![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 144 to 168 of 257. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 21:51:54
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by gardenergirl on December 1, 2010, at 21:15:59
That's a very generous offer, gg. Obviously if blocks were shortened, administration might take more time and your help would be very useful.
Posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 9:14:11
In reply to A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 14:37:42
> > .... To begin with, blocks are not as frequent as it sometimes feels.
>
> I'm glad to see you acknowlege that at last. So why is this Council important again?? Perhaps because there are people here who are distressed by thge current system? Including many (think Scott) who are suprememly Civil and don't find themselves ever in trouble, but are bothered by the stifling effect of the current system? And.. I'm not sure what I could have said that provoked your first sentence there. Statements (like mine, which you posted above) taken out of context can be a problem.
> >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.
>
>
> Protected from accountability for their decisions? In my own experience anonymous groups do things that the individuals in them would never think of doing.Jane. We aren't talking about a Council with universal powers that could lead to what you seem to fear. Bob's proposed Council has a single power - to lift blocks before they're up according to Bob's formula. What do they need to be accountable for? They don't make rules others have to follow (like Congress), they don't have any fiduciary responsibilities where they are collecting and spending others' money (like taxes), and they are not enforcing the law (like the Executive branch on every level of government). That's where you need accountability. All this Council is doing is voting whether a blocked poster's incivility merits the length of block Bob issued. Is that something you are afraid of?
> In another post you referred to this as a dictatorship by Bob. Aren't you just proposing substituting another group of dictators?Taking a statement out of context does create problems. But the answer is No. Bob's proposed Council (which I support) will not become a substitution for Bob (who would remain the only one with the power to block posters). Dictatorship is an autocracy run amok. It has negsative conotations. Bob's proposed Council is by definition Not a dictatorship. A dictatorship is a single person (not a group) that is in power. As I have said - probably in the same post from which you took this other thing out of context - a group with power is more of an oligarchy. In the United States, the Executive branch of government is comparable to an Autocracy (which has the potential to turn into a dictatorship without our system of checks and balances). The Judiciary Branch is considered comparable to an oligarchy (if the Judiciary Branch were the only ruling power). It is not possible for a Council to be a dictatorship.
> An even less accountable group if you have your way about secrecy (which I'll note is also currently only your proposal - not Bob's).Have my way about secrecy? Wow. Less accountable? I think you wholly misunderstand Bob's proposal, as well as the reasons for my opposition to disclosure of individual Council members' votes on releasing blocks. Council would not be making rules, or issuing discipline of any kind. What do they need to be accountable for? Whether an individual member voted for or against a blocked poster being released from their block? Secrecy? That makes it sound like the community would be at risk of Council getting away with being exploitive and harmful. Bob's proposed Council would not have any kind of power that would give them the ability to be exploitive or harmful. Think of our court system.. and juries. The only time members of a jury are asked to disclose their vote is in death penalty cases in which case it is unanimous anyway. In Civil suit juries or criminal juries that don't get unanimous votes, no juror is required to disclose their individual vote. Ever. Is there anything about that particular voting secrecy that harms our society? What about our country's elections? NO one has to disclose who they voted for. Being able to vote secretly is a protected right in this country. This protected 'secrecy' is a huge deal, and if you read the news during local or national elections, you'll see someone who is in trouble for attempting to violate the protection of voting 'secrecy.' The reason it's protected by law is to prevent others (i.e. 'special interests') from putting pressure on individual voters to vote a particular way. And for the same reason, I don't think disclosure of individual votes should be required with Council.
Why would you be afraid of Council members not disclosing their individual votes on whether to release a particular poster from their block? What problem would disclosure of individual votes eliminate? Do you see the problems disclosure could create?
> I notice you failed to address the question of the victims of blocked posters. Do you really believe that there are none?Perhaps you failed to read all of my posts?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972062.html
> > Babble has been kicking and screaming for self-governance for Ever.
>
> Has it really? SOME members here have certainly.Yes, self-governance has been a long-term and frequent theme. Many who dont get blocked prefer self-governance.
> Others have sometimes thought it would be better under THEIR governance (I admit to being fond of that idea myself but I haven't found many takers for appointing ME dictator. Go figure.) Seen in that light Bob might be a fairly good compromise.
