![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 286 to 310 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:24:39
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by muffled on December 2, 2010, at 12:51:58
> See eg, at a place where I post, there is one very hurt poster, and she goes off from time to time, but we know her, and know of her hurt. And over time she has come to trust that we will NOT run away when she goes off. So she has been able to open up more, which scares her, she goes off some, we say its ok, we still here, we understand, and she chills.
I'm glad she has that place. I don't know if that's realistic for this place. For example, new people wouldn't know her or of her hurt and might run away.
> Why do you not see that *timely* warnings would be appropriate
I'm not here all the time. Posters are. From whom is it more realistic to expect timely warnings? From whom might people prefer to receive warnings?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 11:19:06
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:24:39
> I'm not here all the time. Posters are. From whom is it more realistic to expect timely warnings? From whom might people prefer to receive warnings?
>
> BobIt would depend on the individual as to which they would prefer, fellow posters or Administration. I don't think blanket assumptions can be made either way.
I'm not sure that it's unrealistic to expect a timely response from a board's administration. It is sometimes pragmatic to recognize that such expectations may not be met, and that poster intervention is more likely to be timely.
Unfortunately poster warnings are about as useful as your warnings would be if you didn't block. I can warn till I'm blue in the face. I don't have any power to do anything more than talk. Posters haven't got the power. Only you and Racer do.
Sometimes the time lag before someone with the power to intervene shows up is longer than I can tolerate. That's my issue, I suppose. But I have limited ways to resolve it.
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 11:24:56
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:24:39
> I'm not here all the time. Posters are. From whom is it more realistic to expect timely warnings? From whom might people prefer to receive warnings?
Moreover, posters post here in the belief that it is a moderated board. Many people come here to have supportive and educational discussions about medication, therapy, and other mental health related issues. Many people prefer not to be involved in conflict. I think it's a reasonable expectation to believe that Administration will handle the conflict so that posters can be involved in the stated purpose of the site. At one time, I think you wrote something along those lines. The best of both worlds?
I think I agreed with you then.
So what is it now, if not the best of both worlds?
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 16:25:30
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 11:24:56
> Unfortunately poster warnings are about as useful as your warnings would be if you didn't block. I can warn till I'm blue in the face. I don't have any power to do anything more than talk. Posters haven't got the power.
Friends don't have the power to compel, but they may not be as powerless as they feel.
> Moreover, posters post here in the belief that it is a moderated board. Many people come here to have supportive and educational discussions about medication, therapy, and other mental health related issues. Many people prefer not to be involved in conflict. I think it's a reasonable expectation to believe that Administration will handle the conflict so that posters can be involved in the stated purpose of the site. At one time, I think you wrote something along those lines.
It's still reasonable, and IMO simpler, to allow the administration to moderate. But maybe Babble's growing up and ready to take more responsibility for itself.
Bob
Posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 22:51:36
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 16:25:30
>But maybe Babble's growing up and ready to take more responsibility for itself.
Oh Bob. Babble grew up years ago and is now very old and tired.
Posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 23:11:14
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 22:51:36
Now the Captain called me to his bed
He fumbled for my hand
"Take these silver bars," he said
"I'm giving you command."
"Command of what, there's no one here
There's only you and me --
All the rest are dead or in retreat
Or with the enemy."
"Complain, complain, that's all you've done
Ever since we lost
If it's not the Crucifixion
Then it's the Holocaust."
"May Christ have mercy on your soul
For making such a joke
Amid these hearts that burn like coal
And the flesh that rose like smoke."
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2010, at 23:25:00
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 22:51:36
> > But maybe Babble's growing up and ready to take more responsibility for itself.
>
> Oh Bob. Babble grew up years ago and is now very old and tired.So not too young to take more responsibility for itself, but too old?
Bob
Posted by sigismund on December 8, 2010, at 5:48:28
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2010, at 23:25:00
I've always thought that, all things considered and allowing for the ambiguity of the medium, people on Babble have always treated each other pretty well.
