![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 56 to 80 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by shelliR on April 13, 2002, at 18:33:54
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Mitchell on April 13, 2002, at 18:02:49
This was a guy (gal) who was censored over and over, but kept coming back under different names during the period he was blocked.
He was playing the board like a game without rules; it is hard for me to think anyone learned from him. And actually if he read my post he'd probably be happy his memory is still in tact.
But I will try to refrain from using specific examples and names of people who are not here to defend themselves in the future.
Shelli
Posted by Mitchell on April 13, 2002, at 20:37:50
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board » Mitchell, posted by shelliR on April 13, 2002, at 18:33:54
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 23:45:22
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2002, at 17:04:25
>mm, I like the incentive aspect of a frequent fliers approach, but thinking of class-type reunions, you do get invited back no matter how active a member of your class you were...
I do NOT like the frequent fliers approach - imho, it discriminates against posters who due to time constraints, illness, etc. are, for reasons beyond their control, simply unable to post frequently, even though they might want to.
Why should frequent posters be rewarded with their own special board just because they post a lot? IMHO, this hardly constitutes a reason for setting up a whole new, special board that would be exclusionary to non-frequent posters.
Sorry, but I just do NOT see any reason(s) whatsoever for fractionating (word?) what is a COHESIVE, solid and well-run system just the way it is. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
All you're going to do by creating some separate boards, each with limited membership, is divide the current COMMUNITY into factions and disrupt the nice, smooth flow of things.
JMVHO.
Posted by Mark H. on April 14, 2002, at 1:16:21
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board » Dr. Bob, posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 23:45:22
I'm active in a home recording forum, and all posts show the person's on-line name, location (optional but interesting), when they joined the board (first posted), and how many times they have posted.
Contributors are identified as "newbies" until they've posted 50 times, I think, then "jr. members" until 100, when they become "sr. members." There are special designations for people with thousands of posts!
While the designations are not ALWAYS helpful (an old-timer turns sour, or a newbie arrives with tons of experience), in general it helps establish an immediate sense of where someone "belongs" in the community.
This helps in a number of ways. If a person is a newbie, longer-term members cut them much more slack when asking questions that may have been answered many times before or not be very well thought out. Likewise, if an old-timer starts spouting off, it's much more likely that other senior members will step in to tell him to "knock it off" and "take it easy" on newcomers.
As I said, it's not fool-proof, but it does help, and it's one possible altervative to further dividing the board.
If anyone cares to take a look at the layout and style, here's a link to an especially good thread on types of microphones: :-)
http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27030
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by Mitchell on April 14, 2002, at 12:14:05
In reply to Simple Alternative to Separate Board?, posted by Mark H. on April 14, 2002, at 1:16:21
Mark,
Do you know whose .php script that is? It seems to be a prefered script over the ultimateBBS. My guess is that the minimalist appearance and simplicity of the Matts perl used here will not easily be eclipsed by the flexibility of the php, but that php board does have some cool features - like buddy lists, private messages and ignore.
I wonder if there is a way to add member information to the Matt's perl. The data about number of posts is apparently stored somewhere in the system; I wonder if there would be a way to make it appear on posts, or to let readers access that data. But then, even if it is just minimal information about participation habits, that is more information about themselves people would have to offer to participate here.
