![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by paxvox on August 21, 2003, at 13:29:59
Dr. Bob,
I mentioned in another post on PSB how I would like to offer my services in helping you keep this a "civil" board, where we all can co-exist nicely. I didn't see any response yet, perhaps you are pondering it,or didn't take it seriously.
However, I have been giving this a great deal of thought over the past year or so (especially after my first "blocking") and I think I have some good suggestions, if you will consider them.
First, there are no absolutes when it comes to people's emotions when they post. On occasion, we *may* post something that we wish later we had NOT. Solution: allow a "poster editing feature" for your boards, where one can change/delete a post when they realize it was, perhaps, not the best thing to have written. Then, you would have to allow maybe a 4-hour window where posts could be edited. After that........well, then they would have to answer for their posts. Don't you think that might work? Afterall, we DO have mental issues that can cause temporary loss of the *best* judgment.
Second, I believe that it would make it a whole lot better for everyone to put some sort of "barrier" between you and the posters. By this I mean that a group of board members could serve as the initial level for considering "corrective action" for other posters who have crossed the line. This board could be elected by plurality from other board members, and serve a limited term, say, 3-6 months. No one could blame them for unfair treatment any more than one can blame a jury for a verdict. The term limit would allow many to participate, serving to further diversify the makeup of the group, and avoid the impression of a cabal.
Third, you then, would become sort of the "legislative branch" of the board to which appeals could be made, or unclear matters interpreted (and clarified). In this capacity, you would lose no control of YOUR board, as you would still have the final say in all matters. I do believe, however, that this would actually empower you above the status you hold now. Too many people have to blame YOU because there is no one else to blame. If you defered these complaints to the "Board", then (again) the members who post on the board would have to understand that it is their peer group, not YOU, who are correcting them. I have found during 18 years of managing people in the Federal government, that people respond better to this sort of structure.
Well, Dr. Bob, I hope you DO consider this as a serious offer, and not as a flippant attempt at humor on my part. I really think the people here would respond well to this sort of thing, and what, ultimately, do you have to lose? Here's hoping that you at least consider this proposal. You may feel free to email me to discuss this further, if you would like.
Thanks for your time
PAX
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:26:37
In reply to Peer Accountability- Dr. Bob, posted by paxvox on August 21, 2003, at 13:29:59
> I mentioned in another post on PSB how I would like to offer my services in helping you keep this a "civil" board
Thanks!
> First ... allow a "poster editing feature" for your boards
That's already on my to-do list, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/224641.html
> Second ... a group of board members could serve as the initial level for considering "corrective action" for other posters who have crossed the line.
We do already have deputy administrators, at least...
> No one could blame them for unfair treatment any more than one can blame a jury for a verdict. The term limit would allow many to participate, serving to further diversify the makeup of the group, and avoid the impression of a cabal.
Well, people do blame juries for verdicts... And there are both pros and cons to allowing many to participate...
> Third ... Too many people have to blame YOU because there is no one else to blame.
Isn't it more supportive if people blame each other less? Thanks for taking the time to think about these issues,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 2:31:35
In reply to Re: Peer Accountability, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:26:37
> > First ... allow a "poster editing feature" for your boards
>
> That's already on my to-do list, see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/224641.html
>Eeeeeek!!! Say it isn't so, Dr. Bob. Oh, the opportunities for mischief! Posting something dreadfully uncivil, leaving it up just long enough for it to be seen, and then removing it, leaving any objections to seem ridiculous and mean spirited. Isn't it better to ask people to think before they hit the confirm button, not after it's up for the whole world to see?
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 2:32:03
In reply to Re: Peer Accountability, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 2:31:35
Posted by Simcha on August 22, 2003, at 9:29:55
In reply to Re: Peer Accountability, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:26:37
Dr. Bob,
I wish I could help too. I don't have the time that you and Dinah seem to have to be so thurough as you both are in monitoring the board.
I monitor a board for work and that keeps me busy along with my other work duties and my own schooling. I know what it takes to moderate a board. I know this is not easy for you and Dinah to do this alone.
Blessings,
Simcha> > I mentioned in another post on PSB how I would like to offer my services in helping you keep this a "civil" board
>
> Thanks!
>
> > First ... allow a "poster editing feature" for your boards
>
> That's already on my to-do list, see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/224641.html
>
> > Second ... a group of board members could serve as the initial level for considering "corrective action" for other posters who have crossed the line.
>
> We do already have deputy administrators, at least...
