![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 311 to 335 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 12:23:44
In reply to Re: not enuf clarity, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 11:47:24
I may have not done a good job making it clear that it's all still just *hope* :-)
> Cuz blocks ARE the issue here.
Blocks are definitely the biggest issue.
> One of the issues is the shock factor.I do understand that the shock factor has been very important to you. I agree that it would be awful to have no warning that your toe was getting over the line - only to be suddenly whacked with being cut off from an important community of support.
I do think Bob has taken measures to ensure people are forewarned, though. He really does have a protocol for moving toward a block. It isn't terribly new - or terribly old, so it has been imperfectly practiced, as new things often are. But it seems to have recently reached a pretty predictable point. He will issue a PBC (which is a kind of warning). He will ask for a rephrase (which is also a warning). He'll ask for others to 'help' keep someone from getting blocked (annoying, I know.. but the spirit behind it is good, I think). If the person being warned responds by apologizing or rephrasing - - all is well. But if they post a response complaining about Bob's warning - or justifying what they said that he's asking them to rephrase - - - well... they often end up with a block.
So I think the warning thing is taking place. It may not be the kind of warning that would be ideal for you - but sometimes we have to (especially if we aren't making the rules) figure out how to 'see' when the warning is being delivered. Differently than you'd like maybe, but it is pretty predictable and identifiable.
> So I think caps are important.Caps really aren't necessary, though.. if there is a Council one can contact and say "ok - so I got a 6 month block. What do I need to do to pare that thing down?"
> Cuz there's likely gonna be plenty who won't want to/choose to appeal.(shame and all that)People who don't want to appeal - regardless of their reason - won't have to appeal to Council. I don't think the goal is to dispute blocks, or remove civility standards. Muffled - I really don't think you'd be happy with no civility standards here. In order to protect you from the incivility of others - the others have to be protected from incivility that you might stumble into. So if someone gets blocked, they have a choice. If they want to focus on the shame they may feel - then they don't have to ask for Council's help. If they want to get back to posting, then they can tell the shame they feel to take a back seat, and appeal to Council. Council is NOT Bob. Council members are NOT deputies who are following Bob's notions. Council are peers. fellow babblers. If you go to them and say "I want to get rid of this block" ..as long as you remain civil with them, you might find yourself being guided toward getting rid of the block. Maybe they'll explain "Well Muff - when you said '-----' this is why Bob considered it uncivil.. so what you need to do is look at the list of civility buddies and see if there's someone there that you can work with to come up with an apology or rephrase or whatever.. and as soon as you get that taken care of then your block will be removed" Now - that's just *my* idea of how it might work - but still - Council is an avenue of returning to the community. No one has to use it. If someone appeals to Council and then gets uncivil - Council could very legitimately say "Hey - we don't respond to incivility. Come back when you can make a civil appeal." That poster would be stuck in their block until they figured out how to be civil when dialoguing with Council. As it should be. Bottom line Muff, is that overcoming shame is an important thing to learn. It's not easy. But it's important. Maybe the strong desire to be active in the community will be the pull one might need in order to accomplish 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.The only thing Council will control is the ability to lift blocks by majority vote, and to impose (or not impose) conditions of a release of block. I think the important thing is to get a Council in place. that will be the relief valve. This will never be a place that is free free of blocks - and there will never be a set of block criteria that satisfies each and every member. But if we have a Council, we have a relief valve.
> Cuz at this pointy I am still seeing the council as having too much...power(lol, yet again).Maybe you are thinking of it having powers that have not been part of Bob's proposal? They will not have the power to block.
> 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.But there might be times/situations for which 1 week is really not enough time. But if 1 week is the minimum time that must be served - then no one need be blocked longer than 1 week if we have a Council.
> Personally, I see the role of the council more as whether a block is needed *period*.
I initially wanted to include that - - but people here that I consider wiser than me did not think Council's role should be to question the determinations of our 'King' :-) After thinking about it, I see their point. Really.
> 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....You are right on there. And one thing that plays a large role is the fact that Bob has the power to pull the plug. That will never change. Since we have to live with that fact, maybe some of our ideas about the perfect set of circumtances are worth setting aside - in order to keep a functioning community that is as protective as possible, without being overly punitive.
Sol.
Posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 12:29:10
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:37:48
>He has offered to allow a Community Council to shorten blocks, after an as-yet-undetermined minimum time has been served.
I wonder what that minimum is?
I have always felt that it would be more transparent of Bob to just block some people for life than to use the formula in the way it has been used. Which is, establishing an precedent via a PBC and then ratcheting up the penalties until you are at the year long block. You could see, when those people came back at the end of the block, they were watched very very carefully, and they were treated differently too.
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:02:29
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 12:29:10
> >He has offered to allow a Community Council to shorten blocks, after an as-yet-undetermined minimum time has been served.
>
> I wonder what that minimum is?It hasn't been set. He asked a while back what others thought that limit should be. I think I said a few days. Not very many people answered him on it.
> I have always felt that it would be more transparent of Bob to just block some people for life than to use the formula in the way it has been used.Well - although I can see that a year block feels like it might as well be lifetime, I've been having a ball interracting with someone here who I believe has been blocked for a year (Alex - right?) I'm glad she didn't get blocked for life. She stirs the pot - for sure. But perspectives like Alex's do keep things closer to the center of reality. And I Love all her wry irony. She's got a sharp eye.
> Which is, establishing an precedent via a PBC and then ratcheting up the penalties until you are at the year long block. You could see, when those people came back at the end of the block, they were watched very very carefully, and they were treated differently too.
I honestly don't know. I've noticed that more than others, some do seem very prone to pbc's, rephrasing requests, blocks, and then longer blocks. But I think if we could look at it objectively - or have someone from the outside look at it objectively for us, we'd notice some things.
First - I am absolutely certain that Bob is not capable of being 100% consistent and equal in enforcing civility guidelines. But I don't think anyone else is capable either. So that would be an unmeetable (is that a word?) expectation. Deal with Bob is, though, that this Is 'his baby.' No one is more motivated to keep it intact than Bob. You just can't invest the amount of time and effort into something like this that Bob has invested, and it mean nothing. So in my view - there isn't another imperfect person that I'd rather have as Babble King.
Second, I think that there are a good number of people here who have emotional, psychological, and/or biological conditions that make them more vulnerable than others to violating civility guidelines: i) Folks who are young and have hot passions and less mature self-restraint; ii) folks with diagnosis' that make impulse-control a real challenge - like bipolar, ADHD, etc; iii) folks with dissociative disorders that result in loss of time for their most well-functioning part; iv) folks with cognitive disorders that impair their reasoning, their executive functioning, their language skills. Some of these folks have the potential to develop what it takes to stay within the guidelines. Some, through no fault of their own, may not possess the potential to ever have enough control to stay neatly within the tight civility guidelines here. I don't think any of those who have trouble with this deserve to be punished for infractions. I also don't think civility guidelines should be abandoned - which I think would quickly lead to mayhem and really kill off the community. I think civility must be managed - but I think here it should be done with an abundance of compassion, and without the tones of shaming and punishment that have been imbedded in the current system.
It's all very tricky. I think Bob works hard to strike a balance. He says he thinks it can be improved. I think he's putting legs to his words by proposing a Community Council. I'm a newcomer to the active posting community - and in my own arrogance sometimes I wish I could just wrest the controls from Bob's hands and say "Ok! You just sit right here & be still while I get this thing set up for you - and then I'll give it back with the instructions!" No doubt I'm not the only one here who thinks they could set up a better system that would work 'right'.