Posted by judy1 on April 14, 2002, at 14:10:18
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 19:37:48
I think Dr. Bob accessed my post on PSB for this thread (although I know this has come up before) but my reason for posting was to point out the degree of negativity compared to 2 years ago. As Greg pointed out this could be due to the increased number of posters- do you keep some kind of graph of # of posters vs # of blocks Dr. Bob? Also, there were some selfish reasons, to see if some of the old posters were still lurking, and happily (for me) they are. Finally, I guess I consider this a 'medium' of moderated boards, I belong to one that's heavily moderated for child abuse victims (where the list of rules makes this one absolutely pale in comparison) and those wide open ones, where I think the people who are repeated blocked here go and are welcomed with open arms. For someone as sensitive as I am, I'm grateful for the real life quality of this board and the relative safety it affords. I liked some of Mark's suggestions- I've seen them before, but it still doesn't address the posters who come here deliberately to hurt (and that has to be a full-time job to monitor them, and I'm sure Dr. Bob already has a full-time job. So I guess the idea of an 'old-timer' board was (for me) a place of safety. Take care, judy
Posted by Lini on April 14, 2002, at 15:00:08
In reply to just some thoughts..., posted by judy1 on April 14, 2002, at 14:10:18
What do you think about the idea of each person being able to selectivly ignore a poster? As I mentioned before, BusinessWeek does this with their board and it works great - that way, if someone doesn't enjoy a person's perspective, they never have to read any messages from them. In effect, OTs could create their own board by only choosing each other to receive/read messages from and ignoring everyone else - AND, I wouldn't have to know about it :) (and therefore be offended)
You seem to advocate an OT's board . . .why?
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2002, at 19:27:21
In reply to Question for Dr. Bob, posted by Lini on April 14, 2002, at 15:00:08
> I wonder if there is a way to add member information to the Matt's perl.
>
> MitchellAnything's possible. One way to do it would be to include it in the poster's profile, for more on that, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/3723.html
Maybe it would be optional. I'm not inclined to include it with every post. I do like "minimalist", and I'm not sure about labeling posters so prominently. Also:
> This helps in a number of ways. If a person is a newbie, longer-term members cut them much more slack when asking questions that may have been answered many times before or not be very well thought out. Likewise, if an old-timer starts spouting off, it's much more likely that other senior members will step in to tell him to "knock it off" and "take it easy" on newcomers.
>
> Mark H.Shouldn't *everybody* be cut the slack they need? And wouldn't it be nice if others stepped in if *anybody* started "spouting off"?
> What do you think about the idea of each person being able to selectivly ignore a poster?
>
> LiniI think that's a great idea. In fact, it's already implemented here: just don't click on the link! :-) Seriously, this is an advantage of giving each post its own page, as oppposed to collecting threads together.
Bob
Posted by Shar on April 14, 2002, at 19:44:57
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2002, at 19:27:21
It's been a year (as Greg pointed out) since this was brought up, why don't we just do it!
Have a reunion board. Anyone can post, anyone can read.
If people get disruptive, we can always go running to dad...er, Dr. Bob.
Dr. Bob--do you have concerns about having to monitor a new board? Will it add to your work load a lot?
Shar
Posted by Greg on April 14, 2002, at 21:10:41
In reply to It's been a year now...can we just try it?!, posted by Shar on April 14, 2002, at 19:44:57
Really, this was just intended to be a place for old friends to get together, see what we've all been up to and talk about old times. But it's degraded to talk of division, new people being ignored, segregation and exclusion. It's simply not worth it. Despite what anybody on this board might think, none of those things ever entered my my mind when I first brought this up and those thoughts are not there today. This type of discussion assumes too much and is offensive.
Let's just give the Reunion Board a try, open it up to everybody and get rolling with it. Personally, I don't think it will be successful in this format, but we'll see. I hope I'm wrong.
Greg
> It's been a year (as Greg pointed out) since this was brought up, why don't we just do it!
>
> Have a reunion board. Anyone can post, anyone can read.
>
> If people get disruptive, we can always go running to dad...er, Dr. Bob.
>
> Dr. Bob--do you have concerns about having to monitor a new board? Will it add to your work load a lot?
>
> Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2002, at 9:30:18
In reply to Re: It's been a year now...can we just try it?!, posted by Greg on April 14, 2002, at 21:10:41
> Let's just give the Reunion Board a try, open it up to everybody and get rolling with it. Personally, I don't think it will be successful in this format, but we'll see. I hope I'm wrong.
In which format don't you think it'll be successful?
I do think it's worth giving a try, but my inclination is not to leave it completely open. Since what would distinguish it from PSB then?
So I'll have to do some tinkering to deal with access issues.
And I'm still thinking about a number of "class of xxx" boards instead of just one reunion board. And what to do about ancient history, B.R. (before registration).
