![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 61 to 85 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:34:01
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:38:57
I don't want to invest a whole lot of emotional capital in this debate because experience tells me that if you really want to give this a try, you will regardless of sentiment. But please do clarify what you have in mind. It's tough to express useful opinions without knowing how you want this to work.
1. How large do you envision that these groups would be?
2. How would members be selected? Would it be a random process? Would it be a first come first serve process? Or would members select other members?
3. Will membership be capped, so that once filled, no one else may join?
4. May posters be on multiple small boards?
5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
6. Would groups be organized on a subject basis so you have people of like interests?
7. If they aren't organized on a subject basis, then are all subjects open for discussion, even if they are dealt with on other larger boards?
8. Will these Boards be monitored differently? What I have in mind is the incident awhile ago when one poster, who was not a member of the 2000 Board, complained that he was offended by things written on the 2000 Board. (things certainly not written about him or with him in mind).
7. How do you think a system of smaller boards will develop? Would you be ok with an evolved arrangement where regulars will just consign themselves to smaller boards, and the subject boards (except perhaps the meds board) will be peopled mostly by newbies and the small board members who venture over, or perhaps the boardless returning babbler? Will it bother you if it develops that small board members really restrict their participation to their small board?
Thanks in advance for answering these with your usual specificity and clarity. (-:
Mair
Posted by gardenergirl on January 22, 2005, at 17:40:46
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:34:01
I wonder if perhaps having more boards with more specific topics might be, in a way, like having smaller group boards without the gated community feel. For example, if you had a board for dissociation or ego state disorders, there are likely certain posters who would post there. How about one for depression? One for psychotic disorders? One for redheads? (just kidding)
At any rate, I think in some ways, small groups form due to common interests. We already see certain posters hanging out at certain boards. Surely that is interest related at least in part.
I too would not like to see any more restricted access boards. It's the jr. high/high school feeling left out think all over again. I leave awful nose prints on windows when I wistfully peer inside.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 22:47:25
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:34:01
Yeah, those are all good questions. I would want to know more about what Dr B had in mind before I could say whether I was opposed to it or not.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 22, 2005, at 22:51:43
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by gardenergirl on January 22, 2005, at 17:40:46
Yeah, some of the boards already have a smaller feel to them.
Maybe the idea was that there would be a group of people who would get to know each other over time rather than newbies popping up all the time. Or people who make a couple of posts and then leave.
> I too would not like to see any more restricted access boards. It's the jr. high/high school feeling left out think all over again. I leave awful nose prints on windows when I wistfully peer inside.
Yeah, I have sympathy for that too.
I wonder whether smaller boards might make the bigger boards seem less exclusive though. I mean they aren't officially exclusive, but I wonder that they may seem that way to newbies. An awful lot of posts are directed to certain posters. While anyone is free to pipe up this may have the feel of an exclusive discussion to an outsider. Also there are a number of jokes and references to things that could only properly be understood by people who have been following for a while.
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2005, at 7:25:48
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by gardenergirl on January 22, 2005, at 17:40:46
Unless I'm wrong (but... you know... I'm not), I believe Dr. Bob's interest is *in* the restrictiveness. That's why after the last hubbub when he introduced the idea of restricted boards, he instituted the newbie board and the student board, both of which are defacto restricted boards, but not based on choice.
If boards *must* be restricted (and I see no reason why they must be at all, or benefit to them being at all), having them align along subject matter seems less abominable to me than allowing people to choose teams like some grotesque caricature of the gym class scenario that enlightened schools have long past abandoned.
I assume this must be research related. "How the restricted community fits into a large online community. Does gating work?" For once my conclusions are that his motives are not as lofty as I might wish.
P.S. That's a Monk reference...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2005, at 13:36:37
In reply to Re: smaller groups » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2005, at 7:25:48
> allowing people to choose teams like some grotesque caricature of the gym class scenario that enlightened schools have long past abandoned.
I agree with you there, Dinah. I think that Dr B would have to be very careful about that.
> Unless I'm wrong (but... you know... I'm not), I believe Dr. Bob's interest is *in* the restrictiveness.
> I assume this must be research related. "How the restricted community fits into a large online community. Does gating work?" For once my conclusions are that his motives are not as lofty as I might wish.Maybe he is interested in VSG dynamics as well as VLG dynamics? To see what the differences might be? What advantages / disadvantages there are? The only way to find this stuff out is to do research.
I don't think he is INTENDING to hurt anyone. But I do understand the concern about teenage cliques. And about people feeling excluded.
