![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lini on July 4, 2002, at 23:41:21
This board is the most fun by far, it's the one place where Dr. Bob gets to really get in the mix and duke it out (in a supportive, civil tone of course).
It's unfortunate though, that Dr. Bob is a psychiatrist, cause it really messes up the dynamic for some people. We adore you for running this site Dr. Bob, but why have this Admin board? I mean, it pendulums between a bad episode of Judge Judy and coffee with the shop owner.
I think having a moderator is great, but I don't know yet if conversing with a moderator about moderating is great. It seems like a headache for you Dr. Bob and a dead end street for us. We make suggestions but in the end it's YOUR site so it kinda leaves a "too bad, sucks to be you" taste in people's mouth.
Sometimes the most supportive thing a person can do is just take the time to interact with someone. When I was reading SD's posts with Lou I was basically happy that someone was willing to get in and mix it up with him over the Gate/City of Peace (COP) stuff, cause I know that I am unable to. I think the discussion was better because of it. I know you want people to be civil, but being civil can include requests for people to do things differently (you do it all the time). The same way SD didn't need to read Lou's posts, Lou didn't have to stop talking about his rider on a white horse cause she asked him to. The most civil thing to me is a two way street.
I love this shit,-L
Oh yeah, I am waiting on that hrtlm block. That one is obvious! Thanks ;)
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 3:10:23
In reply to My favorite board - the Admin Board!, posted by Lini on July 4, 2002, at 23:41:21
> The same way SD didn't need to read Lou's posts, Lou didn't have to stop talking about his rider on a white horse cause she asked him to. The most civil thing to me is a two way street.
Right, but the issue IMO was her asking him to stop talking, not him having to. He hasn't been asking that of others, has he?
Bob
Posted by ShelliR on July 5, 2002, at 14:12:13
In reply to My favorite board - the Admin Board!, posted by Lini on July 4, 2002, at 23:41:21
>
> I think having a moderator is great, but I don't know yet if conversing with a moderator about moderating is great. It seems like a headache for you Dr. Bob and a dead end street for us. We make suggestions but in the end it's YOUR site so it kinda leaves a "too bad, sucks to be you" taste in people's mouth.
..
> I love this shit,
>
> -L
>
Lini, very true and *very* cool. You crack me up.I can imagine you dancing and ducking with your boxing gloves--in a room all by yourself (with Dr. Bob's picture on the wall And having a great
time. :-)Shelli
Posted by Zo on July 5, 2002, at 15:34:47
In reply to My favorite board - the Admin Board!, posted by Lini on July 4, 2002, at 23:41:21
Posted by jay on July 6, 2002, at 4:36:21
In reply to My favorite board - the Admin Board!, posted by Lini on July 4, 2002, at 23:41:21
> I know you want people to be civil, but being >civil can include requests for people to do >things differently (you do it all the time).
All Dr. Bob "requests" people to do is *be civil*.
He doesn't tell people they can't post their beliefs on X, Y, Z.There is a VERY big difference.
Jay
Posted by Lini on July 7, 2002, at 0:12:40
In reply to Re: two way street, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2002, at 3:10:23
Right, but the issue IMO was her asking him to stop talking, not him having to. He hasn't been asking that of others, has he?
Bob
I guess I don't see why her asking him to change his approach is unsupportive? If anything, I think she was trying to get across the fact that in order for her to be MORE supportive, she would need him to not answer every post in a particular way.For example, if I really wanted to express my deep love for strawberry margaritas and the one person talking to me asked me to stop beginning every sentence with "When I was at the bar, a waiter came by on a white horse and told me about the day's specials" then I would --- IF I really wanted to talk to this particular person about my favorite drink. I would rather know what was preventing them from talking about margaritas with me, rather than just have them ignore me cause they can't stand my approach.
I think the idea is about the INTENTION of SDs post, or anyone's for that matter. If I post something on PSB and Lou responds with his City of Peace stuff, I don't particularly find that supportive, (in fact, I find it really unsupportive), but it doesn't mean he wasn't trying to be helpful. SD wasn't trying to hurt his feelings, she was trying to help him better communicate a topic he adores. And, based on the flow of the thread, I think she succeeded.
