![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 272. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
It seems to me that there are some things that happen on the board so frequently and have such sadly similar outcomes that we ought to be able to sit down together and come up with a strategy to deal with it.
I think Babblers have gotten very very good at not reading posts that trigger them, or not responding if they don't think that they can be civil. I've been really impressed.
But it seems that there are times when that strategy, the one advocated by Dr. Bob, doesn't work all that well. That there are times that that strategy just seems to cause things to escalate. Then something snaps and all h*ll breaks loose, as posters wish to defend someone they think was wronged, or buttons are pushed, or for whatever reason.
And I'm left wondering how best to try to head these things off. Because it seems to me that there ought to be something we can do.
Now mind you, I'm not entirely talking about the latest storm. I think Lar's post could have been taken several ways. And clearly Dr. Bob and several posters read it one way, and I and other posters read what he said a different way. So I think reasonable people can differ.
I'm at something of a loss to figure out what can be done, though. Maybe it's even a necessary thing for the community. My therapist always tells me that my desire to avoid conflict isn't the healthiest thing for a relationship. That sometimes relationships need conflict, like forests sometimes need naturally occuring fires to allow for growth.
I don't know. Does anyone have any ideas to brainstorm? For those occasions where choosing not to read or choosing not to respond seem to only work to a limited extent?
Posted by sleepygirl on January 7, 2006, at 14:11:34
In reply to Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
*avoiding certain postings is definitely something that works effectively to some degree
problem: we tend to care, give the benefit of the doubt, the postings escalate*blocking posters who demonstrate the qualities under discussion (that word is just too scary right now)
problem: we tend to care, give the benefit of the doubt, we are patient*Can we allow someone to address another poster's behavior by using the receiving poster's very own language or examples of things already posted?
problem: posters do not always behave in a civil way toward themselves as previously discussed, so anyone using such examples or words would be judged as uncivilI think this will require a few different approaches
Posted by ClearSkies on January 7, 2006, at 14:19:04
In reply to Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
I'm disturbed that once someone has been blocked, there aren't any requests to be civil, but just further blocks. It really doesn't give someone a chance to rephrase or anything. Is that what just happened?
Or am I missing something?
With regard to avoiding posts, threads etc. so as to not upset ourselves; I should think the best solution would be an "ignore" feature. At the moment there are babblers who are avoiding some boards altogether because of the risk of seeing threads by certain posters. It really bothers me to know that I have friends here who can't read the same boards as I do for this reason.
I'm exasperated. There is so much to be gained by actively practicing civility: don't say stuff to people that you wouldn't want them to say to you. This is not about having thin or thick hide; it's about being a social being amongst other social beings in ways that allows us to express our feelings without trodding on others'.
Guess I'm not much help. This soapbox is a little wobbly anyway.
CS
Posted by crazy teresa on January 7, 2006, at 14:19:15
In reply to Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
That's very sweet of you, Dinah.
In a previous storm I can recall, very similar to this last one, when posters stopped responding almost completely, the fire burned itself out. I only remember because I was one of the last, posting late into the night, trying to help. It was emotionally and physically exhausting. And all for naught; the joke was on me...
I am considering removing myself completely, as life is too short to dwell on issues I have no control over. I came here to find support, not to find the feeling of the life being sucked out of me by all of the conflict.
And as the old saying goes: Burn me twice, it's my fault...
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 14:41:32
In reply to Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
Perhaps this is a time when Dr. Bob could bring in a guest expert? Someone who might be able to make alternative suggestions?
Posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 14:46:01
In reply to Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
I haven't really thought this through yet but why would threads that are psychological triggers (ex:suicide,death) be on the social board? I would think that the more proper board to address these issues would be the psych. board. That would eliminate some, not all by far but some of this conflict. When I go to social, I don't personally think that talk of the matters mentioned are 'social' talk but more psychological talk. Yes, here we go with moving threads etc., but that board would IMO be more apt to handle psych. issues.
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 14:51:41
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 14:46:01
I don't think Psychological is the proper place for those type of posts either. Unless they're related to the psychological underpinnings for the thoughts, or to therapy for the thoughts.
But maybe PB Distress or something like that might be created.
Would that solve the problem?
Posted by crazy teresa on January 7, 2006, at 14:51:43
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by ClearSkies on January 7, 2006, at 14:19:04
Just like what's on IM. Then if I saw threads or posters I wanted to avoid, those posts wouldn't even be showing up on my screen.
I just wouldn't want the little message to pop up and tell anyone what I've chosen to not see.