But here we are. We've got what we've got. I really do think my thoughts about how to put a Council in place are more in tune with the Community than Bob's desire to have campaigns and elections. I even think my idea is truer to Bob's goals than his own idea ;-) But I don't have those controls. All I can do is keep saying what I keep saying, and hope that eventually he gives it a chance. And I hope sooner rather than later.
Solstice
Posted by 10derheart on December 13, 2010, at 14:15:44
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:37:48
>>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.'
So Dr. Bob has specifically agreed he will grant all Council members access to the admin (software) tools the deputies had/have access to? Since that is the only way to "release" a block without waiting for him?
Just wondering, curious....
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:25:21
In reply to Re: clarity??? » Solstice, posted by 10derheart on December 13, 2010, at 14:15:44
> >>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.'
>
> So Dr. Bob has specifically agreed he will grant all Council members access to the admin (software) tools the deputies had/have access to? Since that is the only way to "release" a block without waiting for him?
>
> Just wondering, curious....
I know nothing about how any of it works. All I know is that my understanding of what he's said is that he would grant the power to Council to vote and to by majority, lift blocks before they are due to be up, and they can do that with or without conditions. He did stipulate that there be a minimum time served before the block can be lifted.Since he also suggested that Council should, amongst themselves, choose one of themselves to 'interface' (his word) with him - maybe there would be a 'Council leader' who has the access needed to release a block? If there's a leader, maybe there should be a 'vice-leader' in case the leader is out-of-commission and a block needs to be released?
Anyway - my understanding is that Council would not need his permission (that's the power he's turning over), and they would have the ability to release the block.
Sol.
Posted by 10derheart on December 13, 2010, at 18:36:09
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:25:21
To be continued...I'm sure. I don't suppose the details or logistics are that important to anyone else. I'm just a practical thinker sometimes. It just occurred to me when you (or muffy or someone...) mentioned the time lag of things that if the technical ability is withheld...it wouldn't do much good and have much impact to be able to shorten blocks. So I was wondering if that had come up in the chat I was unable to attend.
Thanks....:-)
Posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 19:44:23
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 14:25:21
Civility transgressions come in several different flavors:
1. Insults and hurtful comments to or about fellow posters
2. Insults and hurtful comments to or about Bob.
3. Insults and putdowns of third parties - one of the funniest
examples of this was when Bob read "Bush running the country"
as "Bush ruining the country" and issued a block which he later
revoked with a good spirit.As that example demonstrates, errors do occur. Often, when the civility rules are broken, it is very clear that hurt has been intended, for example when swear words are used. However, at times there is a real difference between how the poster intends a comment and how it is received.To give a hypothetical example, a poster might say, "you sounded awfully professorial there." The person receiving this statement might take it as a sarcastic putdown, when it was intended to be a playful, innocent comment. In cases like this, there isn't a clear-cut right and wrong. Until now, Bob has been the only person with the power to decide what counts as a civility transgression. The Council will have the power to shorten blocks with or without conditions, such as an apology. What about the cases in which Bob's view of what is a transgression is different from most everyone else? Can a block be rescinded if the Council thinks that no incivility has occurred?
A few weeks ago, I think Bob offered at one point to reduce blocks by 10%. (posters who replied asked for a greater reduction, and the idea was apparently dropped) I haven't seen any recent mention of block length reduction, or a reworking of the formula for determining block length.
Are these things being discussed?
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 19:55:28
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by 10derheart on December 13, 2010, at 18:36:09
> To be continued...I'm sure. I don't suppose the details or logistics are that important to anyone else. I'm just a practical thinker sometimes. It just occurred to me when you (or muffy or someone...) mentioned the time lag of things that if the technical ability is withheld...it wouldn't do much good and have much impact to be able to shorten blocks. So I was wondering if that had come up in the chat I was unable to attend.
>
> Thanks....:-)
I think your interest in the details and logistics is shared by a big chunk of people. And the matter of Council functioning independent of Bob, I think, is central to it being a transfer (or at least sharing) of power. And that really does seem to be an important piece of it for him. I think that plays a role in Bob's insistence that Council members be elected - chosen by the community.Anyway, I don't think it came up in the chat - but I do think it's been addressed. If Bob sees this, perhaps he'll want to confirm?
Solstice
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 19:59:14
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 19:44:23
I think people are interested....but ya, there needs to be ALOT more *clear* info if we are to see if in fact Bob is really on board, or if this is just another digression...
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 20:13:06
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 19:44:23
Twinleaf -
I think you're making a really important point. Some time back I suggested that Council, by majority vote, be allowed to set aside blocks issued by Bob. My thought was along the same lines as yours.. that errors in judgment do happen.. and like the one you cited as 'running vs. ruining' - even Bob can misunderstand or misinterpret something. The written word can be very difficult to interpret without the nonverbals that usually accompany communication. It would be impossible for Bob to stay closely involved in every thread to pick up the nuances that are involved in communication that is erroneously judged as uncivil. Like you said, some incivility is clear, and some things tagged as uncivil might not be tagged as uncivil if Bob were more involved in the thread. I think he does take care - and I think his more recent practice of asking for rephrasing mitigates this issue to a great extent. It allows the poster to restate it in way that makes their intent clearer.
But my suggestion that Council be able to set aside blocks altogether met resistence. And that's ok. It may really be better to just get Council off the ground as simply as possible - and see how it goes. Refining can always be done later.
But I do heartily 'get' what you're saying here, and it makes me feel better to know that I'm not the only one who sees that there are times an incivility is cited in error :-)
Solstice
> Civility transgressions come in several different flavors:
>
> 1. Insults and hurtful comments to or about fellow posters
> 2. Insults and hurtful comments to or about Bob.
> 3. Insults and putdowns of third parties - one of the funniest
> examples of this was when Bob read "Bush running the country"
> as "Bush ruining the country" and issued a block which he later
> revoked with a good spirit.
>
> As that example demonstrates, errors do occur. Often, when the civility rules are broken, it is very clear that hurt has been intended, for example when swear words are used. However, at times there is a real difference between how the poster intends a comment and how it is received.To give a hypothetical example, a poster might say, "you sounded awfully professorial there." The person receiving this statement might take it as a sarcastic putdown, when it was intended to be a playful, innocent comment. In cases like this, there isn't a clear-cut right and wrong. Until now, Bob has been the only person with the power to decide what counts as a civility transgression. The Council will have the power to shorten blocks with or without conditions, such as an apology. What about the cases in which Bob's view of what is a transgression is different from most everyone else? Can a block be rescinded if the Council thinks that no incivility has occurred?
>
> A few weeks ago, I think Bob offered at one point to reduce blocks by 10%. (posters who replied asked for a greater reduction, and the idea was apparently dropped) I haven't seen any recent mention of block length reduction, or a reworking of the formula for determining block length.
>
> Are these things being discussed?
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 20:37:16
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 20:13:06
>"But my suggestion that Council be able to set aside blocks altogether met resistence. And that's ok. It may really be better to just get Council off the ground as simply as possible - and see how it goes. Refining can always be done later. "
*ok, this is where I get freaked....
'met resistance....'
'refining can always come later'....See this is just what I am worried about.
Refining likely WON'T happen later. What the council wants will quite likely be 'met with resistance'....
I mean, see how much clarity we have gotten from Bob so far??? and this has been talked about for quite awhile....