I think your statement here may arise from confusion about the difference between a dictator (single as in individual person who is ruler), and oligarchy (a group of people, typically of some kind of trusted stature (i.e. by education, experience, nobility, or because they are landowners, etc.). Additionally, you seem to misunderstand Bobs proposal. He is not proposing that Council replace him. His proposal for a Council actually takes a single, very significant power away from him and grants it to a group of members nominated by the community whereby Bobs blocks have the potential to be shortened by Council, at their discretion by majority vote. Not all blocked posters should have overturned or shortened blocks. But many whose blocks are warranted, deserve (for various reasons involving repair) to have their blocks shortened. If you arent someone who gets blocked, the existence of a Council wont affect you in any way, unless one of your friends gets blocked and you are hoping to see them again sooner than Bobs block provides.
> I actually have a fair amount of sympathy for the idea of self governance. But there are sites already doing just that and I suspect that most people who find that critically important have already sought them out. People who remain at this site have already voted in a way.Not necessarily. Remaining may mean that there is more benefit to being here than they feel harmed by what they may wish would change. Remaining can also mean that they have people here that they care about, and they want to see a unique and exceptional community that is a safe place for those with mental health issues improve. By staying, they may be able to make it better.
> > 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.
>
>
> Wow! That's an interesting paragraph if you try substituting "Bob" for "Council members". So dissenters are little children? Or only future dissenters?You seem to have misunderstood. My comment was not only taken out of context, but also distorted to mean things that are not even implied. I was Not referring to dissenters in general. I was referring Only to those who complain loudly about not liking Bob-rule and all the power he alone has, but who refuse to participate in giving an alternative a fair chance. Do you see the difference? To use an extreme comparison that I hope is not excerpted and put in another post out of context.. perhaps think about a prisoner who feels hes treated like a child because he has to eat gruel every day and has no say-so in what kind of food he eats. He complains loudly about being treated like a child... he wants more food choices. Administration responds by agreeing to provide space and tools/seeds for a prison garden. If that prisoner then refuses to participate in planting, watering and harvesting the produce, wouldnt he deserve to continue being fed gruel and feeling treated like a child?
> Jane
> who is still confused about why we need an incredibly elaborate process set up for a minor problemSolstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:02:17
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 21:51:54
Posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:03:55
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » jane d, posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 9:14:11
> Solstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.Anger? Really? I didn't perceive anger in janed's posts. Disagreement, obviously, but not anger. Interesting.
gg
Posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:39:17
In reply to A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 14:37:42
who is now completely confused as to whether we have a major problem responsible for the loss of valuable posters and the apparent dying of babble as a place for connection and communication, or a minor problem not worth discussing.
didnt we have weeks, if not more of posters being engaged in developing an idea of self-governance and getting interested and maybe even excited about it--
I mean now suddenly it seems that this was all a lot of talk for or about nothing.
Or are you just questioning one reason that's been given for this whole thing?
I just don't understand.
Willful
Posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:43:08
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:39:17
And I personally, if we do stay with the current system but with a much lower cap on blocks, would like to see some new deputies. It would be a great thing to have some fresh ideas and input, rather than just reappointing the same people, who would have the same standards and responses as before.
Nothing against the old deputies. They were great and made a huge contribution to babble. But just that sometimes change is revitalizing.
Willful
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2010, at 17:13:22
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:03:55
> Anger? Really? I didn't perceive anger in janed's posts. Disagreement, obviously, but not anger. Interesting.
>
> ggI agree.
Posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 20:53:36
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:03:55
>
> > Solstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.
>
> Anger? Really? I didn't perceive anger in janed's posts. Disagreement, obviously, but not anger. Interesting.
>
> gg
Ok.. maybe 'anger' wasn't the best word. But it wasn't simply disagreement, either. It was more. Irritation was leaking through her post. And the irritated challenges were directed at me, but were based on a number of distortions of what I said. I am more than happy to answer anyone's challenges to what I think. That's how I learn more. But challenging me based on distortions of what I said and negative assumptions about what I mean isn't particularly civil. Since it wasn't your words that were distorted, and it wasn't you who was mischaracterized, it makes sense to me that her post to me wouldn't strike you in the same way that it struck me.I will always make an effort to address and correct any distortions of what I say.
Solstice
Posted by 10derheart on December 2, 2010, at 22:15:55
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2010, at 17:13:22
Posted by 10derheart on December 2, 2010, at 22:19:27
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:43:08
Thanks for the compliment....I think. ;-)
What if no one - or no one else but gg - volunteers to be Dr. Bob's deputy?