Posted by crazy teresa on January 7, 2006, at 14:54:13
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 14:46:01
Nobody liked that when I brought it up last time.
Could we just have a new board for fun, only?
Posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 14:56:57
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » wildcard, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 14:51:41
Solve, I don't know but definitely help. I along with many others sometimes do read a post on social and our instinct to help or try to help takes over which can or cannot be a good thing. I know that with my emotions, I would not go to a board that focused on distress if I felt I could not emotionally handle it at that time.
Posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 14:58:41
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » wildcard, posted by crazy teresa on January 7, 2006, at 14:54:13
That's what I think IMO social 'should' be....a place to come together and socialize on a lighter note.
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 15:00:34
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 14:56:57
That would probably be the overall result of a board devoted to distress. I can't imagine it would bring a lot of readers. Sort of like grief, which I can rarely if ever bring myself to read.
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 15:04:18
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » wildcard, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 15:00:34
I'm trying to figure out how I'd feel being redirected to PB Distress. Maybe like I shouldn't be bothering people with my problems.
Posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 15:12:15
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 15:04:18
What about another board kinda like Ct said that is just for lighthearted chitchat???? It's just emotionally overwhelming, speaking for myself, to see TRIGGER which sometimes changes to other things that are more obvious half way down the page. Yes, I don't have to read them but just seeing those threads can be disturbing. I myself have been to a lonely dark place so I understand the need for someone that is really in 'trouble' to talk, vent, etc. and hopefully find support but I also like to have fun some days with other babblers and just joke around. There has to be a way to have/do both?!
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 15:16:41
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 15:12:15
Is that percieved as the nature of these recurring situations? Do people in general see it that way?
If people in general see this as the nature of the problem, then dividing Social may well be the answer.
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 15:44:14
In reply to Can we take an informal poll? » wildcard, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 15:16:41
If most people see this as the root of the problem, then I'm willing to throw my voice in favor of splitting Social, for what it's worth.
But personally, it's not really in keeping with my view of Social. I think I see Social as sort of the community center of Babble. Where there can be people talking about loneliness and people celebrating victories and people having fun and people discussing problems. I sort of hated to see Grief split off, because that's part of what a community is. When you have a loss you bring it to your community, where you recieve support for your loss.
I don't see the benefit of splitting off any of the specialty boards unless they manage to attract a subcommunity of people with an interest in or special knowledge of a given topic, so that archives are searchable or knowledge can be more easily shared.
So that if Grief, for example, had evolved into a board where Grief was an active topic with a group of people seeking to explore the grieving process it makes sense. But if grief is just somewhere you're redirected to if a family member or friend dies and you seek to share it with your community, then it's just isolating. And for what purpose? To protect the community from the sadness of loss?
The exception being potentially divisive topics like Politics or Religion, where separating them allows people with very different viewpoints to maintain community and kinship overall.
Posted by ClearSkies on January 7, 2006, at 17:07:31
In reply to Can we take an informal poll? » wildcard, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 15:16:41
I don't think that splitting the Social board is a viable solution.
I was going to say something else about civility rules but I couldn't figure out how to do it, er, civilly.
I have to think a little harder.
Posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 18:13:58
In reply to Re: Can we take an informal poll? » Dinah, posted by ClearSkies on January 7, 2006, at 17:07:31
Posted by crazy teresa on January 7, 2006, at 21:09:18
In reply to Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
is that even if you do, when someone you care about is blocked, you naturally go back in to find out what happened.
Catch 22.
Posted by ClearSkies on January 7, 2006, at 21:20:55
In reply to The thing about avoiding certain posts, posted by crazy teresa on January 7, 2006, at 21:09:18
Over on the relationships board
to try to figure how many of us are here trying to help another person or does it depend on that person, or is in our nature?
I thought it might be an interesting exercise,Thanks
ClearSkies
Posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 22:36:46
In reply to The thing about avoiding certain posts, posted by crazy teresa on January 7, 2006, at 21:09:18
Posted by Phillipa on January 7, 2006, at 23:27:53
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by wildcard on January 7, 2006, at 14:46:01
Good point I agree fully. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by James K on January 8, 2006, at 18:10:21
In reply to Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
I've been following this and mostly staying out, but it is on my mind a lot. Mainly because in a short time this place has become important to me, and that is being lost temporarily.
I've been looking all over the site, looking for an actual quote of this, but couldn't find one - but basically, we all know this is about people with mental illness. That means some of us are going to be in crisis, out of sorts, irrational, or just having a bad day, at any given time. I've been all of those in just two weeks time.