> > do you have concerns about having to monitor a new board? Will it add to your work load a lot?
It'll only to my work load if it takes off! :-) Or if there are lots of complaints. :-(
Bob
Posted by Willow on April 15, 2002, at 12:08:51
In reply to It's been a year now...can we just try it?!, posted by Shar on April 14, 2002, at 19:44:57
> Dr. Bob--do you have concerns about having to monitor a new board? Will it add to your work load a lot?
Should such a board ever get off the ground I would like it to be monitored by the members of the board. I believe that this would be more supportive for the individuals. Talking from my own viewpoint, if one of my close cyber bodies points out a trait of mine even in a blunt manner I do think in the long run I would end up reflecting on the merits of it. And I also would have the option of ignoring the poster.
Who would get on the board? The Boss could start off a group of 20 or 50 posters, and after that the group could figure out a way of adding others. Once you've been added it would be like the Hotel California, there's no exit.
I can't imagine such a board being quieter than the tele-psycho board!
Just some of my many opinions!
Wanting Willow
ps boss what's with the link to internet dating? i've had no luck on this board! i think i'll stick to real men, cyber hugs just don't cut it
Posted by Lini on April 15, 2002, at 17:03:58
In reply to Re: It's been a year now...can we just try it?!, posted by Greg on April 14, 2002, at 21:10:41
at the risk of beating a dead horse (what an awful phrase!) My opinions about a "reunion" board are simply opinions about a reunion board, nothing against you personally Greg for bringing it up. I just thought people would want to know how some of us feel about its creation, which is not positive or supported . . . but it seems like Dr. Bob is gung ho to get it going, and to have it be limited to certain people, so best of luck with it, hope it accomplishes what you want it to.
I have to ask though - Dr. Bob, is a reunion board more conducive to your research in some way?
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 15, 2002, at 20:02:28
In reply to Re: It's been a year now... (and my thoughts), posted by Willow on April 15, 2002, at 12:08:51
> ps boss what's with the link to internet dating? i've had no luck on this board! i think i'll stick to real men, cyber hugs just don't cut it
(\/)
(';')
(")(")_ the little bunny agrees
Posted by Willow on April 15, 2002, at 20:58:54
In reply to Re: It's been a year now... (and my thoughts), posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 15, 2002, at 20:02:28
Posted by IsoM on April 15, 2002, at 21:06:04
In reply to Re: It's been a year now... (and my thoughts), posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 15, 2002, at 20:02:28
Posted by Shar on April 16, 2002, at 0:09:25
In reply to Re: It's been a year now... (and my thoughts), posted by Willow on April 15, 2002, at 12:08:51
> Should such a board ever get off the ground I would like it to be monitored by the members of the board.
What?! Like a Citizen Review group?
>I believe that this would be more supportive for the individuals. Talking from my own viewpoint, if one of my close cyber bodies points out a trait of mine even in a blunt manner I do think in the long run I would end up reflecting on the merits of it.
Whaaat?! I don't think I get your meaning here at all. Are you talking about someone on an oldie's board making a comment about you? Wow, that's a far cry from what I EVER imagined the oldies board to be about.
>And I also would have the option of ignoring the poster.
ohhhhhh, are you talking about putting every poster on PSB on iggy except oldies so oldies will make their own "personalized" reunion board? (even though the reunion board is just a place to pop in and say hi, make a connection or two, and then spend most of the time at PSB as usual)? If so, we'd put all PSBers except 2 or 3 or 4 on iggy, post or whatever, then take the other 50 or so off iggy so we're back at PSB? This is very confusing to me.
> Who would get on the board? The Boss could start off a group of 20 or 50 posters, and after that the group could figure out a way of adding others. Once you've been added it would be like the Hotel California, there's no exit.whoa....you are scarin me here.....Dr. Bob, I never agreed to no exit! I just wanted a nice, simple, friendly board where old timers could pop in, touch base, ask how the kids are, see if all is well, what's new, then go back to psb or slip back into the great unknown if one wants.