But maybe there are ways to eliminate / exclude that? I think he was looking for our opinions / suggestions on this...
Posted by justyourlaugh on January 24, 2005, at 0:12:05
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2005, at 3:38:57
kind of like high school..
going into little "clicks"..
i do not like the fact that i can not post on all boards..
we can be everyones friend!
jyl
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 8:25:46
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 22, 2005, at 17:34:01
> 1. How large do you envision that these groups would be?
I don't know, between 15 and 50 posters?
> 2. How would members be selected? Would it be a random process? Would it be a first come first serve process? Or would members select other members?
I was thinking first come, first served.
> 3. Will membership be capped, so that once filled, no one else may join?
Right.
> 4. May posters be on multiple small boards?
I don't know, if access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters couldn't?
> 5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
If access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters did? And they might be considered to have dropped out if they haven't posted for a while. Open spots would be filled according to #2.
> 8. Will these Boards be monitored differently? What I have in mind is the incident awhile ago when one poster, who was not a member of the 2000 Board, complained that he was offended by things written on the 2000 Board. (things certainly not written about him or with him in mind).
The small town boards would need to be civil, too. Maybe they could have their own deputy administrators?
> 6. Would groups be organized on a subject basis so you have people of like interests?
>
> 7. If they aren't organized on a subject basis, then are all subjects open for discussion, even if they are dealt with on other larger boards?
>
> 7. How do you think a system of smaller boards will develop? Would you be ok with an evolved arrangement where regulars will just consign themselves to smaller boards, and the subject boards (except perhaps the meds board) will be peopled mostly by newbies and the small board members who venture over, or perhaps the boardless returning babbler? Will it bother you if it develops that small board members really restrict their participation to their small board?If people stuck to small town boards, I'd assume that meant they preferred them, and I'd be glad they had that option. If OTOH there were no demand for them, I'd just delete them.
I wasn't thinking they'd start with a subject, but I guess they could choose one if they wanted. It might be a way to try out new subjects? And if there were continued interest, they could convert to being an open board?
Maybe one way of looking at it would be, in a small town, it's generally easier to get to know your neighbors. And in the big city, it's generally easier to find something (in this case, information). So with a combination, you could have both neighbors you know and access to information.
But someone might not be interested in both. They might want to spend all their time in the big city. Or they might never want to go. That would be fine, too.
Bob
Posted by partlycloudy on January 24, 2005, at 9:15:00
In reply to do not like the idea.., posted by justyourlaugh on January 24, 2005, at 0:12:05
I'm with you on this. I guess that makes us a clique, lol.
I don't like the idea of not being able to post where I want to. As it is, and by my choice, I don't post on all available boards here. If I had a Burning Desire that wanted to be expressed, it doesn't seem right that I wouldn't be able to post it.
Posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 11:31:19
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 8:25:46
> > 1. How large do you envision that these groups would be?
>
> I don't know, between 15 and 50 posters?Just so you know, by my rough count, there are well fewer than 50 regular posters on every board except the meds board and probably on social. I'm sure the psyche board is used by more than 50 people, but recently, it's really only been used by 30-35 I think. So you really already have several "small town" boards. This tells me that it's not size that you're intrigued with, so much as restrictions on use. If you peruse this thread, you'll see that for those who commented, it's the possible restrictiveness that bothers most.
>
> > 5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
>
> If access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters did? And they might be considered to have dropped out if they haven't posted for a while. Open spots would be filled according to #2.This is a tough one because people take breaks from Babble all the time, in fact many of us see breaks as being beneficial, and sometimes they're necessitated by personal circumstances or recommended by Ts. How will that dynamic be affected by the prospect of losing one's core base of support? As a person who's taken a fair number of breaks, I can tell you that there's something very comforting about being able to come back here and find some of the same people who were here when you left. I don't think PB will seem anywhere near as accessible if I come back and find that many of those people are not accessible to me.
>
> >
>
> Maybe one way of looking at it would be, in a small town, it's generally easier to get to know your neighbors. And in the big city, it's generally easier to find something (in this case, information). So with a combination, you could have both neighbors you know and access to information.
