![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 167 to 191 of 257. Go back in thread:
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?
Posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 15:01:29
In reply to Re: solstice, and everyboddy really, me too :), posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 12:23:10
> 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.
>
>Many thanks.
But see, thats the thing, you getting invested... :(
You bringing emotions(which confuse me no end, I s'posed to learn bout them tho) into it. I not so sure you read things right IMHO, but I could be wrong.....but see thats the 'invested' part, people get 'invested' in something and it skews their perceptions, they start to see things different....and not always for the best I afraid...cuz they got this investment...ugh, I not saying it well am I?
I think you need, in this admin situ anyways, to just let go of them emots stuff. Cuz you goto keep your eyes on the fries as they say.
Sides, sure nuff Bobbo gonna start to throwin about PBC's if you don't watch it!!! then the poo flies I gotta tell ya!!! DUCK! It hard here to know when the poo gonna fly :(
Cuz people gonna feel strong, and the darn words SO easily get 'read' wrong cuz thats the nature of words.
I not so clear on the cursed civility rules, they also confuse me no end....and I absolutely do not mean to fuss you, but sigh...I fear you may have run afoul of them above....see, in my understanding, you not allowed to say what you did....I think. Bob will wan you to rephrase it. Eg,"when I feel attacked", he will proly want you to say something more along the lines of....crap this is confusing...but....hmmmmm....ok "sometimes I feel like people don't want me here", kinda like saying how you feel w/o directing it in such a way that someone will grab the fact that you feel attacked and think it is directed at them, and then THEY gert mad, cuz you saying they attacked you, and really, like as not, they didn't mean it that way (accursed words!). So this be a heads up for ya! Welcome to babble....
So when here I just try and assume everyboddy means for the best, and it NOT personal to me or you.....it just a thrashing thru of ideas.
And yeppers, someboddy always gonna feel kinda so so if theys ideas aren't taken, it kinda human nature that!!! LOL!!
I think if you wanto work on this, and you DO NOT have to, you gonna have to try and let the emotions stuff go.
Which for some ain't easy. LOL, for me it is lotsa times cuz I got parts whats got no emotions.
So, I dunno the dynamics, cuz I get confused, but I think it just ya, you got good ideas, and you got the smarts and stuff...but LOL, maybe people getting overwhelmed some, cuz no everyboddy can think fast and assimilate stuff as fast as someone(you) who is gifted in that way.
Its good people here, seriously.
Its just plain ol words is hard.
Change is hard.
The time lag is hard.
We all strugglin.
Just, I hope you don't get tied up in emotions over this sol, cuz there a chance you just gonna be spinning your wheels w/ol Bob.
So, I leery for sure of alla this.....
Take it slow ;-) would be my advice, and I am SURE "I" know best!! ROFL!!!
I hope everybody can be chillin.
Cuz we alls want the same.
To be accepted. To not get hurt. To have meaningful interations. To dabble with some deeper thots, to be 'known' by others, etc etc.
We all hurting.
So, LOL!!! Lets pile on the happy stuff!
Cuz we all not so differeent after all...
Hang in there...!
Posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 15:02:57
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 14:57:35
That Dinah you good w/the words girl!
Sometime it fun to try and get it right!
Posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 15:11:18
In reply to oh dinah, you are the Master!!!, posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 15:02:57
I feel more bewildered than articulate.
At some point recently I must have expressed myself less than well.
Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 18:16:34
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 14:57:35
> 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 agree.. Right about the same time (or just afterwards) you brought this up, Bob generated activity on the Council concept and made his proposal. His proposal eliminated the need for anything other than the civility buddy system that you have going on right now, so I dropped the ideas I had that you consider 'expansion.' After that point, any time I mentioned the civility buddy function, it was always in the context in which it currently exists.
The post you made yesterday (I think) that I was responding to here sounded like you thought I was on a campaign to change what you had going. I threw out ideas in an attempt to address issues, but they seemed to be perceived as more than just ideas.