After all this typing, if you're gonna get back in the ring with me, I need more than a one liner!
;)
-L
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2002, at 1:27:26
In reply to Re: two way street » Dr. Bob, posted by Lini on July 7, 2002, at 0:12:40
> I guess I don't see why her asking him to change his approach is unsupportive? If anything, I think she was trying to get across the fact that in order for her to be MORE supportive, she would need him to not answer every post in a particular way.
That would've been fine, something like: "If you want me to be more supportive, please stop answering all posts with City of Peace."
> For example, if I really wanted to express my deep love for strawberry margaritas and the one person talking to me asked me to stop beginning every sentence with "When I was at the bar, a waiter came by on a white horse and told me about the day's specials" then I would --- IF I really wanted to talk to this particular person about my favorite drink. I would rather know what was preventing them from talking about margaritas with me, rather than just have them ignore me cause they can't stand my approach.
I think it's good to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes, but I don't think you can necessarily assume that what they want is what you think you would.
> I think the idea is about the INTENTION of SDs post, or anyone's for that matter. If I post something on PSB and Lou responds with his City of Peace stuff, I don't particularly find that supportive, (in fact, I find it really unsupportive), but it doesn't mean he wasn't trying to be helpful.
That gets at one of the problems with intentions. Someone can mean well, but still post something uncivil.
Bob
Posted by Lini on July 7, 2002, at 20:39:31
In reply to Re: two way street, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2002, at 1:27:26
In terms of the "PBC rules" (warning, one week block, two weeks, four etc) could there maybe be a way to earn back PBC "credit" if you are able to work things out with the poster you've offended?
For example, if I were to (heaven forbid) get a PBC for something that I wrote that I INTENDED to be supportive, but wasn't, and then, through conversation (posts) with the offended poster, was able to come to some sort of civil resolution, the next time I was due for a PBC (unintentionally of course) and thus a block, maybe I could just get a second warning, and therefore opportunity to clarify/be supportive?
That way you would be encouraging people to work things through, allowing people to model supportive behavior AND taking into account people's intentions . . . rather than just banishing them. We all aren't the world's best communicators/trained therapists/mediators/lawyers etc. so sometimes I have seen PBCs for things that were typed in a way that didn't necessarily come across the way they might have been intended . . .
I think taking into account a person's intentions is a process that IMO would be the most beneficial for everyone involved, since "supportive" can sometimes be a subjective term. I think it might make things more encouraging, rather than discouraging and more along the dialogue that happens in supportive "group sessions" with moderators.
I know I am stepping all over your structure here, but Jay's idea got me thinking . . .
What do ya think? Can people get out on parole?
;)
-L
Posted by jay on July 7, 2002, at 20:58:39
In reply to Re: one last thought on this PBC stuff » Dr. Bob, posted by Lini on July 7, 2002, at 20:39:31
Hi Lini:I thought your post was very productive, and a good example of what I think are some of the many creative ways we can deal with conflict on here. I hope Dr. Bob takes a look at these, and shares his thoughts. Here's to more!
Cheers,
Jay
> In terms of the "PBC rules" (warning, one week block, two weeks, four etc) could there maybe be a way to earn back PBC "credit" if you are able to work things out with the poster you've offended?
>
> For example, if I were to (heaven forbid) get a PBC for something that I wrote that I INTENDED to be supportive, but wasn't, and then, through conversation (posts) with the offended poster, was able to come to some sort of civil resolution, the next time I was due for a PBC (unintentionally of course) and thus a block, maybe I could just get a second warning, and therefore opportunity to clarify/be supportive?
>
> That way you would be encouraging people to work things through, allowing people to model supportive behavior AND taking into account people's intentions . . . rather than just banishing them. We all aren't the world's best communicators/trained therapists/mediators/lawyers etc. so sometimes I have seen PBCs for things that were typed in a way that didn't necessarily come across the way they might have been intended . . .