Its very important to us. How did the chat go? I understand he was late....so it was short...
WE are making alot of effort here.....I hate to sound like SUCH a negative pain here....but Bob is a friggin ROCK I say. Trying to make him chnge is like trying to chip away at a rock with a rubber mallet.
I think the council *could* be a good idea, but ONLY if Bob gives it the ability to DO things.
Only if Bob is willing to chnage blocks etc as I mentioned above.
All I am seeing is alot of reluctance on Bobs part..., alot of rather passive resistance to change....
I feel badly always narcking away at Bob, but the fact of the matter is, this is HIS SITE and if he is not on board, nothing will truly change....
If he won't change some things before the board is implemnented, if he doesn't show some good faith....well, I for one sure wouldn't walk into it....
As someone said, it still sounds rather like a slightly more complex(more work) deputy position....and as people who have been here any length of time, well, we know how little influence they had on Bob.
I don't beleive that he has changed.
I haven't seen evidence that he is willing to give any decent amount.
Sorry Bob, not meaning to keep chewing on your butt(unless you like it!!!LOL!!!), but I got valid reasons, which I have stated, and I am not alone in my thinking....
God I wish I knew what made you tick....
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 20:47:59
In reply to Yep, more info needed..., posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 19:59:14
> I think people are interested....but ya, there needs to be ALOT more *clear* info if we are to see if in fact Bob is really on board, or if this is just another digression...
Muffled -
I think in these beginning stages - we have to tolerate a lot of lack of clarity. It's just the nature of the beast. There really has been a lot of stuff floating around - a lot to keep up with. Maybe it will help you if I tell you what I think is clear:
1. Bob has offered to allow a Community Council that would be granted the power to shorten blocks after a minimum time (which is still undetermined) is served. The Council would have five members. Members could abstain from voting - but it will take at least three of them to have a vote take place. A blocked poster would be responsible for contacting Council and asking that their block be shortened. Council would be allowed to impose, or not impose, conditions on the blocked poster. Early release from a block (after the minimum time served) would be at the sole discretion of Council, by majority vote. Council, or someone on the Council, would have access to the mechanism that would allow them to release the block without having to first get Bob's approval, and without Bob having to be around.
2. Bob has suggested that there be special (harsher?) penalties for any poster who is uncivil to Council members in the performance of their duties. This would likely minimize any potential backlash against Council.
3. Bob initially proposed that candidates for Council campaign and that elections be held to vote for those the Community wishes to serve. This proposal has bet strong resistance from the Community, and as yet, no one has said they are willing to campaign for a Council seat, and no one has said they are willing to subject themselves to elections. I proposed an alternate of Bob soliciting nominations for Council from the Community, whereby he would contact the five people with the most nominations to see if they are willing to serve, and work his way down the list until he fills all five seats. Bob has not yet been agreeable to this, but it is my hope that he will consider its merits as an alternative before rejecting it altogether. I think that under the circumstances, he is more likely to get what he says he wants by setting aside campaigns & elections, and doing it by Community nominations instead.
There are of course a lot of ideas, questions, misconceptions, etc. floating around.. but I think what I've written above is, to the best of my understanding, where it stands at this point.
Solstice
Posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 20:54:48
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 20:13:06
Thank you, Solstice. It's encouraging to know that these things are on the table, at least as much as they can be. Since Bob in the past has shown a willingness to shorten blocks a bit, perhaps we could follow that up. I think he said that he would do it, but that he would like to see a parallel reduction in incivilities on our parts. That seems fair. Still, 10% would not make enough difference for the very long blocks. Is there any discussion of a cap on blocks? Almost everyone who has given their views on this topic wants a cap of a few weeks or a month. And on a related topic- the formula that results in long blocks- is changing it or eliminating it under consideration?
Sorry for all the questions! You have gotten us quite a ways towards solving some of the problems which have concerned us, so, of course, we are going to show our appreciation by bringing up even more of them...
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 21:25:41
In reply to Re: clarity???, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 20:37:16
> >"But my suggestion that Council be able to set aside blocks altogether met resistence. And that's ok. It may really be better to just get Council off the ground as simply as possible - and see how it goes. Refining can always be done later. "
>
> *ok, this is where I get freaked....
> 'met resistance....'
> 'refining can always come later'....
>
> See this is just what I am worried about.
> Refining likely WON'T happen later. What the council wants will quite likely be 'met with resistance'....Ok Muff... I can see that I did not do a good job making it clear! I should have specified that the resistence I met was from other Community members. I remember Dinah not liking it - but I think there were others as well.
As for refining - EVERYthing refines, Muff. YOU refine. So refining is a good thing - and much of the time it happens just as a matter of course. :-) I was specifically talking about it being important to get the basic structure of a Council in place - as simply as possible - to see how it works, and then work the kinks out of it as we go along. Anything new will always need kinks worked out.
I hope that helps!
> I mean, see how much clarity we have gotten from Bob so far??? and this has been talked about for quite awhile....
> Its very important to us. How did the chat go? I understand he was late....so it was short...No - he was on time - a few minutes early actually, if I remember correctly. There were some with comuputer questions for him that took some time. There were people coming in the room for a little while, so it takes time to get everyone 'gathered' and present. I think he was the one who finally initiated the conversation about Council.
> WE are making alot of effort here.....Yes, we are - but I genuinely think Bob is as well.
> I hate to sound like SUCH a negative pain here....but Bob is a friggin ROCK I say. Trying to make him chnge is like trying to chip away at a rock with a rubber mallet.
I don't know if that's really fair, Muff. Bob has made changes... changes that were of benefit to the community. In particular I'm thinking of his agreeing to ask for rephrasing and apologies and then allowing time for a response before handing out blocks. That is a significant change.
Bob won't be able to make all the changes every different person would like to see. That's an expectation impossible to fill. I think it's important for us to give it a chance - and to understand that baby steps are still steps. :-) Maybe, Muff, you can think of it in terms of your parts. What if some of your more fragile parts were demanding that the higher functioning part of you let them run the show? You wouldn't be able to meet all of their demands. You have to have a part - hopefully the best functioning part - that is in control and calling the shots. I remember you describing yourself as having to sometimes sit those more unruly parts down and tell them they are going to have to wait for your attention. Did I remember that correctly? So maybe think of this in those kinds of terms. Bob will not be able to meet every expectation that is here in the Community. But that does not mean that he is not genuinely trying to put something together that will be in the best interests of the whole Community. It's not about making everyone 'happy' - as much as it's about making this place as safe as it can be, while still giving it room to be as thriving as it can be.
> I think the council *could* be a good idea, but ONLY if Bob gives it the ability to DO things.He said he will give Council the power to shorten blocks, and the power to release those blocked posters.
> Only if Bob is willing to chnage blocks etc as I mentioned above.
Not 'only if' Muff. He can block someone for a year - and use any formula he wants. And if Council thinks its excessive, and that the blocked poster is working to stick with civility guidelines, then they can cut that block all the way down to the minimum if that's what the majority of them vote to do.
> All I am seeing is alot of reluctance on Bobs part..., alot of rather passive resistance to change....I don't think so, Muff. The only reluctance I'm seeing right now is his reluctance to change the method of seating Council. Other than that, I think he's been exceedingly generous.