He had not been able in the past to get many (any?) new posters to do so after a certain point. Do you think if caps on blocks were much shorter it would be the change that would make it more likely different posters would then be willing to be deputies?
Just curious.
- 10der (former deputy who has no problem hoping for revitalization)
Posted by jane d on December 3, 2010, at 6:01:18
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » jane d, posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 9:14:11
> > > .... To begin with, blocks are not as frequent as it sometimes feels.
...
> ? Perhaps because there are people here who are distressed by thge current system? Including many (think Scott) who are suprememly Civil and don't find themselves ever in trouble, but are bothered by the stifling effect of the current system? And.. I'm not sure what I could have said that provoked your first sentence there. Statements (like mine, which you posted above) taken out of context can be a problem.
I don't agree that your statements were taken out of context. I don't, however, have any problem with your asserting that your words did not accurately reflect your intentions and clarifying them. And, while I thought the context of the above statement was pretty clear I do see how I could have spelled it out a little more clearly for you. Put simply, I was commenting on your stating that we had a big problem affecting many people when lobbying for the change you want to see but then, when someone pointed out potential problems with your suggestion, claiming the problems weren't important because your suggestion wouldn't affect many people. Do you see the problem in using two different fact sets for different aspects of the same proposal?
> I think you wholly misunderstand Bob's proposal, as well as the reasons for my opposition to disclosure of individual Council members' votes on releasing blocks.
I don't think I misunderstood either one. I didn't agree with it. Do you really believe all disagreement is simply a result of misunderstanding? However I think that your suggestion for an amendment to Bob's proposal should be discussed separately for clarity's sake and I'll try to respond to that separately later.
> Perhaps you failed to read all of my posts?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972062.htmlPerhaps I did. But I certainly tried. :)
> I think your statement here may arise from confusion about the difference between a dictator.....
> Additionally, you seem to misunderstand Bobs proposal.
Again. I disagreed. It's not the same thing at all.
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Wow! That's an interesting paragraph if you try substituting "Bob" for "Council members". So dissenters are little children? Or only future dissenters?
>
> You seem to have misunderstood. My comment was not only taken out of context, but also distorted to mean things that are not even implied. I was Not referring to dissenters in general. I was referring Only to those who complain loudly about not liking Bob-rule and all the power he alone has, but who refuse to participate in giving an alternative a fair chance. Do you see the difference? ....Again. I'm happy to see you amend your original statement even though I don't agree it was taken out of context. But your argument still seems problematical. It still "sounds" as though you are saying "my way or the highway". What about people who feel there should be a different approach?
> Solstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think that disagreeing with some of your ideas equals anger directed at you. I'm terribly sorry that you do. I'm not however so sorry about it that I will now keep silent if you say something I don't agree with.
Jane
Note. I don't believe anything here was quoted out of context either however to see the original all you need to do is click on the link at the top of the post next to "in reply to".
Posted by jane d on December 3, 2010, at 6:46:25
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:39:17
> who is now completely confused as to whether we have a major problem responsible for the loss of valuable posters and the apparent dying of babble as a place for connection and communication, or a minor problem not worth discussing.
I'm not sure it's either of those. I certainly didn't mean to suggest it wasn't worth discussing.
> didnt we have weeks, if not more of posters being engaged in developing an idea of self-governance and getting interested and maybe even excited about it--
Did we? We certainly had a lot of posts. And I think there was some real discussion buried in there. But it also seemed (to me) as though many of the posts just talked past each other. I kept finding myself reading a post and then a reply and feeling that the they were talking about two totally different things and neither poster realized it. For example, we had posts referring to "civility buddies" but describing a council even after civility buddies had been explicitly defined. I'd like to see the discussions continue until it's clear just what we are all agreeing or disagreeing about.
>I mean now suddenly it seems that this was all a lot of talk for or about nothing.
So far as I know the discussion is still open.
> Or are you just questioning one reason that's been given for this whole thing?
Not *just* that but I do question some of the overstatements that have been made about blocks. That they are frequent. They're not. That they are always (or often) capricious and unreasonable. I recently looked at a full years worth and, while I personally would draw the lines differently, that's not true either. That everybody who has ever left did so because they think the block policy is too strict. I can also remember people leaving because Bob wasn't strict enough. Etc, etc.