> 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.I didn't feel like you were trying to silence me. Just the same, certain parts of your post did make me feel like my ideas were not welcome. I didn't use the word 'silence.' There is a difference in my mind between trying to 'silence' someone, and reacting to someone's ideas in a way makes them feel like the ideas they share are not welcome.
> 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.
Of course. And I hope I've been clear in my communication here about the respect I have for your opinions. I consider them to have an innate wisdom due to your experience, time, and relationships here. My feeling that my ideas were unwelcome was not a result of your disagreeing with any (or even all) of my ideas.
> 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.Again.. I didn't feel you were trying to silence me.. I just felt that sharing my ideas was not welcome. I'm glad to hear that it you did not intend for me to feel that way.. but perhaps my sense that they were not welcome was because of statements like this:
"As a result, I not only was upset at the new definition, but I wanted to resign what I had agreed to do."
It sounded like you believed the definition of Civility Buddy had undergone a massive change, and that was being attributed to me. Further, this thing attributed to me was upsetting to you - to the point that you wanted to resign! If my sharing an idea that has NOT changed any kind of definition has the power to have that kind of effect, then in my mind, my ideas are not being taken simply as ideas. If taken as simply ideas, my ideas shouldn't upset anyone, and they certainly shouldn't provoke someone as important to the community as you are to resign a position you designed that is functioning well. If someone were saying things that I believed were intruding on me to the extent mine appear to have intruded on you, then I wouldn't welcome that person's input. I'm not sure I'm making sense in describing this.. but your reaction seemed stronger than what I would expect to be generated by sharing a variety of ideas, unless the sharing of those ideas was just not welcome.
> 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?You can like, dislike, agree, disagree, or anything you like with respect to any idea I throw out there. Didn't I tell you in one of my responses to your negative feedback that I wanted to hear everything you have to say - and the more the better? I am the LAST person who would want you to not be true to yourself. Your ability to be true to yourself, and to so clearly distinguish between very fine points, is part of what I love so much about you. I am not emotionally invested in my ideas. They are not appendages of me. They are a little like moths - short life cycle and die easily - so that's why God makes tons of them, you know? You don't want to make an idea your pet any more than you'd want to turn a moth into a beloved pet :-) I think I've demonstrated this philosophy by my history of readily adjusting and adapting to feedback, which I have actively solicited and welcomed. My recent sense that my ideas are not welcome emerged when your post indicated that you believed I had somehow changed the definition of Civility Buddy, to the point that your ability to resolve your upset was contingent on my creating a new name for my new definition of this new entity (which didn't even exist). It sounded like you felt the existing Civility Buddy function had been swallowed up by something I had created, and it was making unwelcome demands on you or something. I didn't create anything. I had ideas - ideas that I quickly abandoned when Bob made his Council proposal quite a number of posts ago. You seemed to be giving life and power to those ideas that I didn't see them having, and the effect of them on you was quite negative. I wouldn't welcome something that had that kind of effect on me, upsetting me so much that I wanted to resign something I'd nurtured - so it wasn't hard for me to feel that these ideas of mine that somehow transformed into something demanding and coersive were not welcome.
Bob's Council proposal was addressed in a similar fashion... talking about my ideas (and I suppose Bob's inclusion of elections) as if they had already 'changed' the Council concept - which in my mind is not yet an existing entity. It's just a bundle of ideas that need to be sorted through and culled. You seemed to see the Council concept as something with an initial particular set of characteristics that you thought acceptable, that people like me were monkeying around with and had now turned it into something you didn't like at all. All I've done is come up with ideas - but power was being attributed to my ideas that I had no control over.
If you want to know what I'd like to see - it would be for you to look at the various ideas (wherever they came from)that are at the forefront right now, and speak to each one of them. Your ability to see to the core of things is a gift. I'd like your feedback, your thoughts about the pros and cons of each of the various ideas that are still breathing, with explanations of why the pro is a pro, and why the con is the con. I know for sure that that kind of feedback from you would hold a goldmine of gems that would be productive for constructing something to address, in particular, block length.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 18:46:40
In reply to Re: solstice, and everyboddy really, me too :), posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 15:01:29
> Many thanks.