> I feel badly always narcking away at Bob, but the fact of the matter is, this is HIS SITE and if he is not on board, nothing will truly change....I think you're afraid - because blocks have been traumatic for you. It is his site, but he has made a decent number of changes - which means he is willing to make changes. I think things will continue to evolve (or 'refine' :-)
> If he won't change some things before the board is implemnented, if he doesn't show some good faith....well, I for one sure wouldn't walk into it....He has made changes (asking for rephrasing & apologies before issuing blocks). I think he has shown good faith by making his proposal for turning power to release blocks over to a Council chosen by the community. And you don't have to walk into anything. It would warm my heart to see you allow yourself to coast along right now and let yourself trust those of us here that you have faith in to push this thing along to a better place than it has been. There are lots of really good folks here Muff. I know you know that. Please don't let yourself fret. Let some of the others of us carry the fretting for a while. We will fret on your behalf. What you can probably count on, is that it can't get worse here - it can only get better. It might not happen tomorrow - but I really do think that it will eventually happen. It is hard to wait.. but we are going to have to wait until we get it put together. Remember - baby steps ARE STILL STEPS!
> As someone said, it still sounds rather like a slightly more complex(more work) deputy position....and as people who have been here any length of time, well, we know how little influence they had on Bob.It's nothing like deputies. Banish that thought!
Solstice
Posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2010, at 21:30:40
In reply to Re: For my dear Muffled..., posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 21:25:41
he's said a few non-committal things...
and posts have, what... doubled? tripled? quadrupled?
business as usual...
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 22:09:20
In reply to Re: clarity, posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 20:54:48
> Thank you, Solstice. It's encouraging to know that these things are on the table, at least as much as they can be. Since Bob in the past has shown a willingness to shorten blocks a bit, perhaps we could follow that up. I think he said that he would do it, but that he would like to see a parallel reduction in incivilities on our parts. That seems fair. Still, 10% would not make enough difference for the very long blocks. Is there any discussion of a cap on blocks? Almost everyone who has given their views on this topic wants a cap of a few weeks or a month. And on a related topic- the formula that results in long blocks- is changing it or eliminating it under consideration?
>
> Sorry for all the questions! You have gotten us quite a ways towards solving some of the problems which have concerned us, so, of course, we are going to show our appreciation by bringing up even more of them...
You are so kind, Twin! Honestly - I get excited when I read posts like yours here! As for me helping push things along - I think it's been easier for me to shoulder that part of this process simply because although I have been here a long, long time and have silently been part of (or at least have observed) Babble's evolution, I do not bear the wounds of the accumulation of administrative hurts. There are so many incredible people here who are capable of leadership - full of wisdom and good will.. but the hurts that they've weathered are somewhat akin to sitting outside in shorts and a t-shirt during repeated hail storms. As a result, these exceptional people are skittish, hesitant to hope, and I could go on and on - you get the point. (And this is why it bothers me a lot that Bob insists on elections in hopes of it eliminating candidates not 'sturdy' enough. I think there are plenty of sturdy - but wounded - leaders here. They can be chosen by the community without subjecting themselves unnecesssarily to rejection - and still be the kind of 'sturdy' that is needed by Council members). I maybe think of myself as carrying them and their voices on my less battered shoulders as we push forward for improvements here. I might be able to more easily bear the uncertainty and the chaos of seeing this thing thru because I was not visibly here to bear the wounds inflicted during the existing system. It's not my wisdom that I have in my hand as I keep knocking on Bob's door. It's the wisdom of the Old Guard here. Their knuckles are worn and aching. So I'll knock on their behalf - and hope it eventually annoys him enough to listen to the wisdom the Old Guard has layed on his doorstep repeatedly - vfor a long, long time.As for your questions:
If I remember correctly, his offer to reduce by 10% was in response to a request that all blocked posters be released in an amnesty of sorts. Cut loose.
There have been a lot of requests that he amend his blocking formula ad/or put a cap on it. He has seemed to hear it. In my view, though, having a Council that can shorten/release a block after a minimum time served sort of eliminates the need to fool with his blocking system. It's almost an in lieu of thing. And a Council is a MUCH better option for the community because even if he capped his block at - say - six months - or even three months, that still does not give the blocked poster the ability to, after they have settled down and rethought it, come back and offer to make repair - hoping for a quick return to the community. Having a way to restore privileges relatively quickly is the huge thing here.
Now.. under the Council proposal Bob wants there to be a minimum time served before Council can release a block. That seems reasonable to me. Bob has asked what people think the minimum time should be. Not many answered. I think a week should be the longest minimum. I'm thinking that if we can get over the hump of *how* to seat a Council - the matter of a minimum time served could be figured out after we have a Council. Maybe the new Council could help sort that out.
Solstice
Posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 22:47:29
In reply to Re: clarity, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 22:09:20
This all sounds very promising. I would agree - if we get a Council with the power to modify blocks of cooperative posters who ask, that should give us what we need. Possibly, if that works well, the very long blocks, and the formula that determines them, may become obsolete. Bob might develop confidence in the workings of the Council, and gradually allow the older way of doing things to lapse. We can't be sure, of course, but effective change probably means choosing the most important thing, getting that in place, and then seeing other aspects of the situation change and adapt.
So we do need to put our support behind finding the best way to select Council members. We have lots of intelligent, rather private people here; their style of leadership has very high standards but is subtle . I think it would be hard to find many people willing to conduct open campaigns here. I hope Bob will recognize that, and feel that it's O.K. to move towards the model you have suggested.
It's fascinating that you have been "lurking" for years and are only now so active. I'm sure that doing things that way has allowed you to contribute in a really fresh, strong way now. It's great.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2010, at 22:52:58
In reply to Re: clarity » Solstice, posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 22:47:29
Hey, I know: Lets make the minimum amount of time before you can appeal your block... 363 days. And lets also make it such that the elders don't have the practical ability to revoke a block within 2 days of an accepted appeal.
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 23:23:15
In reply to My take on where it stands, posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 20:47:59
> > I think people are interested....but ya, there needs to be ALOT more *clear* info if we are to see if in fact Bob is really on board, or if this is just another digression...
>
> Muffled -
>
> I think in these beginning stages - we have to tolerate a lot of lack of clarity. It's just the nature of the beast. There really has been a lot of stuff floating around - a lot to keep up with. Maybe it will help you if I tell you what I think is clear:*why? why do we have to tolerate alot of unclarity????
> 1. Bob has offered to allow a Community Council that would be granted the power to shorten blocks after a minimum time (which is still undetermined) is served. The Council would have five members. Members could abstain from voting - but it will take at least three of them to have a vote take place. A blocked poster would be responsible for contacting Council and asking that their block be shortened.*I think I might ask sometimes, but I think the majority of the time I would be so locked in shame I couldn't. I would just hide away and punish myself.
I think its very commonly very hard for people to 'ask' for stuff. For parts of me to 'ask' is to expect to have something bad happen to me. I don't think I am alone in this. For parts, to ask is to beg. For parts to ask is far too much cuz who the f do I think I am, I am bad. etc etc I think this would be tough for MANY and they would just suffer in silence.
Thats why I am so adamant about a cap on basic blocks. Then there wouldn't really be the need to appeal, if its only a week, that can be hard, but its doable...
Also, could others appeal a persons block on their behalf, if they know that person had more going on than the council knows....? Can they support fellow posters in that way?>Council would be allowed to impose, or not impose, conditions on the blocked poster. Early release from a block (after the minimum time served) would be at the sole discretion of Council, by majority vote. Council, or someone on the Council, would have access to the mechanism that would allow them to release the block without having to first get Bob's approval, and without Bob having to be around.
