![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 96 to 120 of 257. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Solstice on November 30, 2010, at 1:11:34
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 9:35:29
> *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. :(If I understand it correctly, Council members would not be deputies. They would not be looking for incivilities, issuing PBC's, or blocking anyone. Council members would 'convene' in the event of someone getting blocked. They would review the situation, and if amongst themselves the majority of them agree that the block was not warranted, they could lift the block. And if a block was warranted but Bob issued a 32 week block and Council members agreed amongst themselves that the blocked poster was, for example, putting forth effort to make amends, Council could lift Bob's block much sooner than his 32 week sentence.
So it's really quite a bit different than the deputy role. If I understand correctly, a chief feature of their role would be to keep Bob and his blocks "in check." He would, in essence, be handing Council the 'last word' on blocks. I don't yet see how Council members would 'draw fire,' since their role is benevolent. I grew up the daughter of a high-ranking military officer. Dad had unbelievably high standards at the table. I remember being young elementary age, and while giggling about something like little kids do, a burp slipped out. I was quickly dismissed from the table without supper, confined to my room till the next morning. Dad's position was that such things were intolerable and could not be considered accidents. You had to develop the ability to control it. I remember being sent away from the table several different times for various infractions like that and confined to my room without supper. Mom pleaded with Dad over withholding food. He refused to budge. Without telling him, each and every time it happened she managed to sneak food into the room of whoever had been sent to bed without it. She thought he was being ridiculous, and she could not abide his extremity. Council seems a little like that benevolent Mom to me... Council has the power to release blocks that the majority of them agree are unwarranted or are unnecessarily long. If I understand it right, hey would have the last word. They don't need Bob's permission - so it wouldn't matter whether he's around or not.
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 15:49:51
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob and deputies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:13
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Bob
>
> If this is your decision, you should update the FAQ.I agree, if I decide that, I'll update the FAQ.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 15:50:31
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:15
> > keep up the good work..
>
> I'm not doing any work.
>
> Thanks for the thanks but I don't really understand...I intended that for Dinah, who's been organizing this renewed effort. :-)
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on November 30, 2010, at 16:40:15
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 15:50:31
Okay. Makes way more sense. Sorry.
Posted by jane d on November 30, 2010, at 16:58:56
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on November 30, 2010, at 1:11:34
> If I understand it correctly, ....
>Council members ....would review the situation, and if amongst themselves the majority of them agree that the block was not warranted, they could lift the block.
Actually, if I recall correctly that was your proposal not Bob's. His only allows the board to lift the block after a minimum time was served - not negate it entirely.
What he actually suggested is here. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971688.html
> So it's really quite a bit different than the deputy role. If I understand correctly, a chief feature of their role would be to keep Bob and his blocks "in check." He would, in essence, be handing Council the 'last word' on blocks. I don't yet see how Council members would 'draw fire,' since their role is benevolent.I'm not at all sure that's part of his proposal. But even if it is it seems naive to assume the council members will be universally loved. If they lift some blocks but not others they will draw fire from the friends of those they decline to pardon. If they lift all blocks no matter what then what is the point? And they still risk drawing fire from the victims of some of those blocked posters (and yes - some of them do have victims).
Jane
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 0:30:03
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Solstice, posted by jane d on November 30, 2010, at 16:58:56
Thank you Jane for taking the time & trouble to clear up what I misstated.
> > If I understand it correctly, .... Council members ....would review the situation, and if amongst themselves the majority of them agree that the block was not warranted, they could lift the block.
> Actually, if I recall correctly that was your proposal not Bob's. His only allows the board to lift the block after a minimum time was served - not negate it entirely.I must have interjected some of my own wishful thinking :-)
> > So it's really quite a bit different than the deputy role. If I understand correctly, a chief feature of their role would be to keep Bob and his blocks "in check." He would, in essence, be handing Council the 'last word' on blocks. I don't yet see how Council members would 'draw fire,' since their role is benevolent.
>
> I'm not at all sure that's part of his proposal.Even with the mandatory minimum, the fact that they can lift blocks or shorten blocks without having to clear it through him really is handing over a tremendous amount of power that he has never before reliquished. It really is allowing the community to self-govern to a great extent.
> But even if it is it seems naive to assume the council members will be universally loved.Of course it would be. But as a rule no one is universally loved, regardless of whether or not they hold a Council position. I would sure like to be universally loved. I work hard to be worth loving. But life got much less stressful after I accepted that regardless of what I did, or how many pretzel knots I tied myself into, I will not be loved by everybody. Muffled recently warned that Bob's scanty communication is very frustrating. My verbosity, though, might genuinely be just as frustrating (or annoying) to some. So being universally loved is a goal that will guarantee failure.
> If they lift some blocks but not others they will draw fire from the friends of those they decline to pardon.That's certainly possible, but I don't think it's likely enough to merit being a heavy factor. To begin with, blocks are not as frequent as it sometimes feels. Secondly, Council is a group of people.. not just one person. It would be harder for the friends of an unpardoned poster to know where to aim their fire. Also, the Council members are more emotionally protected because they are part of a group. That protection is the reason I am not in favor of Council having to post individual votes. An unpardoned poster will never know who did, or didn't vote for their reprieve. Perhaps for accountability's sake Bob should be aware of who votes for what, but I think posting that data for everyone would undermine the insulation Council members will need to feel better about serving.
> And they still risk drawing fire from the victims of some of those blocked posters (and yes - some of them do have victims).I suppose I could be wrong, but I have a hard time imagining that individual council members would, in reality, draw the kind of fire you fear here. Deputies had all kinds of stuff thrown at them. But the duties of Council is a far cry from the duties of deputies. Not even on the same planet.
Further.. although I think it's understandable (and even healthy) for the community to run the Council idea through all potential problems, I think it's a mistake for the Community here to shoot the idea down. Babble has been kicking and screaming for self-governance for Ever. And the whole idea of self-governance necessitates members of the community being willing to put the time and energy to serve in leadership roles. The U.S. considers itself self-governed.. and as a result there are roles in government that are filled by those among us who want to pursue careers in government and politics. 'Self governance' without members being willing to lead, serve, and accept the accompanying risks of that would be the equivalent of Somalia. Do we really think we want that? Nothing just 'runs' on its own.. without running amok until the thugs take over.
I think it's important that the Community recognizes that it is wholly unfair to complain about anything Bob does if everyone scurries for their safe caves when an offer is made to create a Council that will hold self-governing powers. If no one is willing to stand up and wear the robe of leadership & service, then it is a ridiculous waste of Bob's time for anyone here to complain about anything he does. And if people here start throwing fire at the Council members who have made the sacrifice to lead and serve, then this Community deserves to be treated like a bunch of little children, including uncivil posters being blocked for however long and using whatever formula is satisfactory to Bob.
Solstice
Posted by alexandra_k on December 1, 2010, at 2:34:55
In reply to Elders Council - Necessary for self-governance, posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 0:30:03
Is Bob willing to relinquish his autocracy?
Sometimes he says things that suggest he is...
Mostly he simply doesn't relinquish as he could (e.g., on various matters with the Deputies).
If he isn't willing then whether the community is behind it or not is purely academic.
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.