> But see, thats the thing, you getting invested... :(
> You bringing emotions(which confuse me no end, I s'posed to learn bout them tho) into it. I not so sure you read things right IMHO,That's certainly possible. We all interpret things based on our past experiences. So at times I very well may not 'read' thing they way they were intended. I also think others don't always 'read' me accurately.
> but I could be wrong.....but see thats the 'invested' part, people get 'invested' in something and it skews their perceptions, they start to see things different....and not always for the best I afraid...cuz they got this investment...ugh, I not saying it well am I?You're saying it just fine... I've developed a particular affection for the way you say things.
> I think you need, in this admin situ anyways, to just let go of them emots stuff. Cuz you goto keep your eyes on the fries as they say.I'll try to see where I might have this 'investment' you talk about, but am not recognizing it.
> Sides, sure nuff Bobbo gonna start to throwin about PBC's if you don't watch it!!! then the poo flies I gotta tell ya!!! DUCK! It hard here to know when the poo gonna fly :(
> Cuz people gonna feel strong, and the darn words SO easily get 'read' wrong cuz thats the nature of words.
> I not so clear on the cursed civility rules, they also confuse me no end....and I absolutely do not mean to fuss you, but sigh...I fear you may have run afoul of them above....see, in my understanding, you not allowed to say what you did....I think. Bob will wan you to rephrase it.I hope I haven't' run afoul of them... but I guess we'll see :-). I sure don't have any feelings of incivility behind anything I've said. But if I did, I'll deal with that bridge when I cross it.
> So when here I just try and assume everyboddy means for the best, and it NOT personal to me or you.....it just a thrashing thru of ideas.That's the way I see it. I really don't think of ideas as parts of me. The thrashing thru of ideas has been a part of my professional life for many years. When I was a very young adult I was probably attached to my ideas.. but good god, ideas now are like a bag of M&M's - too many of them to get very attached to - and they sure don't last long enough for it to be worth getting too attached to.
> And yeppers, someboddy always gonna feel kinda so so if theys ideas aren't taken,For me.. it's not the rejection of my ideas that makes me feel bad. It's when I feel misunderstood, mischaracterized, or things that are not consistent with my own set of life 'codes and policies' are (or seem to be) attributed to me. I've been thru enough of life to have learned to not mind when I'm confronted with an error I made. I can own it and do something constructive with it. It's different, though, if I'm confronted about an action attributed to me that I did Not 'do'.
Your point about the difficulty interpreting the written word, especially in an anonymous internet community is well taken. It's really complicated. That's why civility guidelines are so crucial. One thing that contributes to the problem is that with all the posts, it's easy to misunderstand something because we sometimes miss other posts that would have clarified it - and we react too quickly to something we've misunderstood. So you are very right about it being best to give people the benefit of the doubt, to interpret things as generously as possible (my rephrse of what I think you said :-)
Thanks for your input, Muffled. You really are a joy. I had fun with the images your carrying on about flying poo conjured up for me.
Sol.
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 0:51:18
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 18:16:34
> The post you made yesterday (I think) that I was responding to here sounded like you thought I was on a campaign to change what you had going. I threw out ideas in an attempt to address issues, but they seemed to be perceived as more than just ideas.
I didn't think you were trying to change anything I had going. I have nothing going. I perceived your suggestions as just ideas.
> There is a difference in my mind between trying to 'silence' someone, and reacting to someone's ideas in a way makes them feel like the ideas they share are not welcome.I didn't intend to convey that. I was stating my thoughts about those ideas. I'm sorry that the way I reacted made you feel like your ideas were not welcome.
> Again.. I didn't feel you were trying to silence me.. I just felt that sharing my ideas was not welcome.
To me, telling someone their ideas were not welcome is the same as trying to silence them. I intended neither.