>
> But someone might not be interested in both. They might want to spend all their time in the big city. Or they might never want to go. That would be fine, too.Here's a problem with your analogy. I live in a small town, and the notion that you get to know your neighbors more easily in small towns is a myth perpetuated by people who live in cities. You may have a nodding acquaintance with more people, but I think that's about it. More likely, in both types of places you seem to end up hanging out with the people who have similar interests or with whom you click in some way. When you move out of either a small town or a city, it's very difficult to perpetuate your old friendships unless both parties really work at it. If you start breaking us up into different small towns, and we all become comfortable with that arrangement, we will drift apart and become unavailable to one another. It's not what we may prefer, as you suggest. I think it's more what will simply happen by default. It takes a lot more effort to keep a friendship active than it does to let one slide, and if time is limited, people are likely to devote most of their time to what's most familiar, eg the small board. Other connections will just become more tenuous.
I also think this will make the Board seem incredibly less inviting to lurkers, new visitors and to those who take breaks for awhile and come back. You can restrict us from posting on certain boards; you can't restrict us from reading posts on restricted boards. So you're going to increase the number of instances where someone feels that they're on the outside, looking in.
Mair
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 14:07:04
In reply to Re: small town groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 11:31:19
I won't say I told you so. ;)
Sigh. Dr. Bob'll do what Dr. Bob wants to do.
I don't understand why posters would want it.
I unfortunately do understand why Dr. Bob wants it. I ought to sic my mother on him.
If I didn't love Babble so, I'd join the exodus. What is there about this place that I'm so fond of even when my response to Admin decisions is to want to spew my breakfast.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
In reply to Re: small town groups » mair, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 14:07:04
Partlycloudy
You could still post to all of the boards you can currently post to. If you wanted to respond to something you could respond to it on one of the current boards and / or send them a babblemail.
mair
I don't think it is just about 'regular posters'. People come and go all the time. That can be a bit disconcerting. To post something that can be well understood in the context of previous posts but easily misunderstood by someone who hasn't been following. I often get responses which show me that people haven't been following my 'saga' and I am not sure what to do except thank people for their input. Sometimes I find this frustrating though. I have the urge to yell BUT THAT IS NOT AN OPTION TO ME HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS but of course I do understand that they are really well intentioned and it isn't their fault. But I say this just to provide an example of something that could be an advantage of a small town board.
People do take breaks from Babble all the time. But I don't think that would result in people losing their 'core base of support' because the boards that are currently available would still be available to them. The boards that are currently available will continue to be available to everyone. People seem to be thinking that if these boards are set up then everyone will leave the big city to go to these new boards. I really don't think that would be the case. I think it is much more likely that there won't be many people who will want to participate in a smaller board with a restriction on the number of posters. I don't think that setting up new boards will change the old babble much. Every time Dr B sets up a new board do the old boards change? That doesn't seem to be the case to me. Rather, babble seems to continue on growing... I really don't think there would be many people who would give up on the main babble boards in favour of the smaller ones. But even if people choose to do this isn't that their choice to make? You can always contact those people still via babblemail.
I don't think the notion is that you do get to know your neighbors in small towns, more that it is much easier to get to know them should you want to get to know some people. I think smaller boards would make it easier to keep track of peoples stories. What is going on for them. What has been going on for them etc.
Dinah.
I think I would like to be part of a smaller board. I don't think I would withdraw from the rest of babble as a consequence of that though. I have mentioned a reason above.
Why do you think Dr B wants to do this?
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 15:58:20
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
I don't believe in restrictive boards.
Those that do can join the small town boards.
I think Dr. Bob is researching.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:06:08
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
I was taught, and I teach my son, that it is rude to have conversations in public that others can not join. In his school, the children are not allowed to discuss birthday parties which all children are not invited to, or to pass out invitations in class unless all children are invited. "You can't say you can't play." That's the reason I pay a g*dawful percentage of my pay to send him there. It's a rule at his school that you are *absolutely delighted* to have whoever shows up sit at your table, and join in your reindeer games.
I am *absolutely delighted* to have any and every poster join any and every thread that I participate on. I do not post where every and any poster can't delight me with their company. That's my rule, it doesn't have to be everyone's.
I just don't think it's particularly polite to have boards for public view and private consumption. Which is a comment on the concept, not on any particular poster.
I believe Dr. Bob's intent is research related.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:10:18
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 8:25:46
How many small towns close their borders and don't let "outsiders" in? I know *I'd* not want to live in a small town that did.
How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns. You're insulting small towns everywhere.
Posted by jujube on January 24, 2005, at 16:33:51
In reply to Hey Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:10:18
It sounds almost like a civilized form of segregation. How unfortunate it would be for people to come to PB thinking they have found a safe haven of welcoming and, to some degree, unconditional support, only to have some doors closed in their faces.