*good
> 2. Bob has suggested that there be special (harsher?) penalties for any poster who is uncivil to Council members in the performance of their duties. This would likely minimize any potential backlash against Council.*sounds good. I like that council is anonymous.
> 3. Bob initially proposed that candidates for Council campaign and that elections be held to vote for those the Community wishes to serve. This proposal has bet strong resistance from the Community, and as yet, no one has said they are willing to campaign for a Council seat, and no one has said they are willing to subject themselves to elections. I proposed an alternate of Bob soliciting nominations for Council from the Community, whereby he would contact the five people with the most nominations to see if they are willing to serve, and work his way down the list until he fills all five seats. Bob has not yet been agreeable to this, but it is my hope that he will consider its merits as an alternative before rejecting it altogether. I think that under the circumstances, he is more likely to get what he says he wants by setting aside campaigns & elections, and doing it by Community nominations instead.*hmmm elections wouldn't bother me(I weird, and it's in my background) but definately I can see where it would be hard for most.
> There are of course a lot of ideas, questions, misconceptions, etc. floating around.. but I think what I've written above is, to the best of my understanding, where it stands at this point.*which...isn't a whole lot of info.
Don't mistake me, I appreciate your work.
But manoman, I need facts B4 I jump into stuff. If a person is going to do a job, they need to know WHAT the job REALLY is, so that they can determine IF in fact, it is a job they would like to do. AND they gonna have to agree w/the priciples of the group in order to be a part of the group...
Maybe I overvigilant(makes me tired lots) but its also saved my bacon...Also, another point, is just WHAT is the *point* of blocks? At what point is it punitive rather than just a time out?
And I would like to see it as *rule* that a person is warned *in* the thread, or at least w/in say the last 24 hrs before blocks are thrown at them(except in extreme blowups, maybe an instant 24 hr.suspension or something...).
I don't know that this is always the case, that thye are warned?
And also, if the poster is no longer being inflammatory, what is the turnaround time for apology? If they are not posting, its possible they have self blocked.
Also, if a person is just gone right off for some reason, then there would need to be an 'instant' block essentially in order to cut them off if they have clearly lost control.
Its just not that simple....
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 23:28:13
In reply to Re: clarity??? » muffled, posted by sigismund on December 13, 2010, at 11:46:07
> 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.
>
>I remember when 'The Formula' was first being discussed. I was SO happy cuz I thot it meant the blocks would be less.
Sigh, NOT.
I don't understand it, the formula, I just don't.
I like things simple...
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 23:56:06
In reply to Re: For my dear Muffled..., posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 21:25:41
> > I hate to sound like SUCH a negative pain here....but Bob is a friggin ROCK I say. Trying to make him chnge is like trying to chip away at a rock with a rubber mallet.
>
> I don't know if that's really fair, Muff. Bob has made changes... changes that were of benefit to the community. In particular I'm thinking of his agreeing to ask for rephrasing and apologies and then allowing time for a response before handing out blocks. That is a significant change.*but have you noticed, that the changes are always what HE wants. And then he tries to push them on us, and then blames us when we don't do what he wants....? :(
Bobs doing what he must to keep his site alive, but his concessions on the real big ticket item hasn't really moved much...and hence, the site flounders...I goto say, you are a WAY better person than I. I would not put the huge effort forward that you are Solstice, to help Bob when he just sits there and lets you do the work. Or are you in communication w/him via email? Which doesn't bother me, but would make more sense to me as to how you seem to be so sure as to where the mysterious Bob is 'at' in his thinking????? I know I never ever understood him, tho beleive me, I tried...
> Bob won't be able to make all the changes every different person would like to see. That's an expectation impossible to fill. I think it's important for us to give it a chance - and to understand that baby steps are still steps. :-) Bob will not be able to meet every expectation that is here in the Community. But that does not mean that he is not genuinely trying to put something together that will be in the best interests of the whole Community. It's not about making everyone 'happy' - as much as it's about making this place as safe as it can be, while still giving it room to be as thriving as it can be.*I don't even understand what 'safe' IS to Bob.... :(
When I was a regular poster here at babble, it was not other posters I was afraid of...it was Bob :(
I agree, that we can't make everyone happy, we are human, and presumably , given the nature of the site, have issues.
So ya, there will be probs from time to time. I would expect that. But at this site, the biggest prob is the punitive blocks, the fear of blocks, the shame of them, the not understanding the why of them....
> > I think the council *could* be a good idea, but ONLY if Bob gives it the ability to DO things.
>
> He said he will give Council the power to shorten blocks, and the power to release those blocked posters.*so then, Bob will still be doing the blocking? Or will blocks be looked at by council and council be given the power to decide if a block is even merited?
> > Only if Bob is willing to chnage blocks etc as I mentioned above.
>
> Not 'only if' Muff. He can block someone for a year - and use any formula he wants. And if Council thinks its excessive, and that the blocked poster is working to stick with civility guidelines, then they can cut that block all the way down to the minimum if that's what the majority of them vote to do.*what is the minimum???clearly many want to know this...
So....I think somehow I am having troubles digesting this.....so councils role would be to refute Bobs descions? And Bob would be ok with this? He would go along with majority council rule? Cuz in the past, he didn't always listen to the majority of poaters, or majority of deps either.
>
> > All I am seeing is alot of reluctance on Bobs part..., alot of rather passive resistance to change....
>
> I don't think so, Muff. The only reluctance I'm seeing right now is his reluctance to change the method of seating Council. Other than that, I think he's been exceedingly generous.*ok, we'll have to agree to disagree on THAT! :)
> > I feel badly always narcking away at Bob, but the fact of the matter is, this is HIS SITE and if he is not on board, nothing will truly change....
>
> I think you're afraid - because blocks have been traumatic for you. It is his site, but he has made a decent number of changes - which means he is willing to make changes. I think things will continue to evolve (or 'refine' :-)
*we shall see.
> > If he won't change some things before the board is implemnented, if he doesn't show some good faith....well, I for one sure wouldn't walk into it....
>
> He has made changes (asking for rephrasing & apologies before issuing blocks). I think he has shown good faith by making his proposal for turning power to release blocks over to a Council chosen by the community.* I have seen this repeated over and over.....I would need more...he hurt alot of people...
>And you don't have to walk into anything. It would warm my heart to see you allow yourself to coast along right now and let yourself trust those of us here that you have faith in to push this thing along to a better place than it has been. There are lots of really good folks here Muff.
*I AM allowing you guys to carry the ball. I am just asking questions so that everyone has some clarity here...
There were always good folks here...Bob flipped them off...he didn't care about them or their concerns...just cares about 'The Masses' or something...
>I know you know that. Please don't let yourself fret. Let some of the others of us carry the fretting for a while. We will fret on your behalf. What you can probably count on, is that it can't get worse here - it can only get better. It might not happen tomorrow - but I really do think that it will eventually happen. It is hard to wait.. but we are going to have to wait until we get it put together. Remember - baby steps ARE STILL STEPS!*It can't get worse.....oh yes it can. ALOT of people could get hurt again....:(
I hated it before and I will hate to see it again should it happen, which is why I ask questions.
> > As someone said, it still sounds rather like a slightly more complex(more work) deputy position....and as people who have been here any length of time, well, we know how little influence they had on Bob.
> It's nothing like deputies. Banish that thought!*well, it's people volunteering to work under Bob....
Its people expected to take Bob in good faith(its what you want them to do...)