> It sounded like you believed the definition of Civility Buddy had undergone a massive change, and that was being attributed to me.
Dr. Bob himself mentioned what he called formal civility buddies that I understood to mean required civility buddies. I would ask him to change the terminology, if that's what he meant. It made me feel uneasy. I'm not sure why you're taking it personally when Dr. Bob himself mentioned it.
> If taken as simply ideas, my ideas shouldn't upset anyone, and they certainly shouldn't provoke someone as important to the community as you are to resign a position you designed that is functioning well.
First of all, I didn't exactly design this position and I don't think it's been used at all so I really don't feel free to say it's functioning well. How can something that is brand new and never used be considered functioning well *or* badly? Because it's new I don't know what it will turn into. And because it's new, I'm not altogether comfortable with my role, particularly if it still feels up in the air as to its function. I have absolutely no investment in the position at all. I agreed to do something Dr. Bob asked me to do when he took up my suggestion.
> If someone were saying things that I believed were intruding on me to the extent mine appear to have intruded on you, then I wouldn't welcome that person's input. I'm not sure I'm making sense in describing this.. but your reaction seemed stronger than what I would expect to be generated by sharing a variety of ideas, unless the sharing of those ideas was just not welcome.
I'm not sure what you are hearing in my posts, but I wasn't that upset. I feel a bit upset now...
You seem to be saying I am misunderstanding you. Perhaps I am. Certainly I don't have a clear sense that I am understanding what's going on at the moment.
I've said what I think. I've given my feedback. I don't feel all that comfortable with saying more. I have no confidence in my ability to understand you, when you have said that I have misunderstood you, or to respond in a way you find welcoming.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:10:44
In reply to solstice, and everyboddy really, me too :), posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 11:57:27
Regarding blocks:
> There have been times that blocks have been issued, and no one has really understood why the post provoking the block even merited a block.
>
> SolsticeIf someone doesn't understand, they can ask. If they disagree, that of course is different.
> Long blocks are just not needed.
> STOP LONG BLOCKS.
>
> muffled.Moving on might be best for some posters and being powerless for a long time might help them do that.
--
Regarding running/serving:
> there has been a ... negative reaction to the idea of elections. I recognize the validity of why it is, as Dinah said, abhorrent.
>
> anyone whose nature is decidedly NOT competitive will be stopped by their aversion to it.
>
> Solstice> I'd feel very hurt to be rejected by my peers. ... In some ways it would seem like a popularity contest
>
> Dinah> having elections, if we could find good candidates, would be a useful enterprise. It at least somewhat requires that people be thickskinned enough to handle losing, even if that does always feel bad.
>
> It might mean then that they could weather some of the storms of making difficult or even unpopular decisions, which apparently can really affect the comfort level and sense of community of quasi-authority figures here.
>
> Willful> I once considered deputydom,cuz I can separate myself from the general noise.
>
> muffled> 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.
>
> PartlyCloudyPeople's feelings are of course valid. That elections in general are abhorrent, however, I'd consider an overgeneralization.
I agree, those who are decidedly not competitive, or who will feel very hurt not if they're not elected, or who are convinced they won't be elected, probably shouldn't run. I agree, council members should probably be thick-skinned enough to weather some storms.
Muffled, would you consider councildom?
--
Regarding the proposal itself:
> What you're describing sounds as much a board of appeals as a parole board.
> A politician is always worried about reelection. Posting the votes for or against puts an elder in the role of politician, who must consider how their vote will impact on their popularity. I find myself unwilling to even have the temptation to have the exercise of my values influenced by a concern for popularity.
>
> Dinah> he has said that Council's jobs would be: 1) pay attention to blocking activity, and if there is an outcry over a particular block.. Council convenes
> 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
>
> SolsticeOf course people "appeal" for parole, but IMO this would be more like a parole board than a board of appeals, since blocks wouldn't be overturned, just shortened.
