![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 2:42:47
Are you enjoying watching this bloodbath, Dr. Bob? I mean, really, what is the point of this "Admin" site other than watching us rip each other to shreds? Do you not have confidence in your own ability to administrate? Why create a board for the predominantly mentally ill to debate and argue topics? If you really need us to be involved, perhaps you could recreate the admin site, making it more of a "bulletin board" of changes you will be making to the site, if you must. And then people can comment on those specific topics you've posted only (not argue over topics of their creation). Your at times unfair civility guidelines are not nearly as hurtful as the battle over them. (It's the "discussions" that do all the damage.) All this battling needs to end.
Amy
Posted by fayeroe on October 24, 2004, at 5:53:47
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 2:42:47
Well said and true, A.
Posted by verne on October 24, 2004, at 6:30:13
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 2:42:47
Amy,
I think the administrative board is like an extreme sport - it seems to test the limits of civility.
When people become more concerned with the running of the site than participating in the site, they may have one foot already out the door and, for this reason, be less concerned with the civility guidelines.
Reminds me of church. At picnics and church socials everyone is on their best behavior but when the committee meets to plan the church social, a fight breaks out.
And, too, I think people get invested in helping to run the site rather than just participate in the site. This may start out as innocent as offering a suggestion but could result in a kind of power struggle over running the site.
This is all very intriguing to me.
verne
Posted by SLS on October 24, 2004, at 8:10:20
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 2:42:47
Anger and passion can be very arousing. Debate can be very engaging. Both are stimulating, and people like to be stimulated. Even getting upset is stimulating.
Amy, I know you once had a very bad outcome due to your participation here. You might want to ask yourself what has brought you back. I hope your participation here now doesn't impact negatively on your mental health. I'm glad you're here, though.
I don't see this as being a blood-bath. That's not how I am experiencing this board at the moment. I do find it stimulating, though. I do have other motives for being here. But the stimulation is attractive.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2004, at 8:40:15
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by SLS on October 24, 2004, at 8:10:20
I'm glad Dr. Bob has given us a venue to express our thoughts about administrative matters. First of all, we *can* make a difference. Not all the time, but we can. And secondly, if this board wasn't here, this would just all be done on the main boards unless Dr. Bob just deleted all of it or didn't allow discussion of it.
That's been my experience of Yahoo groups anyway. Where the mods have learned to just delete criticism. I doubt that anyone would prefer the simple deletion of criticism.
Nor do I in any way think that what happens here is greatly influenced by the topic of Babble. The most vicious fights I've ever seen were at dog groups, with church and doll groups closely behind. And no, it's not me. Babble is the only place that I care about enough to participate in these discussions. I just leave the other places or skip over the posts. Since dog, doll, and church groups are the only groups I've participated in that didn't have teachers to lay down the law, I'm thinking it's universal.
(Actually there might be occasions when I wish that Dr. Bob would delete anything negative. But since I'm fond of speaking my own mind, in general I don't think I'd like it.)
Posted by Glydin on October 24, 2004, at 9:37:31
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by verne on October 24, 2004, at 6:30:13
> And, too, I think people get invested in helping to run the site rather than just participate in the site. This may start out as innocent as offering a suggestion but could result in a kind of power struggle over running the site.
>
> This is all very intriguing to me.
After a few years on this site, I have discovered what I term "Poster Progression". I have noted folks initially come with questions, support and are here for the basic real reason for the site. After a time, for some, things can sour for one reason or another and this gives way to another reason and rationale for being part of the site. I've noted this over and over. The same folks who have posted on arrival: "This place is great" can be the same ones, who days, months, years later, are posting messages very much to the contrary.
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2004, at 12:06:37
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 2:42:47
Before the admin board was born (in fact, in the "old days" there was only one board.. thats hard to imagine now!), the same administrative issues came up, the same arguments were had, the same feelings roused. But instead of being on one board, that people could easily avoid, they were in with everything else. Imagine all of this muddled up with the social board, or the main board, or faith.. I believe that would cause more pain, as those that choose to avoid admin will not have that protection anymore.