>
> I think taking into account a person's intentions is a process that IMO would be the most beneficial for everyone involved, since "supportive" can sometimes be a subjective term. I think it might make things more encouraging, rather than discouraging and more along the dialogue that happens in supportive "group sessions" with moderators.
>
> I know I am stepping all over your structure here, but Jay's idea got me thinking . . .
>
> What do ya think? Can people get out on parole?
>
> ;)
>
> -L
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2002, at 9:13:27
In reply to Re: one last thought on this PBC stuff » Dr. Bob, posted by Lini on July 7, 2002, at 20:39:31
> In terms of the "PBC rules" (warning, one week block, two weeks, four etc) could there maybe be a way to earn back PBC "credit" if you are able to work things out with the poster you've offended?
Possibly. My concern there is that the offended poster might feel pressured to let the offending poster go...
> I think taking into account a person's intentions is a process that IMO would be the most beneficial for everyone involved, since "supportive" can sometimes be a subjective term. I think it might make things more encouraging, rather than discouraging and more along the dialogue that happens in supportive "group sessions" with moderators.
Supportive is definitely subjective. And IMO the perspective of the supportee is more important than the perspective of the supporter. What kind of dialogue happens in those sessions?
> What do ya think? Can people get out on parole?
How would that work? What would happen if they "broke" their parole?
Bob
Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 10:18:19
In reply to Re: subjectivity and parole, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2002, at 9:13:27
To me, there seems to be two types of "PBC" warnings.Ones where people are blatantly mean, disrespectful, call people names etc. There really is no room for argument there. I mean, there is no "suportive" way to call someone an asshole, or a whiner, or stupid. People get frustrated and sound off and usually regret it, know they could have handled it better but instead let themselves get heated. You know, the kinda stuff you wouldn't say on the street to a person twice your size that could kick your ass. These are clear violations and do absolutely nothing to foster a sense of safety or community. PBCs are in order and then blocks, if people can't get their act together.
Then there are the PBCs where IMO it is more about miscommunication, misunderstanding, people being overly sensitive/assuming the worst, etc.
If I type "Nice one buddy" to someone, I could mean it sarcastically, or I could mean they did a good job. Simply because someone else takes it negatively doesn't mean I meant it negatively. I think these type of posts need intervention of behalf of a moderator - YOU - to simply point out that INTENT might not be clear, and to rephrase their post. Maybe PRT (Please Rephrase That) rather than PBC, since some people honestly believe they are being civil.
This way, you don't assume that a person is being unsupportive, but you do help ensure that what they are typing matches what should be intended (support). I just think that blocking people for miscommunicating takes away from the sense of community because other people read something as supportive, you deem it unsupportive and then there is bad feelings toward the supportee and it's just a mess.Would it be so bad to give people a chance to rephrase things that may/may not be supportive? I think it might help everyone understand what supportive language IS, rather than simply what supportive language ISN'T. Encouraging, vs. discouraging, you know? I think you're right to look from the perspective of the supportee, but the person requiring support can change from one post to the next depending on the flow of the thread.
When I refer to group sessions, I simply mean that it would take something pretty blatant and dysfunctional to get kicked out of the room. But if someone said something that could be taken a couple different ways, the moderator usually asks them to rephrase it or better explain. Kinda gets everyone working together.
Maybe I am in LaLa land, but discussions, online or otherwise, aren't always text book, and sometimes simply taking the time to say something twice, let's the conversation (and therefore support) develop that much further.
I am on a role because I had therapy this morning and I only have 20 days left of work before heading back to graduate school. My productivity at work is at an all time low, so this poor board gets to benefit from all this extra time on my hands! Hahah
-L
Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 10:35:08
In reply to Re: My favorite board - the Admin Board! » Lini, posted by ShelliR on July 5, 2002, at 14:12:13
Posted by mair on July 8, 2002, at 16:21:51
In reply to Re: subjectivity and parole, posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 10:18:19
Maybe it is LaLa Land, but your analysis sure made alot of sense to me. I actually think the blatant acts of incivility predominate over the miscommunications, but maybe I'm too dense to pick up the subtleties.