Is that any clearer?
Jane
Posted by muffled on December 3, 2010, at 9:26:42
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Willful, posted by 10derheart on December 2, 2010, at 22:19:27
> What if no one - or no one else but gg - volunteers to be Dr. Bob's deputy?
>
> He had not been able in the past to get many (any?) new posters to do so after a certain point. Do you think if caps on blocks were much shorter it would be the change that would make it more likely different posters would then be willing to be deputies?
>
> Just curious.
>
> - 10der (former deputy who has no problem hoping for revitalization)
>
>*10der :) (((safe hugs)))
I once considered deputydom,cuz I can separate myself from the general noise. But....I didn't trust Bob, and didn't know why exactly.
Then it all became more clear, and I was SO glad I trusted my instincts.
However, I think if Bob finally started to turly listen and heed, then I would help out.
But at this point, I am still very wary of Bob indeed.
And yes, for me, block length(and lack of warning/and too easily blocked) is a HUGE sticking point.
TC
Posted by Willful on December 3, 2010, at 13:48:07
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Willful, posted by jane d on December 3, 2010, at 6:46:25
Hi, Jane.
Thanks for answering. I felt, though, that your answers mostly consisted of disagreeing with my categorizations like "not worth discussing" or "weeks of discussion" -- when my point was elsewhere, ie, the question of whether there was or is a serious or needing-to-be-addressed problem here at babble about self-governance and imposition and length of blocks.
I had thought the transition from civility buddies to a counsel of Elders was made pretty explicitly in the suggestion of the need for a larger voice for posters in the blocks-- which therefore would be more acceptable, and perhaps more consistently applied (because the elders would be here more consistently) and also shorter. The civility buddy idea contemplated the same rules and general methods for imposing blocks, which would be Bob and Bob's formula, both of which have been claimed to be the source of conflict and people's leaving. The counsel of Elders was a completely different take on how to handle blocks.
I may have gotten the wrong idea, but initially, and for quite a while, there was general acceptance -- or at least not overt disagreement--- about the value of the Elders idea. Then, as Bob seemed surprisingly agreeable, after all this energy had been expended on convincing him, etc-- a sudden voicing of all these doubts, disagreements and poking holes in the premises of the idea itself.
I found myself somehow disappointed that we put all this possibly unnecessary energy and emotion into this idea-- which, by the way, I have no particular stake in-- only, when it became a real possibility, to pull the rug out from under it. I may have misread the overall response. But this was my impression.
So I was questioning why this sudden backing away-- from something that would of course be a major change and might not work out--but which seemed quite a creative and interesting idea? After all, it has been my observation that there is a ~lot~ of unhappiness with the blocking system and experience here. And I would love to see it addressed and to see people less focussed on injustice and hurtfulness of babble and getting more a sense of support and connection here.
Whether there are, in fact, too many or inconsistent blocks, I can't say for a fact. It isa fact that at times I've walked on eggshells when posting here-- and it's also my impression that PBCs and blocks are inconsistently and not quickly enough applied. But whether these issues need to be addressed is of course another thing.
But I am agnostic about the Counsel of Elders idea, for many reasons. I didn't contribute to the development of the idea because I wouldn't want to be on the counsel and I wasn't sure it would work. But I don't want to see it sabotaged at this point-- or made to seem as the subject line say, a solution in search of a problem. Clearly there was a problem. I just don't think there is any question about that.. I would be interested in whether a counsel improved things. I do think blocks need to be shorter.
I don't remember anyone leaving because Bob wasn't strict enough-- but I also am not convinced that the blocks explain why this place is (or may be) moribund.
Willful
Posted by Willful on December 3, 2010, at 14:17:03
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Willful, posted by 10derheart on December 2, 2010, at 22:19:27
Hi, 10derheart.
I think it would help a lot if the blocks were shorter, and also if they were more consistent-- not that they aren't consistent in the sense of being somewhat predictable, but in the sense that there isn't enough moderation and so many uncivil things are missed, and only the unlucky person who is noticed gets any moderation. There is also, for the same reason, too much time between the uncivil post and the response.
But I certainly think shorter blocks would relieve some of the dissatisfaction--. Maybe there would also be more people willing to be deputies if there were less unhappiness.
thanks for your response,
Willful
Posted by Solstice on December 3, 2010, at 14:27:16
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » jane d, posted by Willful on December 3, 2010, at 13:48:07
Hi Willful..