Your civility standards are much higher than mine.
I understand you have wanted to hose down the fire before it gets out of control, albeit that any strategy will have unintended consequences.
If you are looking for a way to use the hose a little less, I'm all for it and will do what I can to cooperate.
I can't Babblemail people and tell them how to rephrase though.
I'm reasonably sure some would not forgive that and anyway it would be completely unsuccessful.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2010, at 23:57:50
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on December 8, 2010, at 5:48:28
> I understand you have wanted to hose down the fire before it gets out of control, albeit that any strategy will have unintended consequences.
>
> If you are looking for a way to use the hose a little less, I'm all for it and will do what I can to cooperate.Thanks, would you consider serving on some kind of Elders Council?
Bob
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 12:39:51
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » sigismund, posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2010, at 23:57:50
>Thanks, would you consider serving on some kind of Elders Council?
Goodness!
That would mean I'd have to stand in an election?
No negative campaigning?
Better still, no campaigning at all!
(I can see the advantage of that.)
But then committee meetings, or things like them....I'd consider it, yes, Bob.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 15:37:35
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 12:39:51
Sigi - are you okay with serving as the result of a campaign and election? It might be important for the community to know who all we have here who would be willing to serve on a Community Council by campaign + elections.
Solstice
> >Thanks, would you consider serving on some kind of Elders Council?
>
> Goodness!
>
> That would mean I'd have to stand in an election?
> No negative campaigning?
> Better still, no campaigning at all!
> (I can see the advantage of that.)
> But then committee meetings, or things like them....
>
> I'd consider it, yes, Bob.
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 21:13:53
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » sigismund, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 15:37:35
This is with the vote not made public?
I sure wouldn't be campaigning...then again I can think of some nifty slogans....I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 21:28:20
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Solstice, posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 21:13:53
> This is with the vote not made public?
Well.. my understansding of Bob's idea is for people who want to serve on Council to campaign (civilly) - I guess announcing their candidacy and stating their views on blocks? Then, after campaigning with however many others want to be on Council, a vote would be held. Bob says he will not make the vote numbers public - but would simply announce the 'winners' - which would be the five a the top of the heap.
> I sure wouldn't be campaigning...then again I can think of some nifty slogans....I will show you fear in a handful of dust.So - does this mean that you are willing to serve on Council - but only if you are put in place by some means other than campaigning and being elected?
Solstice.
ps - what does your last sentence there mean?
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 23:13:01
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 21:28:20
When Bob asked me if I'd consider it (I so like to please people, my vanity is so easily flattered) I naturally said I would, but I hate committees and groups and bureaucracies.
However, I guess I would consider it.
As for campaigning, absolutely not. Some people here know me and have some idea of how I think and what (if anything) I stand for. That last sentence is just me trying to think of a decent platform.
I'm in favour of kindness and civility, but the way the rules have been implemented have sometimes had a terrible effect on the Babble community as I found it when I came here. This was just after the re-election of GWB and it was said that things got out of control then on the Politics Board. I think Bob was trying to prevent a recurrence of that (a forest fire starts with a spark) and it had the unintended effect of pretty much killing it off. Anything can have unintended effects, of course.
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 23:33:43
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 23:13:01
Blocks.....
Get rid of the formula.
It is really used to get rid of people permanently with one year blocks not straightforwardly but behind an objective, scientific facade that I find unimpressive.
Absolute maximum of one month.
Most blocks should be one week and two for more hurtful personal attacks.
The Politics Board was so sensitive that Liljimmi was blocked for saying that Cheney and Bush were running the country. That was the only time I am aware of where Bob retracted a block. He thought there was an i in there. That is how sensitive it got.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 23:13:01
> When Bob asked me if I'd consider it (I so like to please people, my vanity is so easily flattered) I naturally said I would, but I hate committees and groups and bureaucracies.