Theres a number of us here who have been here for 5 years and more - those of us that joined quite near the beginning of PB's life, and we have seen many many things happen, and many changes. I think, because of that, we understand how each of the rules came about, as we lived with the problems that caused that rule. Back in those very early days, there were really no rules, and Dr Bob didn't just sit down one night and write them. They are rules that have come about, over the years, to deal with problems as they arose.
Also, Dr Bob used to be alot more interactive with us, but his style is also something that has developed over the years, again alot fo the time for reasons that have caused a change.I hope that this does give a better understanding of why the rules are there snd why some of the dynamics are the way they are.
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2004, at 22:17:28
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 2:42:47
> what is the point of this "Admin" site other than watching us rip each other to shreds? Do you not have confidence in your own ability to administrate?
Good question, the introduction says the point is discussion of the administration. And I guess the point of that is for me to clarify policies, for you all to give me feedback, and for improvements to be made.
I have some degree of confidence, but that doesn't mean I can think of everything!
> Your at times unfair civility guidelines are not nearly as hurtful as the battle over them. (It's the "discussions" that do all the damage.) All this battling needs to end.
I still think that getting in the way of our task here are "fight-flight" group dynamics. Some more discussion:
> You know a group is in productive work mode when you see people consciously participating and cooperating towards task achievement...
>
> The basic assumption mode is just the opposite. We call it a “basic assumption” because the group makes an assumption about leadership but its purpose is hidden and unconscious. [One possible] hidden, unspoken assumption of the group is that...
>
> The group has come together not to do a task, but for the purpose of fighting or running away from the leader—it’s fight-flight...
>
> In fight-flight, the leader is seen (unconsciously) as the enemy, opposed to the preservation of the group. Doing real work is ignored; the task is to win, or avoid losing. The behavior of the group is anger and hostility towards other groups or the leader. It is either expressed (they get mad and fight) or covert (they withdraw in anger.) ...
>
> Fight-flight occurs most frequently in workplaces where responsibility keeps shifting back and forth between management and the group. We call this back-and-forth dynamic the “mixed mode,” as the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure.http://www.peopleincharge.org/groupdynamics.htm
So can we move from fight-flight back to cooperation? Would a more democratic structure help?
Bob
Posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 23:25:55
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2004, at 12:06:37
hi, nikki,
> Before the admin board was born (in fact, in the "old days" there was only one board.. thats hard to imagine now!), the same administrative issues came up, the same arguments were had, the same feelings roused. But instead of being on one board, that people could easily avoid, they were in with everything else. Imagine all of this muddled up with the social board, or the main board, or faith.. I believe that would cause more pain, as those that choose to avoid admin will not have that protection anymore.well, this is not a democracy, although bob likes us to think it is. once he gets the message across that his rulings stand (because they do anyway), no discussion, all this fruitless chaos will stop. this will put an end to arguments that don't get anywhere anyway and dashed hopes and hurt feelings.
> Theres a number of us here who have been here for 5 years and more - those of us that joined quite near the beginning of PB's life, and we have seen many many things happen, and many changes. I think, because of that, we understand how each of the rules came about, as we lived with the problems that caused that rule. Back in those very early days, there were really no rules, and Dr Bob didn't just sit down one night and write them. They are rules that have come about, over the years, to deal with problems as they arose.
> Also, Dr Bob used to be alot more interactive with us, but his style is also something that has developed over the years, again alot fo the time for reasons that have caused a change.
>
> I hope that this does give a better understanding of why the rules are there snd why some of the dynamics are the way they are.
>
> Nikkias i said in my post, my major beef is not with the rules, but mainly with the existence of this "admin" board. changes need to be made.
amy
Posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 23:47:51
In reply to Re: the point of this site, posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2004, at 22:17:28
> > what is the point of this "Admin" site other than watching us rip each other to shreds? Do you not have confidence in your own ability to administrate?