How would you deal with the controversies that arise because the readership feels that Bob is being unduly harsh to one person and not picking up on the provocations of another? It seems to be that this has been the flavor of some of the controversies involving Lou. Bob's response is that 2 wrongs don't make a right. All true, but the penalized person and his or her supporters still feel unfairly treated.
Mair
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 0:06:44
In reply to Re: subjectivity and parole, posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 10:18:19
> To me, there seems to be two types of "PBC" warnings.
>
> Ones where people are blatantly mean, disrespectful, call people names etc. There really is no room for argument there. I mean, there is no "suportive" way to call someone an asshole, or a whiner, or stupid. People get frustrated and sound off and usually regret it, know they could have handled it better but instead let themselves get heated...
>
> Then there are the PBCs where IMO it is more about miscommunication, misunderstanding, people being overly sensitive/assuming the worst, etc.IMO, whatever categories you come up with, there's always a gray zone in between...
> Simply because someone else takes [something] negatively doesn't mean I meant it negatively. I think these type of posts need intervention of behalf of a moderator - YOU - to simply point out that INTENT might not be clear, and to rephrase their post. Maybe PRT (Please Rephrase That) rather than PBC, since some people honestly believe they are being civil.
Hmm, there's an interesting idea...
1. Would it just be the "miscommunication" type posts that would be able to be rephrased? Or the "sound off" type ones, too?
2. And couldn't anyone ask someone else to rephrase something? Would it need to be me?
3. I'd rather see people show restraint than keep sounding off and taking it back. Or would there just be an extra PRT step in the process? First a PRT, then a PBC, then being blocked?
4. It goes both ways. Anything that delays blocking someone you'd like to stay delays blocking someone you'd like to leave...
> I am on a role because I had therapy this morning and I only have 20 days left of work before heading back to graduate school. My productivity at work is at an all time low, so this poor board gets to benefit from all this extra time on my hands! Hahah
Maybe defer graduate school and be a peace keeper here for a while instead? :-)
Bob
Posted by Lini on July 9, 2002, at 8:56:06
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 0:06:44
1. Would it just be the "miscommunication" type posts that would be able to be rephrased? Or the "sound off" type ones, too?
Oh no, no sound off types. If you can't refrain from swearing, attacking or being sarcastic in a very mean way, than you're on the road to block heaven. A poster would only be asked to rephrase something where the intention is unclear . . .
2. And couldn't anyone ask someone else to rephrase something? Would it need to be me?
No, along the lines of Jay's idea, anyone could *help* facilitate a discussion, but where we don't, you do.
3. I'd rather see people show restraint than keep sounding off and taking it back. Or would there just be an extra PRT step in the process? First a PRT, then a PBC, then being blocked?
I see the PRT as a separate process. It's an assessment of someone's intention. If they don't rephrase something, or if they rephrase it in such a way that the intention is "deemed" to be negative, then they move into the PBC --> block zone.
4. It goes both ways. Anything that delays blocking someone you'd like to stay delays blocking someone you'd like to leave...
I am all for delaying blocking people if I don't know that they intended to be unsupportive. However, all the mean people can get blocked blocked blocked right away. ;)
I would love to defer graduate school, but I figure I might as well go $150,000 into debt while the interest rates are still good!
-L
Posted by ShelliR on July 9, 2002, at 11:07:57
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That, posted by Lini on July 9, 2002, at 8:56:06
Hi Lini,
The conversation between you and Dr. Bob is a great excerise in humor and problem solving, and at times has me LOL.
I can't help but put a little damper on this dialogue--because it is a distraction from Dr. Bob's still
egregious inability to correct his own mistake. I don't believe there is any misunderstanding on Bob's part, certainly not at this point. At least I haven't heard any agreement from anyone else (besides the usual "this is his board"--which is true).So here you two are, mapping out a new complex route for blocking, when in reality the old system worked fairly well, if you discount the couple of errors Dr. Bob has made and was too proud to correct.
