated by others can decline to "run".
There's 1 month to nominate candidates, then 1 month to vote. Each poster gets 1 vote. The 5 candidates with the most votes are elected. Their term is 1 year.
The council gets a mailing list to communicate with each other off-board.
The council chooses one of themselves to interface with me.
The primary task of the council is to decide whether and when to lift blocks. There's a minimum period during which blocks can't be lifted. Blocks can be lifted unconditionally or with conditions like a voluntary civility buddy, a mandatory civility buddy, or delayed posting.
It's up to blocked posters to involve the council or not. They can communicate with the council off-board if they want.
The council decides by voting. The quorum is 3 members voting or abstaining. A majority (of those voting) determines the decision.
For the sake of transparency, the council posts its decisions and how each member votes.
A secondary task of the council is to serve as a resource for me.
How does that sound?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 0:40:21
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on November 28, 2010, at 22:17:28
I agree with 10der that no list would be necessary as it stands right now. Someone could contact anyone on the list, and if that person isn't available, they could suggest that another civility buddy be contacted.
Since it's entirely voluntary, and posters would likely want to contact those buddies they feel most comfortable with, I don't think anything more formal is needed.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 29, 2010, at 2:44:46
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies, posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 22:58:57
Solstice and all,
When one is given the option of working with a civility buddy or choosing a block, what would the civility option called. I agree mandatory is not the right word, esp because it's offered as a choice.
Assigned buddy isn't right, formal buddy, maybe. I guess to choose to work with a
buddy of one's choice.To me, this seems like an improvement....
Even though I am not closely following and am officially on leave :)(I am still subscribed to this thread.)
And is there a prescribed length of time?
If this procedure comes into practice, I would consider working on this basis, that is, with one person rather than being on call.
With appreciation for those who care enough to carry this thread along,
fb
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 3:10:25
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies » Solstice, posted by floatingbridge on November 29, 2010, at 2:44:46
my memory might fail me but issues that came up last time that seemed to result in this idea not being carried into fruition include:
1) if one is a civility buddy for a poster then does one need to commit to screening their posts... hourly? daily? weekly? just how many posts are we talking about here?
2) what if one thinks the posts are okay and then the poster gets pbc'd and / or blocked for something the buddy thought was okay?
i'm pretty sure Bob likes this one (posters doing something him staying the same). i think it was posters who were reluctant...
but maybe this got sorted. dunno.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:20:35
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies, posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 22:58:57
> It might be a variation of all three.
In that case, could I ask you to incorporate your suggestions into those three proposals?
mandatory civility buddies
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.htmlvoluntary civility buddies
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971697.htmlsome kind of Elders Council
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971688.htmlI think that will help us move forward together. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:22:03
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 0:40:21
> I agree with 10der that no list would be necessary as it stands right now.
OK, keep up the good work and let me know if there's anything else I can do.
Bob
Posted by Solstice on November 29, 2010, at 7:27:36
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 23:55:30
I love this (maybe with the exception of posting individual council members' votes).I think Bob's proposal has the potential to address all of the members' concerns. The proposal leans quite a bit in favor of the members. I think this proposal clearly demonstrates that Bob is willing to trust the collective wisdom of the board.
Solstice
> Thanks, everyone, for your input. Here's a proposal:
>
> Candidates need to have been registered for 1 year and to have posted 300 times to be eligible. They need to get 5 "signatures" to be nominated. Posters can sign more than 1 "nomination petition". Candidates can sign their own petitions. Candidates nominated by others can decline to "run".
>
> There's 1 month to nominate candidates, then 1 month to vote. Each poster gets 1 vote. The 5 candidates with the most votes are elected. Their term is 1 year.
>
> The council gets a mailing list to communicate with each other off-board.
>
> The council chooses one of themselves to interface with me.
>
> The primary task of the council is to decide whether and when to lift blocks. There's a minimum period during which blocks can't be lifted. Blocks can be lifted unconditionally or with conditions like a voluntary civility buddy, a mandatory civility buddy, or delayed posting.