> I can't imagine such a board being quieter than the tele-psycho board!(I've not been to tele-psycho, but it sounds interesting...) an old timer's board would be pretty quiet, I bet, cause we're all too old, down, or lazy to make much noise (speaking only for myself of course...).
Did it bother you when there was a children's PB, or does the book club bother you? Those are both subgroups of the Big Babble.
Shar
> Just some of my many opinions!
>
> Wanting Willow
>
> ps boss what's with the link to internet dating? i've had no luck on this board! i think i'll stick to real men, cyber hugs just don't cut it
Posted by Shar on April 16, 2002, at 0:43:35
In reply to Re: can we just try it?!, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2002, at 9:30:18
>>I do think it's worth giving a try, but my inclination is not to leave it completely open. Since what would distinguish it from PSB then?
I think it would be an 'honor system' thing that people who post meet some criterion such as being registered on one of the Babble boards for a year, or whatever amount of time you want to make that.
This seems to be getting waaay too complicated. I didn't really envision an old timer's board being a substitute for PSB, but more of a reunion place. A place to connect. See who is still out and about. If anybody knows how Harry B. is. That kind of thing.
> And I'm still thinking about a number of "class of xxx" boards instead of just one reunion board.
Hmmm, now that would be interesting. That would mean if Phil, Greg and I joined in different years, we wouldn't be on the same board? Doesn't seem too appealing. Also, seems like the groups on the 'class of xxx' boards might be pretty small, considering that we are talking about (I would guess) a tiny subset of all registrants in year xxx.
>And what to do about ancient history, B.R. (before registration).
Have I got a solution for you! Just have it so that the BR group is grandfathered in, and then set some criterion for others joining if you want one.
Or! Even better, grandfather in EVERYONE registered, and the BR people, when the Reunion Board goes up. This would include current newbies, but will probably be viewed as more fair. Then, after the date the reunion board goes up, people could post there after being registered for however long you say.
Ta daaa! Easy squeezy!
>
> > > do you have concerns about having to monitor a new board? Will it add to your work load a lot?
>
>Or if there are lots of complaints. :-(Yes, complaints are a concern. I am not sure that the worries expressed so far would actually come true, at least if the reunion board is what I'm thinking it is...which is why I think we should just make a decision and do it. It's always (in my experience) easier to think of potential problems than benefits, and stringing it out has only led to repetition of previously voiced concerns.
Don't misunderstand...it's only right that people voice their concerns; my question is, how long does the fair hearing last?
I think the split from PB-only to PB and PSB took less time than this, and was a much more drastic step. At least from my perspective. Plus, I think registration was implemented around that time as well. A lot of change.
Let me know if I can help. 8:-)
Shar
>
> Bob
Posted by beardedlady on April 16, 2002, at 5:48:38
In reply to Re: can we just try it?! » Dr. Bob, posted by Shar on April 16, 2002, at 0:43:35
I keep looking at this string of messages here, and I don't ever read any of them. Today, I just clicked on Shar's post, which had some of Willow's post in it, and I read a bit. But what I was going to say didn't change when I read the posts.
You sort of have that Old Timer's Board right here on PBA! Very few newbies ever read (or post) here because they're just not interested in this topic! So why don't you old-timers just put some really boring stuff in the subject line, so you'll know it's from each other, and voila! You've got your own board! (I am NOT being sarcastic, though I am sort of kidding.) Whoops. Except that I just now wedged my way in like a shim.
My point is really that you've been talking about it so long that I think it's the longest thread I've ever seen! So it seems you've already got a place. Maybe you can call your section "Old Timers Only" or "OTO," make it a different color with a little note that you must be a PB-er for one year to post there (through the good old honor system). Anyway, I agree with Shar; if you're gonna do it, do it. I don't think others would really be offended, unless it keeps you from speaking to us underlings. We would miss your wisdom (ancient though it is!).
butting-in beardy : )>
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2002, at 10:34:45
In reply to Re: can we just try it?! » Dr. Bob, posted by Shar on April 16, 2002, at 0:43:35
> > And I'm still thinking about a number of "class of xxx" boards instead of just one reunion board.