There has been talk of splitting social or making a fun board. I don't really like that idea. Here as in real life, someone may come along and spoil the party once in a while. My feeling is that is something to accept.
The civility standard wether enforced exactly right is the only thing that makes this board work. I've only been on the web for a few weeks, but my attempts to find other sites just turns up unmoderated trolls and spam with none of the support and friendship I see here.
Now I want to discuss the actual events that led to all this controversy. It might be tricky, but I'll try to do it without making things worse.
The social board says it is for (from memory) support, discussion, and "just having fun". It started to seem to me that deneb was confusing the three. Hourly reports of self harm thoughts and behaviors then repenting then going back. In the civil rules, joking about self-harm and suicide is uncivil. Some of that stuff felt frivolous and not serious to me.
Then we get back to my original point - some of us are in different stages of different illnesses.
The repeated posting seemed uncivil to me, and I wonder if this could have been addressed off-site, to make sure this was legitimate and not games, before we ended up with Larry blocked and anger and hurt feelings all around.
If talking about this directly like this is itself uncivil, then I will think about it and decide if I should have said it differently or not at all.
James K
Posted by wildcard on January 8, 2006, at 18:48:27
In reply to Re: Can we work together to figure out what to do? » Dinah, posted by James K on January 8, 2006, at 18:10:21
you are so right. Splitting social just seems...wrong BUT you made the main point perfectly about the every hour threads. It has been going on for a very long time and I think social isn't the place to address a situation of that magnitude...I really think it is more psychological but once again, just my opinion...And yes, Lar's block has upset many and I am glad people are speaking out. 6 weeks is absolutely IMO ridiculous!
Posted by Sarah T. on January 9, 2006, at 1:23:22
In reply to Can we work together to figure out what to do?, posted by Dinah on January 7, 2006, at 11:27:47
Hi Dinah,
For some, I think a large part of the problem stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what Psychobabble is. Dr. Bob states very clearly that Psychobabble is for education and support, primarily education and support among peers. Dr. Bob does not function as a therapist here. No one functions as a therapist here. Even those who are therapists "in real life" are not therapists here. A few Babblers are training to be therapists, but Psychobabble is not their field work. And there are some of us who occasionally like to emulate our own therapists and maybe even "play therapist," but we are not therapists.
Most Babblers understand what is stated above. Sometimes a newcomer asks Dr. Bob a question about medication or a therapy-related question, whereupon an "old-timer" will explain Dr. Bob's role. Usually, that's all that's necessary to set the record straight. Every once in a while, however, a Babbler comes along who refuses to accept what Psychobabble is and is not, and tries to make Psychobabble what she wants it to be. She tries to turn Psychobabble into an arena for ACTING OUT her problems rather than as AN ADJUNCT TO REAL-LIVE THERAPY AND MEDICATION for WORKING THROUGH her problems.
It's almost as if she's saying, "F*** you and your rules! I'm going to turn this board into what I want, when I want. Outwardly, I will pretend to obey your stupid rules. But those rules are for others, NOT for me! So I'll appear to comply, but subtly and insidiously, I will break those rules. And I'm so clever, I'll think up ways to get around the civility guidelines. You folks are here for ME and MY NEEDS! You're not my peers. PEERS, SCHMEERS! I don't care if you struggle with life-long depression or Lupus or Lyme Disease or space-occupying lesions inside your skull or whatever! I don't care how many tragedies you've lived through in your life or in a year. I don't care how many loved ones you've lost. Your needs don't matter; mine do. I'm not going to go to a real live therapist, and I'm not going to take my medication. I'd rather act out my transference on you and Dr. Bob. I will ignore your exhortations to go to a psychiatrist and to take my meds because I am the fulcrum around which Psychobabble revolves, and eventually I will get my way."
That's how I see the problem. The problem is refusing to accept Psychobabble for what it is, and trying to turn it into something it is not. Psychobabble is NOT a substitute for real-live therapy and medication. It is not a therapy board. It is NOT a suicide hotline or crisis center. IF YOU ARE SUICIDAL OR HAVE SOME OTHER EMERGENCY, THEN GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM! This is NOT an emergency room, and NO ONE here is qualified and/or able to treat a suicidal patient.
I know it would probably be impossible to implement, but I believe there are a few Babblers who should not be allowed to participate here unless they are simultaneously in treatment with a psychiatrist for a long, long time. These few have been too consistently and predictably disruptive and/or have consistently flouted the rules. Again, I don't know how this could be enforced, but I think it is the only solution to this dilemma.
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.