Maybe on the continuum, it would be 'committee light.' Five Council members. No requirement to vote on shortening a particular block. But, if a vote is requested, and there is a Quorum of three willing to vote - then the vote will take place. The Council members involved stipulate the terms of a shortened block. Period.
So maybe it wouldn't be so bad.
>
> However, I guess I would consider it.
>
> As for campaigning, absolutely not.:-) That's important for Bob to know. As yet - I haven't seen anyone say they'd be happy to campaign. I still think the best chance for having a Community Council that represents the community is for Bob to say (for example) "Okay - during the month of January I want everybody who is willing - to send me the names of five people they would like to serve as your Community Council for one year with the power to shorten blocks." Then at the end of January, he looks at the results and starts with the top five names, contacting them and asking if they'd like to serve. He goes down the list until he has five - and then announces the names of the Council for 2011. Simple. No disruption. No popularity contests. He's still king, but he's allowing community-chosen representatives to vote by majority to shorten the blocks of blocked posters who ask for a vote. Just doesn't get any simpler than that.
Would you be willing to do it under those conditions, Sigi?
> I'm in favour of kindness and civility, but the way the rules have been implemented have sometimes had a terrible effect on the Babble community as I found it when I came here.I think a Community Council could go a long way toward resolving that problem.
Solstice
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 0:42:32
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
>Would you be willing to do it under those conditions, Sigi?
I'm interested in your response to what Willful had to say about this in the other thread.
I will have a look.
Posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 0:43:59
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
That is such a clear description of how you envision the Council working, Solstice. I also think that it would go a long way towards resolving the distress Babble has been suffering from. I hope that Bob will see the advantages of an appointment system such as the one you describe.
I think that the great majority of long-time posters - the ones we would want to be on our Council - would not want to campaign or participate in an election. Almost everyone probably feels the way Sigi does; several long-time posters, such as Dinah and gg, have already said so. The selection system you describe, combining volunteering and appointing. seems ideal. I hope Bob will find that it suits his purposes. Somehow, it doesn't seem reasonable to agree on the most challenging issue - having a Council with power to modify blocks- only to have the whole concept fail over one small point - how members are chosen.
Sigi, you have been such a terrific presence here, combining warmth, humor and brainpower. If we get a Council, I hope you can serve (comfortably) on it!
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 0:44:40
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
>http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973310.html
I'm a sucker for anyone who uses animadversions.
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 0:58:40
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 0:43:59
>Sigi, you have been such a terrific presence here, combining warmth, humor and brainpower. If we get a Council, I hope you can serve (comfortably) on it!
As you may be familiar with from King Lear, you are as kind as the pelican.
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 1:21:06
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:59:19
>he looks at the results and starts with the top five names, contacting them and asking if they'd like to serve. He goes down the list until he has five - and then announces the names of the Council for 2011.
>Would you be willing to do it under those conditions, Sigi?
I think so.
>The Council members involved stipulate the terms of a shortened block.Meaning they determine it?
Who can request the vote to shorten the block? The blocked poster? Any other poster?I very much agree with the idea that we have to make the best of what we have left. Many here will remember posters they miss. But it's not even certain we will be alive tomorrow.
Every year the Buddhist monks here do a Kalichakra
http://clicks.robertgenn.com/images/artists/karen_broadbent/080307_karen-broadbent-artwork.jpg
which they then sweep away as a reminder of impermanence.
So, while I miss many that were here, I hope to meet others who will mean a lot to me too.
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 9:09:31
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 1:21:06
Sorry, so much has been said and I am a little confused...
Just exactly WHAT has Bob agreed to?
WILL he toss out 'The Formula' ? Will he cap blocks at eg 1 mo?
IS he willing to allow this to be so?
Personally I am up for 1 week blocks being the maximun 'norm'.
Also, how will it be approached? Similiar as now?
Or will there be a warning in ALL threads so that a person has at least a heads up before being blocked?