Its people 'thinking' they know wassup...but that may not be the reality, cuz as usual, Bob is being about as clear as mud...
Its people who will find they may well be treated very differently than they were before....there may well be a loss there...
Nope, can't banish the thot...
Posted by Solstice on December 14, 2010, at 0:25:35
In reply to Re: My take on where it stands, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 23:23:15
> *why? why do we have to tolerate alot of unclarity????It's part of the process of making big changes. There is no way for us to get from where we've been to a better place without going through a period of unclarity - even chaos.
> > A blocked poster would be responsible for contacting Council and asking that their block be shortened.
>
> *I think I might ask sometimes, but I think the majority of the time I would be so locked in shame I couldn't. I would just hide away and punish myself.
> I think its very commonly very hard for people to 'ask' for stuff. For parts of me to 'ask' is to expect to have something bad happen to me. I don't think I am alone in this. For parts, to ask is to beg. For parts to ask is far too much cuz who the f do I think I am, I am bad. etc etc I think this would be tough for MANY and they would just suffer in silence.I understand, Muff. Really, I do. I had an excruciatingly long period of time in my life where, because of my own past traumas, having to ask for anything would just paralyze me. It was a mighty, mighty struggle for me to overcome that - so please know that I feel every word you wrote here.
> Thats why I am so adamant about a cap on basic blocks. Then there wouldn't really be the need to appeal, if its only a week, that can be hard, but its doable...You've got a reasonable position on what you're saying here. Bob did say that he wants Council's second 'job' to be a consult to him. I'm guessing that he might run ideas (like the infamous twitter/facebook thing) through Council first. Maybe he'll rely on Council to bring up and discuss with him issues like this. So maybe this is something that could be addressed after Council is in place. Remember - it can't get worse than it is right now. And baby steps are still steps!
> Also, could others appeal a persons block on their behalf, if they know that person had more going on than the council knows....? Can they support fellow posters in that way?I think you make a good case for this being an immensely legitimate need that deserves to be addressed. I don't think Bob will be interested in Council being expected to chase blocked posters down to offer them reprieve. Maybe, you could find a Civility Buddy who you could develop a relationship of trust with - and ahead of time you could work something out with them that if you find yourself blocked - you could as that CB and ask them to help you - to advocate on your behalf - to be *with* you - to guide you - something. In fact - Muffled - if we end up with a Council, and there is a mechanism that provides for a CB to do this - then I would be honored if you would allow me to be your Civility Buddy. We would work it out (getting your case before Council), together.
> > 2. Bob has suggested that there be special (harsher?) penalties for any poster who is uncivil to Council members in the performance of their duties. This would likely minimize any potential backlash against Council.
>
> *sounds good. I like that council is anonymous.I don't think the Council members themselves would be anonymous - we would know who the five are. But I think it would be important for ALL of their votes to reveal only yay or nay. I would strongly oppose the idea of it becoming public who voted (since at least two can abstain), and who voted how. I know that my notion about this does not fit with Bob's idea that if the community does not like how someone votes, then they can vote them out the following year - but I don't think that there is enough value to that process to merit the cost. The cost would be that we may not even get a Council seated if they have to campaign and go thru an election - and I don't think they will be able to as easily vote their conscience if they know their votes will be made public. I'd be fine with just an annual re-nomination process - where every January is the month for sending Bob nominations, and a new Council is seated every February 1. The top five names nominated (and willing to serve) will likely shift naturally. Some will not have time to do it again. There may be fresh faces the Community wants to put in there that collect a large number of nominations.. etc. It would be great if every year we end up with a mixture of new and old members. It'll provide continuity and stability.
> > There are of course a lot of ideas, questions, misconceptions, etc. floating around.. but I think what I've written above is, to the best of my understanding, where it stands at this point.
>
> *which...isn't a whole lot of info.
> Don't mistake me, I appreciate your work.
> But manoman, I need facts B4 I jump into stuff. If a person is going to do a job, they need to know WHAT the job REALLY is, so that they can determine IF in fact, it is a job they would like to do. AND they gonna have to agree w/the priciples of the group in order to be a part of the group...You don't have to jump into anything, Muff. Think of yourself as an observer. The only potential effect this will have on you is a good effect. The worst thing that could come of it for you - is if it never happens and nothing changes. Don't worry about any of it. In fact - you might want to just abstain from even reading Administration posts until this thing gets more settled. The chaos of it is stressful for you - and you don't need that. Remember - there are a lot of Babblers who care about you - Babblers you might even trust - who are speaking up and are involved in the process. Don't let yourself get tangled up in the process of it right now - because all the uncertainties are augmenting your sense of powerlessness, and that's not good for you at all. You could post to friends here - just enjoy participating wherever you like to participate - and maybe every other week you could ask for an update on this. That way you could avoid the chaotic part of the process, but still know where it stands.
> Maybe I overvigilant(makes me tired lots) but its also saved my bacon...I understand that hypervigilence - believe me! It can, as you say 'save your bacon,' but it can also make you very vulnerable to reacting as if you're in harm's way - when you're not. Unfortunately, when we react to a bunny as if it's a deadly snake, we can overreact and do something we later wish we'd known we could have avoided. So because of the hypervigilence, I am encouraging you to not get tangled up in this thing. It's not worth it for you.
> Also, another point, is just WHAT is the *point* of blocks? At what point is it punitive rather than just a time out?
> And I would like to see it as *rule* that a person is warned *in* the thread, or at least w/in say the last 24 hrs before blocks are thrown at them(except in extreme blowups, maybe an instant 24 hr.suspension or something...).
> I don't know that this is always the case, that thye are warned?
> And also, if the poster is no longer being inflammatory, what is the turnaround time for apology? If they are not posting, its possible they have self blocked.
> Also, if a person is just gone right off for some reason, then there would need to be an 'instant' block essentially in order to cut them off if they have clearly lost control.
> Its just not that simple....You are very right, it is not simple at all! You make some very good points here. But I think that in this situation, the most efficient thing is to do this one really big thing (seating a Council) first. Some things really do have to be done one step at a time. And remember.. baby steps ARE steps!
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 14, 2010, at 2:00:42
In reply to ???, posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 23:56:06
> > I don't know if that's really fair, Muff. Bob has made changes... changes that were of benefit to the community. In particular I'm thinking of his agreeing to ask for rephrasing and apologies and then allowing time for a response before handing out blocks. That is a significant change.
>
> *but have you noticed, that the changes are always what HE wants. And then he tries to push them on us, and then blames us when we don't do what he wants....? :(He has indeed made changes that were what he wanted - and then shoved them down the throat of a very unwilling community... as in facebook/twitter. He did express some ambivilance about how all that went down. Then, when the idea came up about rating posts and/or posters - it hit an equally sized brick wall of resistence from the community. And know what? I haven't heard him continuing to push that idea (thank goodness). But you said *always* - and *always* is rarely ever true. He HAS done things in response to Community outcry. Again - I offer the example of his implementing his practice of asking for rephrasing/apology. My memory is that this was a direct result of community complaints about the unmerciful nature of swift blocks that left no room for cases where a poster may have not given enough thought to their post to realize that it could be construed as uncivil, etc. It also serves as an in-thread warning of being in danger of a block - which is something you've brought up in our dialogue here a number of times. Those changes didn't help him at all. In fact, it makes the whole thing more time consuming for him. But it really has worked pretty well at minimizing blocks - even if at times the merits of his rephrasing/apology requests are sometimes disputable.