Council members might not worry about re-election. They might just exercise their values, confident that they were elected because of them. Or being re-elected might concern them -- because it's important to them to represent their constituency.
Juries aren't elected.
My proposal was that it would be up to blocked posters to involve the council, so theirs would be the only relevant outcry.
--
> Jane
> who is still confused about why we need an incredibly elaborate process set up for a minor problemBecause the more general issue is how and to whom to transfer power.
> Solstice
> who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob madeMaybe that was a taste of the "minion effect"?
> I found myself somehow disappointed that we put all this possibly unnecessary energy and emotion into this idea... only, when it became a real possibility, to pull the rug out from under it.
>
> So I was questioning why this sudden backing away?
>
> WillfulIn addition to the issues that have been brought up, part of it may be the anxiety of the unknown that's always associated with change.
> maybe sometimes we goto stop a bit and breathe(and wait fer friggin Bob to reappear...!?!?).
!!
> Manoman, too bad we can't all get together on a beach, toss back a few brewskies and hash this out.
>
> MSome of us may in fact be able to:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/949355.html
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=168914719799505Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 8:27:21
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:10:44
> People's feelings are of course valid. That elections in general are abhorrent, however, I'd consider an overgeneralization.
For the record, I didn't say that.
> My proposal was that it would be up to blocked posters to involve the council, so theirs would be the only relevant outcry.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but if I'm not I am feeling disturbed.
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 8:40:59
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:10:44
> Moving on might be best for some posters and being powerless for a long time might help them do that.
yes
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 8:46:24
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 8:40:59
> > Moving on might be best for some posters and being powerless for a long time might help them do that.
Now there would be a great twitter.
Thank you, Dr. Bob, for the clarity.
Posted by 10derheart on December 6, 2010, at 2:06:40
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 18:16:34
>>...anything other than the civility buddy system that you have going on right now,
Just for the record, as far as I know there is no civility buddy system going on right now. Nor at any time in the past, again at least not to my knowledge. Maybe from time to time people who know and trust one another off the boards have shared a potential post and asked, "Is this going too far? Can I say this?' etc., but that's it, I think. Of course I don't really *know* even that. I'm just guessing based on the fact I've done it and maybe some passing remark someone made a long time ago. I haven't posted regularly here for a long, long time due to issues I cannot get into now. So I haven't needed a buddy in that way for ages. I know way back I certainly checked my posts with one or the other trusted poster before I posted them, when I knew I felt hurt and angry....Usually a deputy thing....
It certainly never approached the level of a system. As I said once before, when a deputy, and once after I had resigned, I specifically offered to do that before and/or after posting for a couple posters who said they either didn't understand the rules or had gotten PBCd/blocked, probably more than once (or both...can't remember...long time ago)
They declined the offer. That's it.
I don't know if others posters, including other past deputies, had similar experiences.
No big point here, and this isn't directed at anyone special, though I did snip a phrase from Solstice's post above. It just keeps bugging me when I read it, thinking of Babblers who don't read here often - that they might see it written then repeated and think it exists.
It doesn't. Unless it is a well-kept secret.
I don't remember who even first came up with the phrase. Maybe Dr. Bob, maybe Dinah, maybe someone else.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2010, at 12:07:51
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 3:39:09
> > I'm too rejection-sensitive to want to "run" for a position that I found fraught with peril in the past.
> >
> > gg
>
> The peril Dinah mentioned, or a different one?It's pretty much similar to what Dinah mentioned. I think the biggest difficulty I had involved balancing dual roles. Nothing new here. We've talked about this peril before.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2010, at 23:07:04
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by 10derheart on December 6, 2010, at 2:06:40
> Just for the record, as far as I know there is no civility buddy system going on right now.
As far as I know, there is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#buddies
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2010, at 23:07:13
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2010, at 12:07:51
> > > I'm too rejection-sensitive to want to "run" for a position that I found fraught with peril in the past.