Your descriptions of the concepts involved are wonderfully easy to read.
> I had thought the transition from civility buddies to a counsel of Elders was made pretty explicitly in the suggestion of the need for a larger voice for posters in the blocks-- which therefore would be more acceptable, and perhaps more consistently applied (because the elders would be here more consistently) and also shorter. The civility buddy idea contemplated the same rules and general methods for imposing blocks, which would be Bob and Bob's formula, both of which have been claimed to be the source of conflict and people's leaving. The counsel of Elders was a completely different take on how to handle blocks.I think Elders' Council and Civility Buddies are two separate tools that would genuinely address the issues that have created so much stress here. It would limit block lengths when they *should* be limited (Council), and the Civility Buddy aspect would be a resource for those who want to avoid posting things that would be uncivil in the first place. I think Bob did want to separate the threads, though. But I think both of these mechanisms would work hand-in-hand to reduce the energy devoted to complaints about the current system.
> I may have gotten the wrong idea, but initially, and for quite a while, there was general acceptance -- or at least not overt disagreement--- about the value of the Elders idea. Then, as Bob seemed surprisingly agreeable, after all this energy had been expended on convincing him, etc-- a sudden voicing of all these doubts, disagreements and poking holes in the premises of the idea itself.Fascinating observation. You're right. That's exactly what hbappened. I can't help but wonder if my enthusiasm about it has been part of the problem? Maybe an active 'new kid on the block' (I'm not new to the site, but I am new to the active community).. but maybe my sudden and frequent appearance and input on the subject is off-putting? I also don't have any kind of a vested interest in it.. so I'd be happy to back away from it and remain silent on the issue if that would help others less suspicious of Bob's Elder's Council proposal.
> I found myself somehow disappointed that we put all this possibly unnecessary energy and emotion into this idea-- which, by the way, I have no particular stake in-- only, when it became a real possibility, to pull the rug out from under it. I may have misread the overall response. But this was my impression.Mine as well. I was feeling kinda alone on that :-) Now I don't.
> So I was questioning why this sudden backing away-- from something that would of course be a major change and might not work out--but which seemed quite a creative and interesting idea? After all, it has been my observation that there is a ~lot~ of unhappiness with the blocking system and experience here. And I would love to see it addressed and to see people less focussed on injustice and hurtfulness of babble and getting more a sense of support and connection here.
Yeah... my thinking as well.
> Whether there are, in fact, too many or inconsistent blocks, I can't say for a fact. It isa fact that at times I've walked on eggshells when posting here-- and it's also my impression that PBCs and blocks are inconsistently and not quickly enough applied. But whether these issues need to be addressed is of course another thing.
>
> But I am agnostic about the Counsel of Elders idea, for many reasons. I didn't contribute to the development of the idea because I wouldn't want to be on the counsel and I wasn't sure it would work. But I don't want to see it sabotaged at this point-- or made to seem as the subject line say, a solution in search of a problem. Clearly there was a problem. I just don't think there is any question about that.. I would be interested in whether a counsel improved things.And we'll never know if it never gets off the ground, and if trusted members of the community aren't willing to serve. I can understand the negative (and in my view legitimate) reaction to being elected vs. appointed. I think there's a way to satisfy Bob's desire that the Elder's Council arise out of the Community's collective opinion about who should serve.. but also keep it from being a popularity contest where preferences are shown for some of the nominees over others. I also understand the legitimate concerns about backlash from people complaining about Council decisions.. which is why I think it's more important to limit that potential (especially because of the vast experience of deputies of how bad the backlash can be). But by not posting individual votes, individual Council members could 'vote' with their conscience (as they should) without risking backlash for it, because since they are part of a group of people, no one would know who to get angry with. They could get angry about the decision, but not directly at a particular Council member.
> I do think blocks need to be shorter.That's the biggest problem... and Bob has offered to turn over authority for adjusting block length to a Council who determine it by majority vote. The Community will never know what it will be like to have shorter blocks until they throw their support behind a Council of community members that they have nominated to serve in those roles, and then continue to support them as an entity.