I think if people feel safer and less at loggerheads w/Bob and his policies, then posters may be more willing to help each other. But as it stands now, Bob just blames us for not helping which i think just tends to piss people off.
So what I would like to know....is there going to be any REAL change here?
REALLY?
????
Also, for thise willing to 'run' for a council....bless their hearts, do they know what they are getting into???
I would think they need to have a good sense of what they are getting into. I don't want to see any posters hurt whilst just trying to help out.....
I think it would be good to have some registered 'chats' with those willing to be on the committee(just them), so that they can discuss ramifications etc ahead of time, and see if they even have the time or desire to work w/the others.
And again....just what is Bobs role exactly going to be?
And as far as removing harmful posts....WILL he accede to the wishes of the comminttee of not?
What ability to remove posts/block etc will the committe have? Will there be a better turn around time, or will they have to wait for Bob to 'reappear', as he has a tendency to be hard to access at times...
Will the committee have the ability to eg stop a harmful thread(a site i go to can stop any more posts on a thread gone wild...)
I think a committe just thrown together will be rife with poss. probs. It would need to be done right.
etc...
As far as I am concerened ALOT hinges on Bob.
I can't see jumping aboard and becomming invested in a site that will ultimately be controlled, possibly in much the same way as it was before....
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:37:48
In reply to clarity???, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 9:09:31
Hey Muff..
> Sorry, so much has been said and I am a little confused...
There has indeed been a lot to wade through!
> Just exactly WHAT has Bob agreed to?
> WILL he toss out 'The Formula' ? Will he cap blocks at eg 1 mo?He has offered to allow a Community Council to shorten blocks, after an as-yet-undetermined minimum time has been served. It's currently stuck over the issue of how to seat council members. Bob wants campaigns and elections. So far - no takers. I've suggested each member sends their nominations to him privately, and he contacts the top five (who agree to serve) - and then announces 2011's council.
If there is a Community Council who can shorten blocks, then there is no need to fool with anything else (like block caps, etc.). He could issue a three year block that Council could pare down to the minimum, in their discretion by majority vote. It's important to remember that Bob wants the blocked poster to be the one responsible for contacting council and negotiating with them about shortening the block. The goal would be to shorten blocks to allow posters who have agreed to follow the guidelines back in.
They would have the ability to release a block if they vote by majority to do so. They would NOT have to get Bob's permission, or wait for him to 'reappear.'
As far as Council members themselves - it's unchartered territory so there's no way to know for sure what it will be like - but Bob has suggested that any incivility directed at Council members (I assume in the performance of their duties) would merit extra penalties. I really don't think there would be much, if any, of that anyway.
Solstice
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 11:46:07
In reply to clarity???, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 9:09:31
I haven't been reading this in detail, Muff, but I don't think Bob has agreed to any of the things you mentioned.
I don't think he created the space for this community in order to strangle it to keep it civil, but I can't see him walking away from the formula either. As you say, small blocks would be so much better. The problem with the formula is that it is so not transparent. Well, maybe that's not right. It's transparent to me.
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 11:47:24
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:37:48
Cuz blocks ARE the issue here.
One of the issues is the shock factor. So I think caps are important.
Cuz there's likely gonna be plenty who won't want to/choose to appeal.(shame and all that)
So if the block was a week, then a person could just 'sit it out'.
That would mean ALOT less 'control' would be needed aka The Council.
Cuz at this pointy I am still seeing the council as having too much...power(lol, yet again).
See, like I said, if there were a cap on the blocks, it would just automatically be 1 wk-nuff said. Not a bunch of angst ridden negotiation there...just the way it is.
Personally, I see the role of the council more as whether a block is needed *period*.
Also, agin...the other stuff I posted is VERY important IMHO as well.
I think this stuff needs to be CLEAR before any one can safely jump in.
I thank you solstice for 'filling in' for what Bob wants. But ultimately, it comes down to the owner and lol 'king' of this site....
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.