>
> It's pretty much similar to what Dinah mentioned. I think the biggest difficulty I had involved balancing dual roles. Nothing new here. We've talked about this peril before.Could you say more about what you see as the peril of having dual roles? It's hard to be impartial? Or you're subject to the "minion effect"? Or something different?
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on December 8, 2010, at 1:04:10
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2010, at 23:07:04
Excuse me, I shouldn't have used the phrase "right now."
I meant *prior* to that part in the FAQ which was very, very recent. When discussions began I think it was talked about as if it were some sort of formal thing *previously* in place and being used, and I don't believe it was. I could be wrong, but if it was I would love to hear from buddies who were actually used. It would be illuminating, to say the least.
Sorry for my poor phrasing.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2010, at 9:30:29
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2010, at 23:07:13
> > > > I'm too rejection-sensitive to want to "run" for a position that I found fraught with peril in the past.
> >
> > It's pretty much similar to what Dinah mentioned. I think the biggest difficulty I had involved balancing dual roles. Nothing new here. We've talked about this peril before.
>
> Could you say more about what you see as the peril of having dual roles? It's hard to be impartial? Or you're subject to the "minion effect"? Or something different?
>
> BobThere was the minion effect, but it was more about how you wished us to behave "Senatorial", and I wanted to feel freer to be me. When I was a teacher, I often enjoyed sitting on the desk or front table cross-legged. I liked to take off my shoes. I liked being comfortable and relaxed, and frankly, I think it made me a better teacher and aided the clarity of my communication by helping me stay relaxed and focused. Standing behind a lectern was not for me. It felt confining, stuffy, and too formal. I suspect that sitting cross-legged on a desk on the Senate floor is behavior that is frowned-upon, so that's one of the many reasons I will never be a senator. :)
That's the best analogy I can come up with at the moment. I just didn't wish to put forth the effort it would take to try to find a way to be "senatorial" while sitting cross-legged on the desk with my shoes off. I didn't find enough in it that was in the benefit column to outweigh that cost and perceived effort.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2010, at 9:32:38
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on December 8, 2010, at 1:04:10
My experience in trying to be a civility buddy has been quite similar to yours. Almost no one has asked, and when I've offered unsolicited advice, I almost always felt like I had made a mistake or overstepped.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2010, at 23:24:44
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2010, at 9:30:29
> There was the minion effect, but it was more about how you wished us to behave "Senatorial", and I wanted to feel freer to be me.
Yes, that's a potential tension of the deputy role.
> When I was a teacher, I often enjoyed sitting on the desk or front table cross-legged. I liked to take off my shoes. I liked being comfortable and relaxed, and frankly, I think it made me a better teacher and aided the clarity of my communication by helping me stay relaxed and focused.
But it's fine with me if council members sit cross-legged on their desks with their shoes off. :-)
Bob
Posted by Willful on December 11, 2010, at 14:26:36
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2010, at 23:24:44
Hey, out there!
Could anyone bring those of us who couldn't attend the discussion/meeting on Thursday up to date? What was said, how did the discussion evolved, and what if any points of view were mostly at issue? Any main ideas, new ideas, conclusions?
I'd very much like to know where things stand and how people are thinking about any and all ideas on the floor-- after having a chance to talk more spontaneously.
thanks!
Willful
Posted by Solstice on December 11, 2010, at 21:15:35
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Willful on December 11, 2010, at 14:26:36
> Hey, out there!
>
> Could anyone bring those of us who couldn't attend the discussion/meeting on Thursday up to date? What was said, how did the discussion evolved, and what if any points of view were mostly at issue? Any main ideas, new ideas, conclusions?
>
> I'd very much like to know where things stand and how people are thinking about any and all ideas on the floor-- after having a chance to talk more spontaneously.
>
> thanks!
>
> WillfulHi Willful..
I was there. It got started very late, and did not last very long.
My sense was that it's stuck on the issue of Bob insisting that Council member candidates run and and elections be held. So far, I haven't seen anyone indicate they are willing to serve as a result of having 'run' and being elected. Bob seems unwilling to consider an alternative method of putting a council in place, which is disappointing. So unless there are people here who are willing to run in an election and the community is willing to cast votes, by default potential candidates and the community are electing to keep the current system of unreasonably loooong blocks.