>
> Hmmm, now that would be interesting. That would mean if Phil, Greg and I joined in different years, we wouldn't be on the same board? Doesn't seem too appealing.Maybe people could have the option of changing their "official" year if they wanted to be in the same class as others? Don't schools do that? But probably it would need to go only from an earlier year to a later year.
> Also, seems like the groups on the 'class of xxx' boards might be pretty small, considering that we are talking about (I would guess) a tiny subset of all registrants in year xxx.
Maybe. But maybe small is good. And you never know...
> >And what to do about ancient history, B.R. (before registration).
>
> Have I got a solution for you! Just have it so that the BR group is grandfathered in, and then set some criterion for others joining if you want one.The problem with the BR group is that I have no way of really knowing who they are. The BR and AR Bobs, for example, are different people.
> I think we should just make a decision and do it. It's always (in my experience) easier to think of potential problems than benefits, and stringing it out has only led to repetition of previously voiced concerns.
I'd consider the decision made, but like I said, it's going to take me some time to set it up...
> I think the split from PB-only to PB and PSB took less time than this, and was a much more drastic step.
But it was less involved in technical and procedural ways, since it was an open board -- and also this is a busy time for me...
Bob
Posted by shelliR on April 16, 2002, at 13:24:17
In reply to Re: can we just try it?!, posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2002, at 10:34:45
How about just starting with one reunion board for the time being--in the form that you think best.
I agree with Shar, that this whole thing is getting too complicated.
Starting just one, might give you some opportunity to assess what the use is--in terms of type of posts and quantity of posters. Then you could think about whether reunion boards are really needed by year; I'm not sure (outside of the small group that wants this board), how interested anyone else is in preserving the core of their group during a certain year. Years seem so arbitrary on the boards where things seem change in cycles, unlike high school where almost all your friends were in your graduating class.
I think Shar and Greg are trying to recapture a specific cycle, not a specific year. Can we see how it works for them, before you start working out all the details for many reunion boards?
Shelli
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 16, 2002, at 19:47:57
In reply to Cuter even than my little cyber kitty! =^..^= (nm) » CtrlAlt n Del, posted by IsoM on April 15, 2002, at 21:06:04
freshly caught this morning.. (fish)
hi bob .. many apologies x
>~3))))'o>
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2002, at 20:03:31
In reply to Re: can we just try it?! » Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on April 16, 2002, at 13:24:17
> How about just starting with one reunion board for the time being--in the form that you think best.
I thought of a different way to set this up, and it was a relatively simple, so go ahead and give it a try:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000
> I agree with Shar, that this whole thing is getting too complicated.
I agree with both of you! For one thing, I really couldn't figure out a good way to work in the BR period...
> Years seem so arbitrary on the boards where things seem change in cycles, unlike high school where almost all your friends were in your graduating class.
Maybe it isn't the best analogy to use, but let's see how it goes? It'll also be an experiment with a fixed membership, ie, no "newbies"...
Bob
Posted by kiddo on April 16, 2002, at 22:27:50
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2002, at 20:03:31
I don't agree with it. I don't think it's right. I think that regardless of whether people admit it or not, there will be hard feelings and people will be hurt over it.
Posted by Lini on April 16, 2002, at 22:54:59
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by kiddo on April 16, 2002, at 22:27:50
second that . . .i don't know why, but I can't seem to let this thread go, might be because Dr. B won't/hasnt answered my questions which is only fueling my annoyance with the whole thing further, and it might be because I have to take the GMAT tomorrow and I would rather complain about the creation of an OT board, than study.
i think that i actually don't even care about an OT board, but rather the discussion around it . . . people said that they felt like it was unsupportive and Dr. Bob didn't really seem to care or address it. (Am I projecting here? I can't tell) But I do feel annoyed and I hate to feel annoyed. :)
Anyway, the concept of the board never really made sense to me and no one was able to explain how it would be *more* supportive than what currently exists but um, i think i will go pop some Zoloft and study.
uncivily yours,
lini
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.