So aside from my need to reinterate the real issue, it's a lot of fun to watch this new development.
Carry on...........
Shelli
p.s. What are you studing in graduate school? (Just curious).
Posted by Lini on July 9, 2002, at 19:15:42
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That » Lini, posted by ShelliR on July 9, 2002, at 11:07:57
>because it is a distraction from Dr. Bob's still
>egregious inability to correct his own mistake.I don't think that Dr. Bob is using this as a distraction, and I know that I am not, in fact I was hoping to get SD's "intent" considered, and maybe end an unnecessary block (something other people have talked to the Bobster about, but with this glaring opportunity smacking everyone around, I thought I'd get in and do my time too) . . .But, it is entirely possible that I haven't been clear enough:
Dr. Bob, please recind SD's block and let's all talk about a way for PBCs to make more sense to more people. Would it be so bad to just let the majority rule here? I know that I can get very "pollyanna", but people leaving and people being upset really stresses me out, and it brings out a fierce need to solve something - ANYTHING! From coffee enemas to haikus to Thomas Jefferson, I think it's pretty clear that your board is looking for a wrong to be righted (is that a word?). It's just a mistake, don't worry, we'll forgive you. And the people that are leaving, they'll forgive you too. We all love it here, that's why we get so pissed off.
-L
p.s. I start Business School in Manhatten in August. And I promise Mr. Bush, whatever company I become CEO of, there will be fantastic mental health benefits and proper accounting practices. . .
Posted by ShelliR on July 9, 2002, at 22:05:03
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That » ShelliR, posted by Lini on July 9, 2002, at 19:15:42
p.s. I start Business School in Manhatten in August. And I promise Mr. Bush, whatever company I become CEO of, there will be fantastic mental health benefits and proper accounting practices. .
I believe it.
Congratulations, that's pretty brave: business school in NYC must be intense. :-)
No more support here-don't want this thread to be redirected.
Shelli
Posted by jay on July 10, 2002, at 5:59:05
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 0:06:44
> > To me, there seems to be two types of "PBC" warnings.
> >
> > Ones where people are blatantly mean, disrespectful, call people names etc. There really is no room for argument there. I mean, there is no "suportive" way to call someone an asshole, or a whiner, or stupid. People get frustrated and sound off and usually regret it, know they could have handled it better but instead let themselves get heated...
> >
> > Then there are the PBCs where IMO it is more about miscommunication, misunderstanding, people being overly sensitive/assuming the worst, etc.
>
> IMO, whatever categories you come up with, there's always a gray zone in between...Sorry to jump in...but I think this may be a good reason to have 'PB Peacekeepers'. This could be a rotating group of people, who abide by a certain rule of conduct, and do thier best to defuse a situation before it becomes explosive.
> > Simply because someone else takes [something] negatively doesn't mean I meant it negatively. I think these type of posts need intervention of behalf of a moderator - YOU - to simply point out that INTENT might not be clear, and to rephrase their post. Maybe PRT (Please Rephrase That) rather than PBC, since some people honestly believe they are being civil.
>
> Hmm, there's an interesting idea...
>
> 1. Would it just be the "miscommunication" type posts that would be able to be rephrased? Or the "sound off" type ones, too?
>
> 2. And couldn't anyone ask someone else to rephrase something? Would it need to be me?
>
> 3. I'd rather see people show restraint than keep sounding off and taking it back. Or would there just be an extra PRT step in the process? First a PRT, then a PBC, then being blocked?Yes, kinda like getting a 'warning' for a speeding violation. But, there would have to be some resulution in the initial issue that caused a person to 'flame'. If after that doesn't work, the person could get a block. What must take place is for the person who 'flamed', they must be allowed to tell their story, and explain how they intened to change their behaviour.
> 4. It goes both ways. Anything that delays blocking someone you'd like to stay delays blocking someone you'd like to leave...Maybe, but again this is all done in a small time period (like a PB 'Court'). People who are often charged with a crime don't get tossed in jail asap..they usually have the chance to post bail. What I think would be in order, in place of 'bail', would be asking the person not to post in the subject that got them in trouble, until the situation is resolved.