>
> It's up to blocked posters to involve the council or not. They can communicate with the council off-board if they want.
>
> The council decides by voting. The quorum is 3 members voting or abstaining. A majority (of those voting) determines the decision.
>
> For the sake of transparency, the council posts its decisions and how each member votes.
>
> A secondary task of the council is to serve as a resource for me.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:04:29
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:20:35
If the role expands beyond what it is now, I think you should find someone else to head it up.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 8:26:07
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on November 29, 2010, at 7:27:36
> I love this (maybe with the exception of posting individual council members' votes).
Thanks. My thinking about that was:
> > It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
Knowing how current members voted might help posters decide whether to re-elect them.
Bob
Posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 8:45:46
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:04:29
> If the role expands beyond what it is now, I think you should find someone else to head it up.
>
(((Dinah)))
Glad you watching out for yourself.
It seems to be evolving....again.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:49:17
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 8:26:07
That would make the Elders politicians...
I find the idea of being a politician abhorrent to me personally. I've never ran for anything in my life and am happy to have it remain so.
But if they have any interest in running for office, I'd nominate 10derheart, gardenergirl, partlycloudy, racer, twinleaf, and toph. Off the top of my head.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:52:02
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies » Dinah, posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 8:45:46
If that's true, then I should resign.
I'd have to already have a good relationship with someone if I were to be a formal civility buddy. It seems a relationship fraught with possibilities of a faceful of cat.
Posted by Solstice on November 29, 2010, at 9:21:27
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 8:26:07
> > I love this (maybe with the exception of posting individual council members' votes).
>
> Thanks. My thinking about that was:
>
> > > It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
>
> Knowing how current members voted might help posters decide whether to re-elect them.
>Hmmm.. let's explore this. I read Dinah's concerns. She would be at the top of everybody's list for Council.. so her reaction of 'running' being abhorent can't be ignored. On further reflection, her reaction may very well be rooted in her instinctive wisdom. Holding elections does make Council more representative of the community, especially with 1 yr. terms. I think, though, that it does take a genuinely highly competitive spirit for elections to appeal to a nominated candidate. That may be where it becomes a problem here. Maybe we could consider doing it as more of an inverse 'Supreme Court' process where forum members nominate Council Members, and you as administrator confirms them? (at least those who agree to serve). That way, the nominated members are not 'running' per se... yet since they are chosen by you from those nominated.. they still aren't quite your minions. It will minimize the 'popularity' and competitive aspects of politics that might be troublesome here. And to add another comment regarding the Bob's Minon's factor: I think the power they have over block length decisions is what defines them as NOT your minions, regardless of how they got into that position. Does that seem like a workable way of doing it?
Solstice
Posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 9:35:29
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on November 29, 2010, at 9:21:27
> > > I love this (maybe with the exception of posting individual council members' votes).
> >
> > Thanks. My thinking about that was:
> >
> > > > It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
> >
> > Knowing how current members voted might help posters decide whether to re-elect them.
> >
>
> Hmmm.. let's explore this. I read Dinah's concerns. She would be at the top of everybody's list for Council.. so her reaction of 'running' being abhorent can't be ignored. On further reflection, her reaction may very well be rooted in her instinctive wisdom. Holding elections does make Council more representative of the community, especially with 1 yr. terms. I think, though, that it does take a genuinely highly competitive spirit for elections to appeal to a nominated candidate. That may be where it becomes a problem here. Maybe we could consider doing it as more of an inverse 'Supreme Court' process where forum members nominate Council Members, and you as administrator confirms them? (at least those who agree to serve). That way, the nominated members are not 'running' per se... yet since they are chosen by you from those nominated.. they still aren't quite your minions. It will minimize the 'popularity' and competitive aspects of politics that might be troublesome here. And to add another comment regarding the Bob's Minon's factor: I think the power they have over block length decisions is what defines them as NOT your minions, regardless of how they got into that position. Does that seem like a workable way of doing it?
>
> Solstice
>
>*I also think anyone that runs, needs to be cognizant of the change in stature. The deps were often treated 'differently'. So there is a loss. :(
Also, they need to know that Bob can be very present, but that he also has a tendency to *dissapear* at times.