>
> Good question, the introduction says the point is discussion of the administration. And I guess the point of that is for me to clarify policies, for you all to give me feedback, and for improvements to be made."discussion" of the administration, huh? not administration. very interesting. well, there is no point to all this discussion that's going on right now, with the exception of very few threads here. your answer makes this seem like such a positive, proactive board. your answer is very glib. give me a break. will you stop trying to be right and get real? you do what you want anyway. i knew you'd be more interested in being right than in trying to make a change and work with someone to help make this a better place.
> I have some degree of confidence, but that doesn't mean I can think of everything!
but you don't accept hardly any of our input concerning your rulings. (and this is where the damage lies.) so it looks like, to yourself, you are thinking of everything.
> > Your at times unfair civility guidelines are not nearly as hurtful as the battle over them. (It's the "discussions" that do all the damage.) All this battling needs to end.
>
> I still think that getting in the way of our task here are "fight-flight" group dynamics. Some more discussion:
>
> > You know a group is in productive work mode when you see people consciously participating and cooperating towards task achievement...
> >
> > The basic assumption mode is just the opposite. We call it a “basic assumption” because the group makes an assumption about leadership but its purpose is hidden and unconscious. [One possible] hidden, unspoken assumption of the group is that...
> >
> > The group has come together not to do a task, but for the purpose of fighting or running away from the leader—it’s fight-flight...
> >
> > In fight-flight, the leader is seen (unconsciously) as the enemy, opposed to the preservation of the group. Doing real work is ignored; the task is to win, or avoid losing. The behavior of the group is anger and hostility towards other groups or the leader. It is either expressed (they get mad and fight) or covert (they withdraw in anger.) ...
> >
> > Fight-flight occurs most frequently in workplaces where responsibility keeps shifting back and forth between management and the group. We call this back-and-forth dynamic the “mixed mode,” as the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure.
>
> http://www.peopleincharge.org/groupdynamics.htm
>
> So can we move from fight-flight back to cooperation?fight-flight my a##. since when were you big on cooperation, dr. bob? why don't you just stick to the issues?
<Would a more democratic structure help?
if you would stop implying that the problem was me and started with this question, we might have actually gotten somewhere. i do not have the time to go through this with you again. i got a big lesson on how you operate the last go-around. i summed up for you in my thread what would help. i have nothing more to say. do not post to me anymore. i will do the same. work on fixing your site. or don't...
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2004, at 0:34:59
In reply to Re: the point of this site » Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 23:47:51
> i knew you'd be more interested in being right
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alesta on October 25, 2004, at 0:57:45
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by SLS on October 24, 2004, at 8:10:20
hi, scott,:)
scott, i realize of course that not *everyone* has been hurt on this board. but there are many people here who have. i care about these people. it hurts me to see people attacked, it hurts me to hear that admin made them cry, and it hurt me when people think they're going to accomplish something when they are actually wasting their time (this isn't a democracy..never was). these are real people who are getting hurt. unnecessarily. something needs to change. if dr. bob has a caring bone in his body he will do something. if not, expect business as usual. the intellectual enjoyment of a few does not justify the pain people experience here. this site is not responsible for your intellectual stimulation. but it should be responsible for creating a safe environment for its members. this is the right thing to do.
on a lighter, more conversational note, its good to talk to you, scott, as always.
> Anger and passion can be very arousing. Debate can be very engaging. Both are stimulating, and people like to be stimulated. Even getting upset is stimulating.
well, your *description* of admin is stimulating and arousing..:)
> Amy, I know you once had a very bad outcome due to your participation here. You might want to ask yourself what has brought you back.
i guess it's my need to socialize somewhere familiar. this became my social network. i didn't want to leave just because of problems with the moderator..but i am considering leaving now. i just don't know if i can get past it ever. it's like an old wound that won't heal. i would miss some people, including you. i don't know what i'm gonna do right now.