> I don't remember anyone leaving because Bob wasn't strict enough-- but I also am not convinced that the blocks explain why this place is (or may be) moribund.Good point. Blocks may only be part of it.. but they do seem to be a significant part. My gut tells me that addressing block length problem will, over the long term, eventually lead to less contribution of any of the other things that may contribute to "moribund." :-)
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:08:49
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Willful, posted by Solstice on December 3, 2010, at 14:27:16
I can only speak for myself, but the thing that changed my attitude was role inflation.
Originally the civility buddy idea was just that. A public offer to be available for at least some of the traditional role of civility buddy. I had volunteered to do that and to coordinate whatever needed coordinated.
Then all of a sudden, civil buddies were being talked about as something that I had never volunteered to do or to coordinate. And that I had no interest in doing.
As a result, I not only was upset at the new definition, but I wanted to resign what I had agreed to do.
That objection on my part could be solved by changing the name of the new position. It isn't really a civility buddy's part to be screening posts as a requirement of posting anyway. That's hardly a "buddy". If the name of the new position were changed to civility screener, or civility checker, or civility editor, or parole officer, I'd quit being upset about that part of it.
The same thing happened with the Council. At first it seemed that Dr. Bob was describing a parole board. Where after a portion of a block was served, the board could be contacted by those posters willing to take the responsibility of living by site guidelines and arrange for a way for those posters to come back to the community early. I've always thought willingness to abide by site guidelines was a better judge of whether someone should come back than the passage of time.
Then it started to sound like appeals court. Where Dr. Bob's decisions could be overturned and his blocks deemed unjustified. That is something different entirely. The first involves helping posters return in a way where they take responsibility for their posting. The second is about Dr. Bob and his judgments. The second is substituting the judgments of the council for the judgments of Dr. Bob.
I am for the former but against the latter.
I hope that clarifies *my* change of attitude. It has nothing to do with personalities and everything to do with beliefs.
Posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:10:16
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:08:49
By that I mean that I can only explain my own motivations. I can't speak to the motivations of others, but I doubt they were personal either.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 4, 2010, at 9:32:50
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:08:49
> I can only speak for myself, but the thing that changed my attitude was role inflation.
>
> Originally the civility buddy idea was just that. A public offer to be available for at least some of the traditional role of civility buddy. I had volunteered to do that and to coordinate whatever needed coordinated.
>
> Then all of a sudden, civil buddies were being talked about as something that I had never volunteered to do or to coordinate. And that I had no interest in doing.
>
> As a result, I not only was upset at the new definition, but I wanted to resign what I had agreed to do.
>
> That objection on my part could be solved by changing the name of the new position. It isn't really a civility buddy's part to be screening posts as a requirement of posting anyway. That's hardly a "buddy". If the name of the new position were changed to civility screener, or civility checker, or civility editor, or parole officer, I'd quit being upset about that part of it.
>
> The same thing happened with the Council. At first it seemed that Dr. Bob was describing a parole board. Where after a portion of a block was served, the board could be contacted by those posters willing to take the responsibility of living by site guidelines and arrange for a way for those posters to come back to the community early. I've always thought willingness to abide by site guidelines was a better judge of whether someone should come back than the passage of time.
>
> Then it started to sound like appeals court. Where Dr. Bob's decisions could be overturned and his blocks deemed unjustified. That is something different entirely. The first involves helping posters return in a way where they take responsibility for their posting. The second is about Dr. Bob and his judgments. The second is substituting the judgments of the council for the judgments of Dr. Bob.
>
> I am for the former but against the latter.
>
> I hope that clarifies *my* change of attitude. It has nothing to do with personalities and everything to do with beliefs.That's how I feel about it too.
Also, I felt as if a volunteer position all of a sudden became a political position, and I know 1) I'd lose 2) I couldn't take that, and 3) the spirit of volunteering was quickly run out of the job before it ever coalesced.
Posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 10:52:22
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 4, 2010, at 9:32:50
>"1) I'd lose "
Naaaaahhhh! NEVER!!!! I'd vote for ya!!! :)
Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 11:28:37
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:08:49
> I can only speak for myself, but the thing that changed my attitude was role inflation.
>
> Originally the civility buddy idea was just that. A public offer to be available for at least some of the traditional role of civility buddy. I had volunteered to do that and to coordinate whatever needed coordinated.