>
> > No one could blame them for unfair treatment any more than one can blame a jury for a verdict. The term limit would allow many to participate, serving to further diversify the makeup of the group, and avoid the impression of a cabal.
>
> Well, people do blame juries for verdicts... And there are both pros and cons to allowing many to participate...
>
> > Third ... Too many people have to blame YOU because there is no one else to blame.
>
> Isn't it more supportive if people blame each other less? Thanks for taking the time to think about these issues,
>
> Bob
Posted by paxvox on August 22, 2003, at 14:21:39
In reply to Re: Peer Accountability, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:26:37
Gee Dr. Bob, I KNOW that this is YOUR board and everything, but I feel as if you dimissed my suggestions summarily as just fluff. I don't need to be "humored", but I clearly feel partronized by your response. I would wager that if D**** had made these suggestions, that at least you would have responded in an email or something, as opposed to the rubber-stamped "nice doing biz nis wit ya" (That's for you ZH). So, am I to presume that my comments are invalid or unvalued by you? Strange how quickly you cast down your lightningbolts of judgment against the uncivil people of the PSB world, yet withold any uplifting affirmation for someone actually TRYING to help this board grow and improve. Where is the justice in that? Strange applications of inexact guidelines clearly subjectively enforced by a person who proports to be an enabler of others. Am I missing something here? Why can certain people put the BABBLE in pyscho-babble by their incessant mindless dribble and diatribe, while others, as the result of a brief moment of human weakness, be blocked for 16 weeks? ("gee, last time it was 2 weeks, but now I'm experimenting with a new system"). Translation: those who challenge you or your authority are blasted, while those who challenge the very borders of surrealism can rattle on unscathed. Perhaps the adage of the lunatics being in charge of the asylum would be more apropos in this case? Well, because of your uncivil response to my sincere application of an honest effort to help, I have to wonder, can you block yourself?
PAX
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 14:25:34
In reply to Re: Peer Accountability, posted by paxvox on August 22, 2003, at 14:21:39
Pax, I gotta tell you, I can figure out hte D****, and my name is not obscene by Merriam Webster's definition. No need for the asterisks.
And for your info, Dr. Bob does not email me unless I email him first.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 15:51:18
In reply to Re: Peer Accountability, posted by paxvox on August 22, 2003, at 14:21:39
> I feel as if you dimissed my suggestions summarily as just fluff.
Sorry about that. I did try to respond to each suggestion. And I'm happy to continue to discuss them.
> certain people put the BABBLE in pyscho-babble by their incessant mindless dribble and diatribe
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 2 weeks, so this time, it's for 6.
Bob
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 22, 2003, at 16:23:29
In reply to Re: Peer Accountability, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 2:31:35
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 16:30:52
In reply to Re: Peer Accountability, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 2:31:35
> Eeeeeek!!!
Sorry, I should've said so before, I'd like to redirect this aspect of this discussion back to that earlier thread. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/253007.html
Bob
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 22, 2003, at 16:34:09
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » paxvox, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 15:51:18
I do have to say that I agree with Paxvox's idea to implement a separate board (perhaps only accesible via a special password so as to preserve anonimity and make it more of a "secret ballot") and appoint a dozen or so posters with good civility records to have access to said board. However, I have one revision to this idea. I feel that allowing the "civility jury" to make a judgment on a post before you get the chance to may slow down the moderating process. Therefore, I suggest that this "jury" be implemented solely for the purpose of judging the civility or incivility of a post only *after* you have taken your action. Then, if you think the arguments and ultimate judgments presented on the board are good, you might reconsider your initial reaction to the post. Of course, you would still have the final word. What do you think?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 16:37:12
In reply to Re: Civility Jury » Dr. Bob, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 22, 2003, at 16:34:09
> I feel that allowing the "civility jury" to make a judgment on a post before you get the chance to may slow down the moderating process.
That was one of my concerns, too.
> Therefore, I suggest that this "jury" be implemented solely for the purpose of judging the civility or incivility of a post only *after* you have taken your action. Then, if you think the arguments and ultimate judgments presented on the board are good, you might reconsider your initial reaction to the post. Of course, you would still have the final word. What do you think?
I think that's the way it works now, with all of you on the "jury". :-)
Bob
Posted by stjames on August 25, 2003, at 11:54:14
In reply to Re: Civility Jury, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 16:37:12
For me, this "Jury" concept sounds very cumbersome. I also think folks highly underestimate the amount of time a moderator
spends on administrative duties.
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.