> Bobs doing what he must to keep his site alive, but his concessions on the real big ticket item hasn't really moved much...and hence, the site flounders...
Muff - he has offered to seat a Council and give them power to reduce his blocks. That's huge! Details about how to seat the Council aren't yet worked out.. but I have faith that they will be. If you are going to carry the 'bad Bob moves' in one hand, it's important that you carry the 'good Bob moves' in the other. I know you know he's not *all* bad - you've said so yourself. But you will easily forget that if you don't make yourself carry the 'good Bob moves' in the other hand. And I'll tell you another thing, Muff.. you won't feel you're in as much danger and won't get as upset as you do sometimes if you will keep your grip on the 'good Bob moves.'
> I goto say, you are a WAY better person than I.No I'm not. I might be WAY less injured - or WAY more healed. But I am not a way better person than you.
> I would not put the huge effort forward that you are Solstice, to help Bob when he just sits there and lets you do the work.I don't see it that way. I'm not doing anything I don't want to do. I don't think I'm helping him - I hope it's the community I'm helping. And he's not letting me do his work. I'm doing work - but what I'm doing isn't something that he even really can do. Bob has made the offer of a Council - but it's up to the community to bring Council to life. I consider myself part of the Community - and I'm doing what I want to do.
> Or are you in communication w/him via email? Which doesn't bother me, but would make more sense to me as to how you seem to be so sure as to where the mysterious Bob is 'at' in his thinking????? I know I never ever understood him, tho beleive me, I tried...I emailed him when I first started posting. I can't even remember what it was about. He did respond. I emailed him not long after the first one, and don't remember what it was about - but I do remember that his response was that he meant no offense - but hoped I'd keep the issues under discussion separated. I guess I was talking about everything all together in my posts. I don't think I responded - other than to take care to do as he asked. I have not initiated any other communication with him. And I sure don't mean to make it sound like I have insight into his mind. I don't. But I do have a knack for understanding communication in general - so I may have an easier time having a sense of where he's 'at' by 'listening' to what he writes.. and sometimes I find out that I got it wrong! so I adjust my notions about where he's 'at' :-)
>> It's not about making everyone 'happy' - as much as it's about making this place as safe as it can be, while still giving it room to be as thriving as it can be.> *I don't even understand what 'safe' IS to Bob.... :(
> When I was a regular poster here at babble, it was not other posters I was afraid of...it was Bob :(I understand. I'm guessing your trauma background doesn't help, either. Bob does control the buttons here - for sure. But as far as 'safe' - when it comes to Bob, I think it really is simply about civility. His standards for it are indeed high. But since he controls the buttons - he's entitled to set the standard. The sad thing is that anyone who runs afoul of those high standards can easily end up blocked - and that makes them feel unsafe. I know you've had to endure painful blocks. So it makes a lot of sense to me that he looks powerful - and dangerous. My personal view is that the system he has been using is quite insensitive to the needs of the particular community he had in mind when he built this place. It's almost like he created a discipline system that is out of sync with his life work. I'm not sure he sees it. I think he's focused on one aspect of this community in that his high standards are designed to protect those here who are particularly sensitive to communication that breaks down into insults.. and that's a reasonable thing for him to focus on. BUT - I also think that he can hold that in one hand, and hold a more compassionate way of implementing his high civility standards that is more sensitive to a community of people with mental health issues that challenge their ability to color within his lines. I think his offer of transfering the power to release blocked posters to a Community Council is a very firm indication that he is holding this other important thing in his other hand. We've just got to work out a way to get Council seated. He has been listening - and he has been responding to the needs of the community. That tells me that he cares about this place. It might not feel safe to you to feel hope that this will get better. If you'll let me - I will hold the hope for you.. on your behalf. I do have hope that it will get better here for everyone. For you. Let me hold your hope, Muffled.
> I agree, that we can't make everyone happy, we are human, and presumably , given the nature of the site, have issues.
> So ya, there will be probs from time to time. I would expect that. But at this site, the biggest prob is the punitive blocks, the fear of blocks, the shame of them, the not understanding the why of them....I couldn't agree more. I absolutely Hate the punitive, shaming nature of the current blocking system. I hate it with a passion. I can't promise that having a Council will eliminate your fear, or prevent you from ever feeling shame - but I think that after we have a Council seated... and with time, you might end up feeling a whole lot less of both of those.
> > He said he will give Council the power to shorten blocks, and the power to release those blocked posters.
>
> *so then, Bob will still be doing the blocking? Or will blocks be looked at by council and council be given the power to decide if a block is even merited?Only Bob will be doing blocking. Council members will not be policing the boards or doing any blocking. My understanding is that they will look at blocks when asked to do so by a poster who has been blocked, and they will have the power to release that block after the unspecified minimum time has passed. At the current time, there is no plan for Council to rehash Bob's blocks and decide whether they are merited. However, they CAN decide that a block is unreasonably long - and/or that the poster has demonstrated that they want to repair their incivility, etc. So in that way, Council could decide that the length of block is not merited, in light of the blocked poster's frame of mind. The important thing to remember is that Council would not be chasing down blocked posters. Blocked posters would have to request review by Council.
> > Not 'only if' Muff. He can block someone for a year - and use any formula he wants. And if Council thinks its excessive, and that the blocked poster is working to stick with civility guidelines, then they can cut that block all the way down to the minimum if that's what the majority of them vote to do.
>
> *what is the minimum???clearly many want to know this...:-) That's one of those things that has not yet been determined. I think the minimum should be no longer than one week. I'd be happy with three days. The minimum block time probably isn't the most important thing just yet - because until we have a Council in place - the need for a minimum time doesn't yet exist.
> So....I think somehow I am having troubles digesting this.....so councils role would be to refute Bobs descions?
And Bob would be ok with this?No - it's not about refuting his decisions. It's about a blocked poster having a chance, after having been blocked, to demonstrate to council that they are willing to abide by civility guidelines. If a blocked poster contacts Council and says "I can't believe that jerk blocked me!" - - they might not even get a response! But if a blocked poster contacts council and says "Manoman.. I really lost it there. I got angry and just spouted off. I know I got off track - what can I do to fix this thing?" Now that poster is likely to enter a dialogue with Council. Council might consider past behavior.. or whether the blocked poster was provoked by someone else's bad behavior. It would be at their discretion. But if the blocked poster has satisfied council that they intend to stay within civility guidelines - then they can vote by majority to release the block. They could cut it down anyhow they see fit - all the way down to the minimum that must be served (which I hope is no longer than one week). But again, it's not about Council getting into arguments with Bob. That wouldn't be helpful to anyone. So 'refute' is not the best word to use in your head about it. Think of it as Council being there as a relief valve for the community. They would have the power to prevent unreasonably long blocks, for sure.. but only for posters who request a review and demonstrate a willingness to stay within civility guidelines. Of course a poster who gets their sentence pared down - and then jumps back in there to start trouble and become uncivil - that poster will probably be blocked again by Bob pretty quickly, and Council may not so readily release them from their block. Maybe that's when conditions would be imposed - as in "You gotta first serve four weeks of your 6 month block - and then you've got to find someone willing to review your first 10 posts." I'm just making that stuff up - but that's an example of possible conditions.
He would go along with majority council rule? Cuz in the past, he didn't always listen to the majority of poaters, or majority of deps either.
> > > All I am seeing is alot of reluctance on Bobs part..., alot of rather passive resistance to change....
