![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 172 to 196 of 257. Go back in thread:
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.
:(`:( :(
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2010, at 11:41:18
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on December 12, 2010, at 11:05:54
> > I'd very much like to know where things stand and how people are thinking about any and all ideas on the floor
>
> My sense was that it's stuck on the issue of Bob insisting that Council member candidates run and and elections be held.I enjoyed our discussion and appreciated the input from those who attended. My sense is that:
I'm stuck on council members representing the community.
Anger at council members shouldn't build up like anger at deputies because the community could un-elect council members, but can't un-elect deputies. Still, being "durable" enough to tolerate some rejection would be advisable. And IMO they could represent the rejection-sensitive portion of the community even if they themselves could tolerate some rejection.
If there were 5 candidates, none would be rejected. The vote totals wouldn't be posted, just who was and wasn't elected.
There was support for calling it a Community Council instead of an Elders Council.
Civility rules would remain in place during elections. I'd consider negative campaigning to be uncivil.
--
> he's willing to transfer power to the group - but only on his own terms
The terms have to be acceptable to me, yes. And the group has to be acceptable to the community.
> 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.
What I said was that if posters didn't want more power, that would be OK with me, I'd just stay "king".
> Janed asked an equally provacative question: Why not just ask the community to vote on whether to have an election?
I've asked, and so far, anyway, the community seems to be voting to keep me king.
> 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.
Not *from* the community, *by* the community.
> 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.
You can't always get what you want, a philosopher once said.
> I asked (but didn't get a response) if he might be resisting an alternative as a way to stay King.
My response was that unwillingness to run might be a way to keep me 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.
>
> Solstice> he is so inflexible, that when he suggests anything,babblers just resist him right back.
>
> muffledIf we're all being inflexible, then we're at an impasse. IMO that's OK, I agree that this is complex, change means anxiety, and better to take more time to think this through than to move too fast.
For example, another thought I have is that since anger is a concern, maybe it would make sense to consider incivility toward council members more severe, like incivility toward deputies.
Regarding how to put a council in place:
> > Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
Bob
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 13:06:48
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2010, at 11:41:18
Fascinating post, Bob..
> My sense is that:
>
> I'm stuck on council members representing the community.I'm glad you're stuck on that. It tells me that you really do want to transfer some meaningful power to the community.
> Anger at council members shouldn't build up like anger at deputies because the community could un-elect council members, but can't un-elect deputies.I agree.. but I think the deputy issue has been such a huge deal, that it is hard for some to genuinely see the marked differences between them.. or maybe to believe that the differences would make a difference. A difference to me that's even bigger than the ability to un-elect Council, is that Council will not be involved in issuing blocks.
There is a predictable concern by some that anger would be directed at Council if they vote to *Not* shorten a block. I understand the anticipatory fear there - because the deputies were exposed to an awful lot of anger. However, I think I genuinely understand this place better than folks here may realize, and I do not believe that Council members would find themselves in a glass house with rocks being thrown at them. For a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is because they will not be issuing blocks. I also think that the only blocks unlikely to be shortened would be blocks that are already very short. The exceedingly long blocks are the ones most likely to be shortened. I think the only type of poster who they might refuse to shorten the blocks for would be the poster who is abusive and threatening - rather than apologetic. So while I understand the anticipatory fear of lash-back from posters (or their friends) who Council does not vote to shorten their blocks - I think the risk of that is so minute, that the risk of not having a Council at all is the bigger thing they should fear.
> Still, being "durable" enough to tolerate some rejection would be advisable. And IMO they could represent the rejection-sensitive portion of the community even if they themselves could tolerate some rejection.hmm... in an ideal world, sure - anyone in a Council type position would be durable and rejection would slide off of them like eggs on teflon. But - I don't think the value of 'durability' is essential enough to merit insisting on it in this particular community - where an election process could be very disruptive and the most qualified candidates would recuse themselves from an election process based on very understandable awareness of self reasons. Percentage-wise, I think this particular community will likely have a very high percentage of people who will not be interested in elections - for the same reason that the proposal for rating posts or posters was so handily rejected.
I think it's important for you, Bob, to take a closer look at whether it really is necessary to have Council members put in place by election.
> If there were 5 candidates, none would be rejected. The vote totals wouldn't be posted, just who was and wasn't elected.I really don't understand this reasoning. If five people stand up and say "hey! Elect me and I'll be a Council Member!" - - and no one else stands up to compete - then are the five who are 'elected' by default really elected? Do they represent the community? Or.. are they representing that there are five people here who were willing to go through an election process. If there are only five who volunteer for the 'race' - and they by default are put in place - then it is my opinion that they in no way are representative of the desires of the community. Now THOSE people might be more at risk for lash-back, because they are only there because they are thick-skinned, not necessarily because the community wants them there.
However - my proposal that the community privately send you their nominations - and then you see which five gets the most nominations, and then you approach those folks and ask if they are willing to serve... and then you go down the list of those with the most nominations until you get five willing to serve.. now THAT is a way to have a group of five who represent the wishes of the community. Those folks would genuinely be the ones who represent the majority of the people who responded to the request for nominations. Community members who don't participate in that process are electing to have others 'elect' on their behalf.
> Civility rules would remain in place during elections. I'd consider negative campaigning to be uncivil.I don't know why campaigning at all is even necessary.. or wise.