<I hope your participation here now doesn't impact negatively on your mental health.
thanks. :) i guess i'm really different from you. i really hate conflict. i have a headache right now and am stressed. i feel like the life force is being drained out of me. but other than that, i'm okay. :)
<I'm glad you're here, though.
thanks, sweetie.:) glad you're here, too. thought you might've checked out for a little while there..
> I don't see this as being a blood-bath. That's not how I am experiencing this board at the moment.
i know it's not. you always seem to keep your cool over here. you're one of the lucky ones.:)
<I do find it stimulating, though. I do have other motives for being here. But the stimulation is attractive.
well, you're always fun to talk to.:) what are the other motives? you've got me curious..:)
amy :)
Posted by alesta on October 25, 2004, at 1:16:48
In reply to Re: please be civil » alesta, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2004, at 0:34:59
i'm sorry for being rude. i was rude partly because i'm still very angry from our admin discussion last time.
Posted by alesta on October 25, 2004, at 1:23:45
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on October 24, 2004, at 5:53:47
> Well said and true, A.
thanks much, fayeroe. that's kind of you to say, and nice to hear. :-)
amy :)
Posted by alesta on October 25, 2004, at 1:43:13
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by verne on October 24, 2004, at 6:30:13
hi, V:)
> Amy,
>
> I think the administrative board is like an extreme sport - it seems to test the limits of civility.yes, that it does. absolutely. :)
>
> When people become more concerned with the running of the site than participating in the site, they may have one foot already out the door and, for this reason, be less concerned with the civility guidelines.i don't know, i see a lot of people firmly engaged in this site that are uncivil as hel*.
> This is all very intriguing to me.your pleasure is my pain, verne. :-)
amy :)
Posted by alesta on October 25, 2004, at 2:38:54
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 2:42:47
all right, y'all. i'm taking a break from this..so i'm not going to be responding anymore to this thread, 'kay? of course, post any comments you like! love you, amy
Posted by fayeroe on October 25, 2004, at 9:18:10
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by alesta on October 25, 2004, at 2:38:54
> all right, y'all. i'm taking a break from this..so i'm not going to be responding anymore to this thread, 'kay? of course, post any comments you like! love you, amy
amy, my e.mail is weezilgirl@hotmail.com. drop me a note. pat
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2004, at 12:46:51
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » NikkiT2, posted by alesta on October 24, 2004, at 23:25:55
My point was, with or without the Admin board, the same discussions go on.. but *with* the admin board, some extra degree of being able to avoid those discussions is more available.
Nikki
Posted by alesta on October 25, 2004, at 18:49:58
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » alesta, posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2004, at 12:46:51
> My point was, with or without the Admin board, the same discussions go on.. but *with* the admin board, some extra degree of being able to avoid those discussions is more available.
>
> Nikkithanks, nikki. i see what you're saying. i'm wondering if they went on just to go on or were they trying to convince dr. bob to change his ruling. if it's the latter, then if dr. bob made it very clear that his rulings stand then that would help put an end to it. if it's the former, then i suppose we need to look at the civility guidelines as the problem. i think it would be best to simply eliminate all the civility guidelines. i mean, who gets hurt by hearing a cuss word? they're out there in the real world as well. also, i've seen rare arguments on PB that ran their course and no one really got hurt that much, not as much as on admin anyway (and the moderator wasn't present until after the fact anyway). better to just let people resolve their own little tifts here. i few minor hurts is nothing compared to intense hurt many people experience arguing over these civility guidelines. i say do away with the civility guidelines (maybe with the exception of no political talk allowed, like at psychcentral.) i guarantee you this place will turn around. other forums don't have all these civility guidelines and are calm, happy, peaceful places to be. so, no, i don't think this is the only way to do things. it can be better. other forums are PROOF of this. these civility guidelines are caught up and hung with their own rope, plain and simple. there will be little arguments every rare once in a while..so what? that's life..all these civility guidelines cause a ton more arguments, as we see here on admin. i would take a rare minor argument over the daily trauma people experience here anyday.
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2004, at 9:17:29
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on October 25, 2004, at 1:16:48
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.