> >
> > I don't think so, Muff. The only reluctance I'm seeing right now is his reluctance to change the method of seating Council. Other than that, I think he's been exceedingly generous.
>
> *ok, we'll have to agree to disagree on THAT! :)I'm okay with that :-)
> > > I feel badly always narcking away at Bob, but the fact of the matter is, this is HIS SITE and if he is not on board, nothing will truly change....
> >
> > I think you're afraid - because blocks have been traumatic for you. It is his site, but he has made a decent number of changes - which means he is willing to make changes. I think things will continue to evolve (or 'refine' :-)
>
> *we shall see.
You're right. We will not know for sure until we 'see' it come to life - but we've got to rally ourselves together and show him that we really can manage ourselves better with a Council in place that can be a relief valve. What we DON'T want to do is get in our own way by fighting against the process. It's easy for us to get in our own way because the current system has created a lot of mistrust of administration - but if we can help each other give it a chance - that's our best chance for real change. Directing our guns at Bob won't help speed this along - I'm sure of that :-)
> > > If he won't change some things before the board is implemnented, if he doesn't show some good faith....well, I for one sure wouldn't walk into it....
> >
> > He has made changes (asking for rephrasing & apologies before issuing blocks). I think he has shown good faith by making his proposal for turning power to release blocks over to a Council chosen by the community.
>
> * I have seen this repeated over and over.....I would need more...he hurt alot of people...I know. Bear with me for a minute as I say this - but I think he sees it as them hurting themselves - because it's not like the civility guidelines or blocking rules have been a secret. But despite the kernel of truth in the heart of this view - I think the hurt is much more complex and involves a lot of issues generated from him - his persona - his style - is way of handling things. I think he might have trouble seeing those things - but that doesn't matter. We don't need him to see himself as having been hurtful - if we can just get him to be flexible in the method of seating a Council. If we can get over that hump - I think his popularity rating will eventually improve :-)
> >And you don't have to walk into anything. It would warm my heart to see you allow yourself to coast along right now and let yourself trust those of us here that you have faith in to push this thing along to a better place than it has been. There are lots of really good folks here Muff.
>
> *I AM allowing you guys to carry the ball.Good. You deserve to be free of that ball.
> I am just asking questions so that everyone has some clarity here...And your questions deserve answers. I just sense a lot of hurt, grief, fear and mistrust leaking through. It's understandable to me. I just don't want the lack of clarity that is inherent in the process to be so triggering for you. There's no way to totally eliminate the fuzzy edges of this thing. It'll be fuzzy until it's operational, and that can be hard to tolerate. So it might work better for you to turn your back to it - except to look at periodic updates.
> There were always good folks here...Bob flipped them off...he didn't care about them or their concerns...just cares about 'The Masses' or something...I know it seems like that.. and I know it's hard to see it through all the experiences you've had here - but I really do believe that Bob is behaving in a way that says he does care about this place. And I'll tell you something, Muff.. I have seen him reach out to you specifically recently.. several times.. and the caring I can see in what he says to you has moved me. You might not be able to see it because the wounds you've suffered here are deep - but I'm asking you to consider just taking my word for it. I'm not naive - and I wouldn't tell you that I see something - if it wasn't there. But I do know that it is risky to have faith in something like that in light of all the wounds.
> >I know you know that. Please don't let yourself fret. Let some of the others of us carry the fretting for a while. We will fret on your behalf. What you can probably count on, is that it can't get worse here - it can only get better. It might not happen tomorrow - but I really do think that it will eventually happen. It is hard to wait.. but we are going to have to wait until we get it put together. Remember - baby steps ARE STILL STEPS!
>
> *It can't get worse.....oh yes it can. ALOT of people could get hurt again....:(ok... I think you might be talking about it becoming 'worse' if people here believe and have faith that it will get better - and then if it doesn't happened, then they will feel betrayed - and hurt. I understand that. And yes - that is an undeniable risk. I hadn't thought of that when I said it couldn't get worse. Thank you for pointing that out to me - because it's important for me to be aware of that. When I said it couldn't get worse - I was just referring to the blocking system couldn't get worse - that it could only get better. What you're talking about is important - and it's deeper.
> I hated it before and I will hate to see it again should it happen, which is why I ask questions.
>
> > > As someone said, it still sounds rather like a slightly more complex(more work) deputy position....and as people who have been here any length of time, well, we know how little influence they had on Bob.
> > It's nothing like deputies. Banish that thought!
>
> *well, it's people volunteering to work under Bob....Not really. First.. Bob will not be able to tell them how to vote. He may totally disagree with their vote - but he can't stop them from shortening a block and releasing that poster. Now - if that poster falls right back into incivility - then of course Bob can block them again - but that would be the poster's fault - not Council's. Secondly - Council will not be blocking posters. They will not be enforcing his rules like deputies. Remember - it has been of central importance to Bob that Council not in anyway be viewed as his 'minions.' This has been important to BOB! This thing plays a key role in the difficulty we're having with figuring out a way to seat a Council - because it's behind his desire that a campaign and election that doesn't involve him at all takes place.
> Its people expected to take Bob in good faith(its what you want them to do...)Council people can take Bob in good faith - but that doesn't mean they have to agree that an apologetic poster deserves a 6 month block. And I don't think Bob's feelings will be hurt if they don't agree with him.
> Its people 'thinking' they know wassup...but that may not be the reality, cuz as usual, Bob is being about as clear as mud...
> Its people who will find they may well be treated very differently than they were before....there may well be a loss there...
> Nope, can't banish the thot...
I think the dynamics of a Council made up of fellow posters will be very, very different than deputies made up of fellow posters. WAY different. But we won't know for sure unless we get a Council seated and see how it works. Remember - a crucial factor to it is that Council not in any way be seen as Bob's minions. They will not be 'doing' anything for Bob. Their work will be on behalf of the community, and blocked posters. They will not be answering to Bob - and they won't need his permissionm to release a block.I hope I've helped you some..
Take care Muff..
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 7:50:23
In reply to Re: ???, posted by Solstice on December 14, 2010, at 2:00:42
> I think the dynamics of a Council made up of fellow posters will be very, very different than deputies made up of fellow posters. WAY different. But we won't know for sure unless we get a Council seated and see how it works. Remember - a crucial factor to it is that Council not in any way be seen as Bob's minions. They will not be 'doing' anything for Bob. Their work will be on behalf of the community, and blocked posters. They will not be answering to Bob - and they won't need his permissionm to release a block.
For the record, deputies saw themselves as working for the community, not Bob. I think I might feel offended, though I'm sure your intent wasn't to cause offense.
All I recall Dr. Bob saying about minimums is that real parole boards base it on a percent of time served. I could be wrong.
The power to keep a block in place doesn't sound that much less anger producing than the power to block in the first place. I think somewhere you mentioned that a rejection of parole would rarely happen as long as people were civil in asking for the reduction. I'd be interested in seeing if that was as true for *all* posters, regardless of their popularity or perceived value, or the popularity and perceived value of the recipient of the incivility. Or the perceived "truth" of the statement that caused the block.
I think if I were to be the recipient of incivility from someone who was paroled, or if I felt bad for the recipient of incivility from someone who was paroled, I'd feel the same sort of feelings I feel towards regular parole boards when a parolee hurt someone. Suitably scaled, of course, for the severity of the hurt.
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 8:05:56
In reply to Re: ??? » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 7:50:23
By which I merely mean that, IMO, those who serve need to be able to withstand some anger.
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.