>
> Then all of a sudden, civil buddies were being talked about as something that I had never volunteered to do or to coordinate. And that I had no interest in doing.Those were just ideas. Nothing more. The civility buddy assistance that you were dealing with has already been in place. You were coordinating bringing in more from the community to serve as civility buddies. The definition of that was not changed. I had ideas - but that is all they were. Nobody changed anything. I certainly don't have that power.
> As a result, I not only was upset at the new definition, but I wanted to resign what I had agreed to do.I don't want to feel like your desire to resign was my fault, but it seems that is what's implied. That my ideas upset you makes me feel like it's not okay to have ideas... at least it's not okay to share them. I'm clear on that now.
> That objection on my part could be solved by changing the name of the new position.As far as I know, there isn't a 'new position.' Ideas for possible expansions, but only ideas - which are subject to rejection.
> It isn't really a civility buddy's part to be screening posts as a requirement of posting anyway. That's hardly a "buddy". If the name of the new position were changed to civility screener, or civility checker, or civility editor, or parole officer, I'd quit being upset about that part of it.Please stop being upset. I took your point when you first made it - and since that time, when I've referred to civility buddies, I was referring to it as it currently exists - not with any 'expansions.' All I have are ideas and suggestions. Again.. I don't have the power to make changes. I don't mind my ideas beeing rejected as not practical, or not workable.. but I do wish I didn't feel that shareing my ideas is unwelcome.
> The same thing happened with the Council. At first it seemed that Dr. Bob was describing a parole board. Where after a portion of a block was served, the board could be contacted by those posters willing to take the responsibility of living by site guidelines and arrange for a way for those posters to come back to the community early. I've always thought willingness to abide by site guidelines was a better judge of whether someone should come back than the passage of time.
>
> Then it started to sound like appeals court. Where Dr. Bob's decisions could be overturned and his blocks deemed unjustified. That is something different entirely. The first involves helping posters return in a way where they take responsibility for their posting. The second is about Dr. Bob and his judgments. The second is substituting the judgments of the council for the judgments of Dr. Bob.Some of this may just be semantics. After I boiled my ideas about Council down, I think what I've talked about most recently has been the same in essence as what you're describing. However, in my attempt to include the people who react to some of Bob's blocks as being unjust, unmerited, and using too low of a threshhold, I used similar language - which may have led to it being perceived as different. At the core of it, it would seem unreasonable to believe that it's not possible for Bob to unjustifiably block a poster - to have an error in judgment. If a poster is indeed blocked for something that even folks on Council didn't understand, that poster will be saying "hey - I don't know why Bob took it as uncivil - but here's what I meant.." and Council easily sees that Bob may have misunderstood the poster... so Council remedies that by releasing the block, because they have checked and verified that the poster was not coming from an uncivil place, and clearly does not intend to be uncivil. I don't see it as substituting the judgments of Council for the judgments of Bob as much as I see it as being full recognition on the part of both Council and Bob that there will be times that he has issued a block that is unnecessarily long given the contrition of the justifiably blocked poster, and there are times Bob will issue a block based on a judgment made in haste, or made without enough background information - which Council has better access to. Those cases could fairly be described as 'unjust blocks.'
> I am for the former but against the latter.
>
> I hope that clarifies *my* change of attitude. It has nothing to do with personalities and everything to do with beliefs.And sometimes we misunderstand the beliefs to which we object. That's why talking is what keeps things fluid. Ideas are just ideas - like a smorgasborg of options from which to choose. I never meant for my ideas to be taken as if they were a 'given.'. I think in terms of 'development plans' whereby a developer submits to the planners of a jurisdiction a proposal for a development. It goes back and forth dozens of times for revisions by both the developer's architect and the jurisdiction's planners. Each side tweaking it and making proposals for adjustments. The jurisdiction's planners have the final word on everything.. but it has to go through a bunch of different departments.. signage, parking, landscaping, utilities, transportation, etc. The plans go back to the developer with 'comments,' and after addressing the 'comments,' developer submits it again with 'revisions.' It can take forever to get through the process - and once plans are approved, it's still not over. During the construction phase, the jurisdiction will send inspectors out, and adjustments will continue to be made along the way. Until it's actually built, it's all just ideas, subject to tweaking. I guess my approach to this was like that... but the proposals I submitted were perceived as final development plans that had the jurisdiction's approval (having sent proper notification to adjacent landowners so they could come to the hearing to voice objections).