I like the diversity of views and personalities one finds on each of the various boards, even though I sometimes feel shy and out of place on some boards. I think this diversity, and the unrestricted access to it, is what makes Babble so unique, welcoming and endearing for so many people.
Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Just my 2 cents FWIW.
> How many small towns close their borders and don't let "outsiders" in? I know *I'd* not want to live in a small town that did.
>
> How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns. You're insulting small towns everywhere.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 24, 2005, at 16:35:55
In reply to Re: Hey Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by jujube on January 24, 2005, at 16:33:51
>
> Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
>
Oh lordy, we need to make that our mantra here!Thanks for posting it.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 16:54:05
In reply to Re: small town groups » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:06:08
That is an interesting idea... I had something similar as I went to a small christian school. Started out with 8 people but grew to maybe 6o by the time I left. The only worry with that is what happens when one hits the 'real world' or, in my case, the public schooling system later.
If one doesn't learn to deal with the hurt that results from being excluded sometimes then it can be harder to learn WHY excluding people isn't nice.
It is a fact that we seek certain people more than others, however. It is a fact that some people are excluded sometimes. Think about immigration to the US as an example...
I do think it is nice.
The world doesn't work that way.
But perhaps it should.
And perhaps the way to get it to work that way is by starting somewhere.
Maybe we have a clash of ideology here...
> I just don't think it's particularly polite to have boards for public view and private consumption. Which is a comment on the concept, not on any particular poster.No, I do understand that. I also have some sympathy for the notion...
> I believe Dr. Bob's intent is research related.
Ah, I guess we may have different views on research.
I really do hear what you are saying. I am thinking about it. Maybe you are going to get me to change my mind on this....
But I still like the idea..
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:44:50
In reply to Re: small town groups » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 16:54:05
Actually, I apologize for my vehemence. Dr. Bob is probably going to implement a policy that violates one of my core values and I'm repulsed by my lack of integrity and spine for not disassociating myself from Babble over it. But I since I won't, I should probably despise my mealworm qualities privately.
Dr. Bob is an unstoppable force.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:50:10
In reply to Re: small town groups » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 16:54:05
Your school sounds fascinating. Would you like to discuss education on Social?
I really am not unaware of the irony of sending my son to a private school that shares my values of inclusion and tolerance. :) I'm Montessori to my fingers.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:53:01
In reply to Re: Hey Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by jujube on January 24, 2005, at 16:33:51
I agree completely. And I find I've learned so much from that! It is inordinately rare that I don't learn to genuinely welcome the input and viewpoint of each poster.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 18:04:10
In reply to Re: small town groups » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:44:50
> Actually, I apologize for my vehemence.
No, you don't need to apologize.
>Dr. Bob is probably going to implement a policy that violates one of my core values and I'm repulsed by my lack of integrity and spine for not disassociating myself from Babble over it.
But if it violates one of your core values then doesn't it indicate more integrity and spine to talk about what your values are and why you have them? That way other people can understand where you are coming from and maybe even come to see things in a similar way.
If you dissociate yourself then we lose out. Being selfish here. I am sorry that you are hurting over this. But I think you are doing really well NOT to dissociate. It is just that maybe Dr B has a different ideology. Maybe we can understand things a bit from his point of view as well? Not that we have to agree at the end of the day...
> Dr. Bob is an unstoppable force.
Heh heh. Unless we all decide to split he may well be :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 18:21:06
In reply to P.S. » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:50:10
> Your school sounds fascinating. Would you like to discuss education on Social?
Sure, can do. Just ask a question or something to get the ball rolling.
Though I expect I shall have to bite my tongue rather severely if we get into teaching 'morality', religion, and the teaching or non teaching of sex ed / safe sexual practices.
> I really am not unaware of the irony of sending my son to a private school that shares my values of inclusion and tolerance.Irony? Well you would hardly send him off to somewhere where you didn't agree with their values.
:) I'm Montessori to my fingers.
I have heard of that. We have their early childhood centers and after school care agencies all over. What is that about?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 19:47:04
In reply to Re: P.S. » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 18:21:06
> > Your school sounds fascinating. Would you like to discuss education on Social?
>
> Sure, can do. Just ask a question or something to get the ball rolling.That itself was "something"... Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050123/msgs/447030.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 20:07:16
In reply to Redirect: education, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 19:47:04
Ya. Realised that AFTER I'd posted. Thanks for the redirect.
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.