They also need to know that in 'working WITH' him....is really not. Cuz Bob is NOT a great communicator, and he also doesn't seem to take terribly seriously others peoples suggestions regarding this site.
All these things have proven to be so in the past.
I guess what I am saying is that people should be aware of what they are getting into.....
BTW I am NOT saying Bob is some horrible person. If I thot he was, I wouldn't keep (occasionally) trying here.
But I gotta say, at this point in his life journey anyways, I absolutely would NOT be able to work "with" him, cuz he is a maverick still.
I think there is within him a desire....but he is SO not there yet...he is still a maverick bull crashing around and hurting things, and not knowing why.
:(
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 10:02:21
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:49:17
And Scott, of course.
I'm sure I've forgotten some other names.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:13
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob and deputies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 17:50:08
> I've always been ambivalent about the deputy role because of that. Maybe it would be cleaner to require deputies to give up the poster role.
If this is your decision, you should update the FAQ.
Posted by 10derheart on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:15
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:22:03
>>keep up the good work..
I'm not doing any work. No one has ever asked me to, if you are talking about civility buddies. Maybe a friend, informally, but usually after they posted, and they really already *knew* their post was civil, but were just a little worried about misinterpretation. Otherwise, my past offers to those receiving a PBC and/or having trouble with being blocked previously were 100% rejected.
Thanks for the thanks but I don't really understand...
Posted by 10derheart on November 29, 2010, at 10:24:40
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:49:17
> But if they have any interest in running for office, I'd nominate 10derheart,.....
Thanks but no thanks. Never, ever. I'll post my questions/thoughts to Dr. Bob later if I can. As you might guess, I have strong feelings about "elections" on Babble.
I am not even feeling okay about the (slim, IMO) possibility of being asked to act as a civility buddy any more. Not if it goes beyond, quiet, private, informal help. I am feeling very uncomfortable in general.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 29, 2010, at 14:56:32
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob and deputies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:13
> > I've always been ambivalent about the deputy role because of that. Maybe it would be cleaner to require deputies to give up the poster role.
>
> If this is your decision, you should update the FAQ.Please, ASAP.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 29, 2010, at 14:58:26
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:49:17
> But if they have any interest in running for office, I'd nominate ..., partlycloudy.No, thank you. Not interested in running for any office here.
PartlyCloudy
Posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 16:35:56
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:49:17
>
> But if they have any interest in running for office, I'd nominate ... gardenergirl.Thanks for the consideration, but I'm too rejection-sensitive to want to "run" for a position that I found fraught with peril in the past.
gg
Posted by Deneb on November 29, 2010, at 17:14:33
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 16:35:56
This sounds way complicated. LOL I hate politics. I say we use a random number generator to determine what happens to blocked posters. How about the closing numbers in the stock market?
Something like...
If the last digit of the closing number is 0, then there is no change in the block.
If the last digit of the closing number is 1, then there is an 20% reduction in block.
If the last digit of the closing number is 2, then there is a 40% reduction in block.
If the last digit of the closing number is 3, then there is a 60% reduction in block.etc. LOL
I dunno lol, this random thing sounds like much less work and if people get angry about their lack of block reduction they can blame the fates. LOL
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 18:11:08
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Deneb on November 29, 2010, at 17:14:33
I thought that Bob was really keen for there to be an election of deputies. Only... He didn't get enough people volunteering to be part of the election who he wanted to consider.
The wheels are turning.
Don't worry Dinah, you know what he is like. Lots of non-committal phrases to keep the discussion going, support for something that requires posters to do something that they simply will not do, the odd change (which can be unchanged if people persist for long enough and threaten to leave / leave for a while). He ain't changing anytime soon.
For better. And worse, I suppose. There is always that.
Posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 19:04:05
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 18:11:08
That people are watching out for themselves.
I hate to see people get hurt.
Posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 20:03:39
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 16:35:56
Certainly, though, I wish well for anyone who would choose to run for a position.
gg
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.