I don't think it's *me* that's being rejected.. but I do wish my ideas were welcomed as ideas. I'm thinking it may have been better for the community if I had remained a cave-dweller.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 11:49:42
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 11:28:37
>but the proposals I submitted were perceived as final development plans that had the jurisdiction's approval (having sent proper notification to adjacent landowners so they could come to the hearing to voice objections).
The above was supposed to say: "(having NOT sent proper notification to adjacent landowners so they could come to the hearing to voice objections)".
Posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 11:57:27
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 11:28:37
I think it good you trying to help.
But see, you getting invested, course you are, cuz you have put effort into this.
but it not gonna be logical, and that why long time ago me, and proly alex and maybe others(my memory sucks) were saying to be careful, cuz you get too involved and things here move awful slow, and Bob comes and goes....so it just slow.
Then you throw in people...lol...and it get more crazy!!!
And that kinda what makes it interesting too tho...
But I get the sense that you trying real hard and maybe you getting a bit frustrated and I hate to see that.
I think to work this we goto take a large step back, and look at the info of what is trying to be achieved and worry a little less about being hurt, cuz ya, feathers get ruffled in discussions, but we goto focus on what we trying to achieve.
We all good people and struggling away w/this unwieldy place.
I think we all want to see more life here.
Just....its hard. Hard in alot of ways.
So maybe sometimes we goto stop a bit and breathe(and wait fer friggin Bob to reappear...!?!?).
Yep, we in the trenches together.
We from different places.
So ya, we gonna have troubles from time to time.
But I think we all goto remember that we all just trying our best as we can in trying circumstances....even Bob.
Manoman, too bad we can't all get together on a beach, toss back a few brewskies and hash this out.
AND, lol, if Bob don't come on board, we throw him into the sea!!!
HA!
Thx for alla the work you doing solstice, I know it frustration.
We all good eggs.
We just goto keep slowly picking away at ol Bob and maybe he come around....
I hate to make too much plans w/o Bob on board cuz ultimately it all gonna come down to him.
Been that way B4.
We get all enthusiastic and then Bob just won't budge...
So, ya, we waiting...
Hope you can chill some on this.
It hard 4sure.
M
Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 12:23:10
In reply to solstice, and everyboddy really, me too :), posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 11:57:27
You are very kind, Muff.. and your posts are awfully fun to read. Just delightful! :-)
I'm not really frustrated with it moving slow.. but there are things I find myself having trouble with:
- when I feel misunderstood
- when I feel attacked for having said/thought things I didn't say or think
- when people make wrong assumptions about me, and then act as if those assumptions are fact
- when others seem to get upset with me because of what they think I mean or think, without first having clarified whether I mean or think. They just jump to conclusions. Maybe that's the same as the one above?
- and finally... I don't mind my ideas being rejected, but when it feels like the very sharing of my ideas is unwelcome, then *I* feel unwelcome. And right now I do feel very unwelcome.Never by you tho, Muffled. :-) And for that I thank you.
Sol.
Posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 14:57:35
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 11:28:37
It's really not personal and I don't mind new ideas.
There was some discussion about how people were suddenly against the proposals they had previously been in favor of. Or at least I think I saw something to that effect.
I was saying that my position never really changed.
The only thing I did ask is that, instead of an expansion of the existing civility buddy system, the idea be framed in terms of a new position with different responsibilities. Since I'm currently a civility buddy volunteer, I didn't think it was unreasonable to ask that the positions be separated if that was possible. If the current role is expanded, my resignation wouldn't be your fault. It would be because I didn't feel comfortable with the expectations of the expanded role. It would seem better to mention the matter now than after the role was expanded.
I didn't try to stop you from offering new ideas. I can like some of your ideas and not like other of your ideas without in any way trying to silence you.
In the end I have no idea what Bob will do. I have no great insight into his mind. But I can have opinions on aspects of the proposals put forward. Whatever he decides, that will be what happens.
I didn't say you shouldn't share your ideas. I didn't *mean* that you shouldn't share your ideas. For all I know your ideas will strike a chord with Dr. Bob. Certainly I have no reason to believe otherwise.
I didn't take your ideas to be anything more than ideas. Only Dr. Bob has the power to implement anything.
I am somewhat confused as to how my disagreement is taken to be silencing. I have neither the power or the desire to silence you. Ought I say nothing to your suggestions? Or agree with things I do not agree with?
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.