> > I am on a role because I had therapy this morning and I only have 20 days left of work before heading back to graduate school. My productivity at work is at an all time low, so this poor board gets to benefit from all this extra time on my hands! Hahah
>
> Maybe defer graduate school and be a peace keeper here for a while instead? :-)
>
> BobIt's interesting what you can gain from school and apply to life on this board. I am a fourth year socilogy student, and have read extensively on group behaviour(which is sociology!), deviance, as well as crime and punishment. I like to keep myself as just "Jay" on here, period..but this topic has peaked my interest.
I hope to hear more!
Thanks..
Jay
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2002, at 11:38:23
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That » ShelliR, posted by Lini on July 9, 2002, at 19:15:42
> Dr. Bob, please recind SD's block and let's all talk about a way for PBCs to make more sense to more people. Would it be so bad to just let the majority rule here? I know that I can get very "pollyanna", but people leaving and people being upset really stresses me out, and it brings out a fierce need to solve something - ANYTHING!
She's unblocked. But to be honest her time was up yesterday. Sorry about not remembering! Krazy Kat, too. If she's still around...
> We all love it here, that's why we get so pissed off.
I mentioned to someone in an email, I do think at least some of the upset about people getting blocked comes from others caring about them. Which is great to see. :-)
Bob
> p.s. I promise Mr. Bush, whatever company I become CEO of, there will be fantastic mental health benefits and proper accounting practices. . .
Did you post that here because you think he might be lurking? :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2002, at 11:51:48
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That, posted by Lini on July 9, 2002, at 8:56:06
> 1. Would it just be the "miscommunication" type posts that would be able to be rephrased? Or the "sound off" type ones, too?
>
> Oh no, no sound off types. If you can't refrain from swearing, attacking or being sarcastic in a very mean way, than you're on the road to block heaven. A poster would only be asked to rephrase something where the intention is unclear . . .So this would depend on distinguishing those two types of posts. And what would distinguish them is the intent behind them?
> 3. I'd rather see people show restraint than keep sounding off and taking it back. Or would there just be an extra PRT step in the process? First a PRT, then a PBC, then being blocked?
>
> I see the PRT as a separate process. It's an assessment of someone's intention. If they don't rephrase something, or if they rephrase it in such a way that the intention is "deemed" to be negative, then they move into the PBC --> block zone.So every single time there's a "miscommunication", there would be a PRT step?
Bob
Posted by kiddo on July 10, 2002, at 12:59:13
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2002, at 11:51:48
So every single time there's a "miscommunication", there would be a PRT step?
BobIf you're going to give them a PBC anyway, is it more involved to give them a PRT instead? For those that really aren't intending to be 'unsupportive', they would be quick to make their post more clear, you would be deemed more fair, and there would (theoretically) be less grievances when someone is blocked.
Kiddo
Posted by Mashogr8 on July 11, 2002, at 10:49:38
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase That, posted by kiddo on July 10, 2002, at 12:59:13
Just when I calmed down about not understanding PBC, which I still haven't unencrypted, PRT appears!!!!! What do the initials stand for? Psyco BAbble Cares? It's really hard to reread the string of posts to refresh my memory which definitely is useless these days. Couldn't it be Step 1, Step 2, Step 3 in a count down form where step one would be the block (at least I think that's the final step)? Then additioanl steps could be added to accommodate all idesa.
MA
Posted by kiddo on July 11, 2002, at 10:56:36
In reply to Re: PBC, PRT, ABC, XYZ --- HELP!!!!, posted by Mashogr8 on July 11, 2002, at 10:49:38
PBC = Please Be Civil
PRT = Please Rephrase That
Sorry about that....
Kiddo
Posted by mashogr8 on July 11, 2002, at 17:08:51
In reply to Re: PBC, PRT, ABC, XYZ --- HELP!!!! » Mashogr8, posted by kiddo on July 11, 2002, at 10:56:36
I see said the blind man - thanks.
MA
This is the end of the 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.