> > he's willing to transfer power to the group - but only on his own terms
>
> The terms have to be acceptable to me, yes. And the group has to be acceptable to the community.I think the only way you're going to get a group (Council) acceptable to the community, is to listen and respond to the community's majority voice that opposes the kind of election process you are proposing. I don't think your proposal will even get you what YOU want, much less what the community wants. I think you need to be willing to open your mind to an alternative method of putting a Council in place.
> > Janed asked an equally provacative question: Why not just ask the community to vote on whether to have an election?
>
> I've asked, and so far, anyway, the community seems to be voting to keep me king.No. The community asking you to consider something different than an election campaign for filling Council seats does not equal voting to keep you King. The community is asking you to listen to their heartbeat - and you have been unwilling to do that. Same thing happend with facebook/twitter... which I think I remember you wish had been done differently.
> > 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.
>
> Not *from* the community, *by* the community.ok.. I used the wrong 'word' - but my meaning was the same. I think you know that. I don't understand your refusal to give genuine consideration of the alternate method I have proposed. You will NOT get council members elected by the community through a campaign - especially if only five are willing to 'campaign.' The only way you're going to get a Council elected by the community is to do it in a way that eliminates 'campaigning' and public popularity voting. (which, btw, you cannot avoid by just not posting votes. When you post who 'won' - everyone knows who 'lost'.)
> > 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.
>
> You can't always get what you want, a philosopher once said.That doesn't even make sense to me. My statement is clear and specific. Your response is non-responsive. You don't seem at all willing to consider the legitimacy of my suggestion that it be done by private nomination. I would respectfully request that you respond specifically to the points I make about that, and tell us what your legitimate objections are and the reasoning behind them.
> > I asked (but didn't get a response) if he might be resisting an alternative as a way to stay King.
>
> My response was that unwillingness to run might be a way to keep me king.And your unwillingness to hear what the community says about the issue of campaigning and elections is a way to keep yourself king. The community wants relief from unreasonably long blocks. The community seems to want to have a Council. A lot of hurt people have come back to see if it really is possible for you to transfer some power to the community. There are people who have said they would be willing to serve on a Council. I don't think you can honestly believe that the majority of this community wants you to, as King, keep issuing unreasonably long blocks. The community's unwillingness to campaign is not a statement about your kinginess. That's like comparing apples and planet Pluto.
> If we're all being inflexible, then we're at an impasse.Is my suggestion of an alternative way to put council in place that really does serve your purposes of having council members be chosen by the community better than your own way of doing it - is that 'inflexible'? If not - then the impasse is more a result of your inflexibility - not imflexibility on the community's part.
> IMO that's OK,Of course it's okay with you. You are King.
> For example, another thought I have is that since anger is a concern, maybe it would make sense to consider incivility toward council members more severe, like incivility toward deputies.I agree. I don't think anyone serving on Council should be required to bear harm. Perhaps anyone who is incivil toward Council Members as a result of performance of their duties would have an automatic unreasonably long Bob-block. :-)
> Regarding how to put a council in place:
>
> > > Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
>
> BobHaving a Council does not equate to a democracy. You'll still be King... you'd just be allowing the community to release blocked posters from their stocks before the sentence is due to end. A democracy would mean that your position would be subject to having to campaign and be elected. So let's not confuse the issues by mixing fruit with the solar system.
Solstice
Posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 13:45:00
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2010, at 11:41:18
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government EXCEPT FOR ALL THOSE OTHER FORMS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRIED FROM TIME TO TIME"
Winston Churchill, 1947
such as monarchies.
Kings do not inspire confidence in their subjects when they alter the content of famous quotations to suit their own purposes
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 15:28:26
In reply to a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 13:45:00
Quite illuminating, Twinleaf :-) I wondered where Bob got it from. I'm so glad you corrected that error. I can't help but smile at the wry irony that only a King would think he could erroneously quote the great Winston Churchill to justify what might not be justifiable at all..
Solstice
> "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government EXCEPT FOR ALL THOSE OTHER FORMS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRIED FROM TIME TO TIME"
>
> Winston Churchill, 1947
>
> such as monarchies.
>
> Kings do not inspire confidence in their subjects when they alter the content of famous quotations to suit their own purposes
Posted by Willful on December 12, 2010, at 17:34:28
In reply to Re: a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 15:28:26
Unfortunately, on the merits here, and admittedly not having read the ins and outs of every post-- I have to stand with Bob on the issue of elections.
If he appoints the council it will be no different from the deputies.
I also notice that we haven't at all articulated the rules that govern actions by the council, Bob's involvement in referring cases to or passing on cases adjudged by the council and many other areas of potential disagreement, cynicism and what I perceive as animadversions on Bob's character, motives, etc
Whatever my personal frustrations with the system here, and I have many, I do see over and over again that the community is inflexible, afraid of change, quick to get angry at one another and be cutting, whether overtly or more subtle, entirely willing to stymie change, etc, which lead me to question our motives, goals,and so on.
I see a bit of a power struggle going on here where various people for their own reasons, want to control how this power is allocated. And to be honest, Bob has every reason to be very careful about how this is done-- so that it doesn't create a ton of headaches, more work, a lot of unhappiness, criticisms and downright insults to him, etc
I don't mean to be uncivil. But we really need to look at our behavior too.
Willful
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.