Solstice
Posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 4:56:41
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on December 11, 2010, at 21:15:35
Or maybe:
> I haven't seen anyone indicate they are willing to serve as a result of having 'run' and being elected.
And so precisely because of that:
> Bob seems unwilling to consider an alternative method of putting a council in place
So instead of:
> by default potential candidates and the community are electing to keep the current system of unreasonably loooong blocks.
It is more that Bob only supports things that are not supported by the community.
Thereby maintaining the status quo. As usual.
The wheels going round IS his process group methinks. With respect to PRACTICAL or CONCRETE changes or even with respect to people focusing on CONTENT in general he just keeps the process of the wheels rolling along. Progress... As usual.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 9:03:34
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Solstice, posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 4:56:41
Believe me Alex - your point is not lost on me. During the chat, Dinah steadily brought up another angle of that same point - along the lines of challenging him appearing to say he's willing to transfer power to the group - but only on his own terms - and the incongruence of that (Dinah please correct me if I am not correctly characterizing what you were saying during that chat)
Even Bob got provocative with it - announcing that if no one's willing to run and be elected, then he 'gets to stay King' - and I think he even said he likes being King.
Janed asked an equally provacative question: Why not just ask the community to vote on whether to have an election? I thought that was point-on. He says he wants elections because he wants Council members to be chosen from the community... as if elections are the *only* way to make that happen. What better way for him to ensure the Community is getting who they want, than to ask the Community to vote on HOW they get who they want? I didn't see Bob respond to Janed's point. I tried to point out that if he insists on elections - then the very people the community would want on Counci might be the ones that would not run - so they Won't be getting who they want.
I asked (but didn't get a response) if he might be resisting an alternative as a way to stay King.
I think it's a very complex issue. It is disappointing to me that Bob is currently so inflexible about the method of putting Council in place. I don't think that speaks well of his purportedly having a genuine desire to turn more power over to the community. Inflexibility is not considered a particularly healthy trait, after all.
Solstice> Or maybe:
>
> > I haven't seen anyone indicate they are willing to serve as a result of having 'run' and being elected.
>
> And so precisely because of that:
>
> > Bob seems unwilling to consider an alternative method of putting a council in place
>
> So instead of:
>
> > by default potential candidates and the community are electing to keep the current system of unreasonably loooong blocks.
>
> It is more that Bob only supports things that are not supported by the community.
>
> Thereby maintaining the status quo. As usual.
>
> The wheels going round IS his process group methinks. With respect to PRACTICAL or CONCRETE changes or even with respect to people focusing on CONTENT in general he just keeps the process of the wheels rolling along. Progress... As usual.
>
>
>
Posted by muffled on December 12, 2010, at 11:05:54
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » alexandra_k, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 9:03:34
>"I think it's a very complex issue. It is disappointing to me that Bob is currently so inflexible about the method of putting Council in place. I don't think that speaks well of his purportedly having a genuine desire to turn more power over to the community. Inflexibility is not considered a particularly healthy trait, after all."
*Sigh Solstice....now you starting to understand bout Bob? :(
And he is so inflexible, that when he suggests anything,babblers just resist him right back.
He will not give.
Its all very sad :(
I dunno what the ehck is up with that guy? I flip flop btwn that maybe he is just misguided to thinking he's pathological. Well, I`ll say, he is good at the techhie stuff.
But otherwise, sigh....
He is consistant in that he has not changed....same old, same old. And many have tried over the years.
Still not safe here IMHO, Admin is not ``*for* the community`, its *for* whatever agenda Bob has....which is rather mysterious to us all...(and sadly, in the past has proven to NOT be for the members of the community...)
I could never be on a council where Bob has control, because he doesn`t change, so what a waste of my time that would be.
Yeah, it`s sad.
:(`:( :(
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.